Gnosticism [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Gnosticism

Pages : [1] 2

snoopsnuffleopagus

28-10-2008, 04:47 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen; Cordial Felicitations:

I am starting this Thread because we have numerous Gnosticists on this Forum who like to nip at others ankles yet will not produce their sources and materiels by which they come to their conclusions and base their attacks upon.

So an unbiased examination of the Gnosticists Doctrines and Sources is necessary to understand with greater clarity from whence they are 'coming from'.

As always, all input is welcome and desired.

Saddle Up!

http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/gnos/jgnos.htm

an excerpt

FRIEDLANDER'S ARGUMENTS

Friedlander's thesis is worth considering in some detail. In this article I first want to set forth his main arguments, concentrating especially on what he derives from his reading of Philo. Then I shall comment briefly on the issues he raised from the vantage point of modern scholarship and on the basis of materials unknown to Friedlander and his generation that we now have at our disposal.

It should be mentioned that Friedlander did not write in a vacuum; others had for many years and even decades written on Gnosticism, and specifically on the relationship of Gnosticism to Judaism. Two of the most important of these are H. Graetz and M. Joel. But Friedladnder was the first, to my knowledge, to suggest that Gnosticism originated in Judaism.

Friedlander begins his discussion by referring to the cultural and religious situation in the Jewish Diaspora prior to the time of Jesus. It was a situation in which the 'new wine' of Hellenistic culture and philosophy was being put into the 'old wineskins' of Jewish religion. The allegorical method of scripture interpretation was one of the manifestations of this trend. The Mosaic law was being interpreted allegorically by Jews who had imbibed of Greek philosophy, and the Law was taken to be a 'revelation' of 'divine philosophy.' Indeed, since Moses was more ancient than the Greek philosophers, it was natural to suggest that the latter had learned from the former. Philo is a good example of this trend, but he had forerunners, such as Aristobulus, Pseudo-Aristeas, and Pseudo-Solomon.

The allegorical interpretation of the Law must have led to divisions in Diaspora Judaism between 'conservative' Jews who observed the letter of the Law and 'philosophizers' who regarded the letter of the Law as peripheral. Such a division is not merely a hypothetical reconstruction, but is well documented in historical sources. Eusebius specifically speaks of two parties in Diaspora Judaism whose differences are precisely delineated along the lines here suggested . Philo himself provides clear evidence of such divisions. A key text in Friedlander's argument is On the Migration of Abraham 86-93, which Friedlander quotes in full. In this text, wherein Philo polemicizes against allegorists who neglect the letter of the Law and derive from it only spiritual truths, we have reflected a full-blown schism in the Diaspora. An 'antinomian' party of Jews is referred to here. They differ from the Therapeutae, the Palestinian Essenes, and Philo himself not so much in their use of allegory, but precisely in their antinon-dan tendencies.

A number of Jewish sects are known to us from antiquity whose views were suspect in the eyes of law-abiding Jews, Friedlander continues. Among these are the 'Sibyllists' known to Origen, probably identical to the 'pious ones' referred to in the Sibylline Oracles, book 4. Justin Martyr refers to some pre-Christian sects among the Jews , at least one of which, the 'Hellenians,' is surely a reference to a Diaspora group. Hegesippus derives all Christian heresies from pre-Christian Jewish heresies. According to him the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles. The implication of Hegesippus's statement is that 'false' gnosis was already extant in apostolic times, but the powerful influence of the apostles kept it from blosson-dng in the church. The origin of this 'false gnosis,' if we consider the testimony of Hegesippus, is found in pre-Christian Judaism. The view of some later fathers that heresy is necessarily later than orthodoxy is obviously tendentious (9-17).

Friedlander goes on to set forth the daring hypothesis that such 'Christian' heresies as those of the Ophites, the Cainites, and the Sethians, as well as the Melchizedekians, are the progeny of the radical antinomians against whom Philo had polemicized. According to the oldest patristic accounts, the Ophites-who according to some accounts are closely associated with the Sethians -were antinomian and venerated the serpent as the revealer of gnosis and as an incamation of the divine Wisdom. Reflected in these ideas is the Alexandrian-Jewish doctrine of the divine dynamis. Philo and other Alexandrian Jews regarded Sophia as a divine dynamis. The Ophites simply took up this doctrine and interpreted it in a heretical fashion.

The Cainites venerated Cain as the divine power, rejected all moral conventions, and rejected the Law along with its God. And what, asks Friedlander, is 'Christian' about that? The Alexandrian school provides the most plausible link for the origin of this heresy. Indeed, the Cainite sect was already well known to Philo. Friedlander quotes in this connection On the Posterity and Exile of Cain. In this text 'Cain' is a symbol of heresy, and the specifics of the heresy represented by him are such that one can only conclude that Philo is arguing against a philosophizing sect characterized not only by construcfing myths contrary to the truth, but by gross antinomianism. Philo speaks against these heretics precisely as Irenaeus speaks against the Gnostics. There can be no doubt that the heretics combated by Philo are the forerunners of the Christian Gnostics later combated by the church fathers.

The Sethians shared in the errors of the Ophites and Cainites, teaching that the world was created by angels and not by the highest God. The dynamis from on high came down into Seth after Abel's death, according to the Sethians, and many held Seth to be the Messiah.

Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians all derive from the Jewish Diaspore. Their members were recruited from the Jewish radicals known to us from Philo, and from philosophically oriented proselytes who had attached themselves to the synagogues. Indeed, Filastrius numbers the Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians among the sects that flourished in Judaism 'before the advent of Jesus." It is obvious that these sects could not have originated from within Christianity, from the very fact that their chief doctrines are derived from the Old Testament rather than from the New. The divine power was seen by them to reside in the Old Testament figures of the serpent, Cain, and other such biblical personages as were not fied to the Law. These Old Testament figures were adhered to even after the Gnosfics came into contact with Christianity. Their origin, in short, is traceable to the situafion in Alexandrian Judaism wherein allegorical exposifion of the Law flourished, and wherein antinomianism also developed. Friedldnder tums next to the Melchizedekians. This group held Melchizedek to be a 'great Power', a being higher than the Messiah, a 'Son of God' who occupied a place among the heavenly angels. Such a belief cannot have originated in Chrisfianity. The figure of Melchizedek, of course, is derived from the Old Testament, and becomes for antinomian Alexandrian Jews a powerful symbol of Law-free religion. When the Melchizedekians came into contact with Christianity, Jesus was incorporated into their system, but his position was below that of Melchizedek. As Jesus is an advocate for humans, so also is Melchizedek an advocate for the angels.

The Alexandrian origin of Melchizedekianism is also demonstrated with reference to Philo himself, for whom Melchizedek is not only a heavenly being but identified with the Logos. Philo nevertheless stresses in his version of the Melchizedek mystery that there is no other God beside God Most High, and he is One. That in this passage a polemic is directed against antinomian heretics is shown also with reference to the 'Ammonites' and 'Moabites' who are excluded from the divine congregation.

The Alexandrian author of the Epistle to the Hebrews obviously knew of the Melchizedek mystery, Friedlander continues, and indeed presents a modified Melchizedekianism to his erstwhile coreligionists, trying to prove to them that Jesus is indeed superior to Melchizedek. In Heb. 7:3 the Melchizedek mystery is qualified with the phrase [greek].

Friedlander distinguishes the Melchizedekians from the Ophites and Cainites, suggesting that the former were not so aggressive in their antinon-danism as the latter. He even suggests that Melchizedekianism is the one form of pre-Christian Gnosticism that qualifies best as the point of departure for Christian Gnosticism.

On the origin of pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism, Friedlander summarizes his position by stating that it began with the 'Hellenization of Judaism in the Diaspora."o Gnosficism served as the medium by which Judaism should become a world religion. It remained orthodox so long as the Law was observed, as is the case with Philo, and became heretical when the letter of the Law was rejected, as was the case with the radicals' combated by Philo.

In the second half of the monograph Friedlander discusses further the content of gnosis and its propagation among the Jews of Palestine. The chief content of the oldest gnosis consists of cosmogonical and theosophical speculation; the means by which an amalgamation of the old religion with newer philosophical ideas was achieved was allegory. This characteristic of Gnosis-evident in the oldest known Gnostic sect, the Ophites-is found also among the most ancient Mishnah teachers under the designations maseh bresit (the 'work of Creation') and maseh merkabah (the work of the Chariot).

That cosmogonic and theosophical speculations had taken a heretical turn very early in Palestine is demonstrated, according to Friedlander, by the following Mishnah, which is referred to as a tradition of the sages by the first-century rabbi, Yohanan ben Zakkai:

The laws of incest may not be expounded to three persons, nor the Story of Creation before two persons, nor the subject of the Chariot before one person alone unless he be a Sage and comprehends of his own knowledge. Whoever puts his mind to these four matters it were better for him if he had not come into the world-what is above? What is below? What is beyond? What is in the opposite beyond? And whosoever has no regard for the honour of his Creator it were better for him had he not come into the world.

Clearly reflected in this Mishnah, and severely condemned, is the antinomian Gnostic differentiation between the highest God and an inferior Creator. But one finds a polen-dc against such obscene esoterica, Friedlander suggests, already in the second half of the second pre-Christian century in Sir. 3:21-24, a passage actually quoted in the Talmud later in an anti-Gnostic polemic. Heretical gnosis reached Palestine at least by the early first century. 'Gnostic' mystical doctrines were tolerated and fostered by some in orthodox circles, so long as 'the honor of the Father in Heaven' was served and the unity of God maintained. Thus a distinction was made between 'true' gnosis and 'false' gnosis, the latter characterized by arrogance over against God.

Speculative Conjecture with roots in Alexandrian and Hellenism Philosophy

snoopsnuffleopagus

28-10-2008, 05:01 PM

http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/gnos/jgnos.htm

Friedlander's arguments tracing the origins of Gnosticism to a Hellenized Judaism are very strong indeed, and are bolstered with every passing year by newly discovered or newly studied texts, the Nag Hammadi Coptic Gnostic Library providing the bulk of this evidence. It is really only a minor question, then, as to whether the Gnostic heresy originated among Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, or among Hellenized Jews of Palestine or Syria.

The qualification 'Hellenized' is important, for Gnosticism can only be accounted for in a highly syncretistic milieu. Of course, it is no longer possible (if it ever was!) to make a rigid distinction between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism, for Hellenization was a very important factor in Palestine as well as in the Diaspora. As an example of the Hellenistic ingredient in Gnosticism one can point to the obviously Platonic (or, as some prefer, Middle-Platonic) elements of its mythology. But this is an element that could flourish as well in Palestine or Syria as in Alexandria. One could argue similarly on the basis of other Hellenistic aspects of Gnosticism, for example, its eclectic character.

It is usually taken for granted that Gnosticism appeared primarily as an intellectual movement. Wisdom circles are frequently referred to as the milieus in which it developed. In this connection, too, one can refer to the philosophical eclecticism of the Jewish wisdom circles of the Hellenistic-Roman period, as well as the growth of a 'skeptical' outlook. But the rise of Gnosticism should also be seen as a response not only to a syncretistic conflict-mixture of 'traditions' and 'ideas' but also to the concrete circumstances of history, to social and political conditions.

This is one aspect of the problem that Friedldnder completely overlooked, but which to my mind is absolutely basic to a proper understanding of Gnostic intentionality as well as the question of Gnostic origins.

Judaism, as a religion that takes history seriously, and that also has a marked tendency in the direction of messianism, provides ipso facto a context in which, given the critical circumstances of history, an attitude of revolt could easily develop. There is a strong case to be made for the view that ancient Gnosticism developed, in large part, from a disappointed messianism, or rather as a transmuted messianism. Jewish history is not without parallels to this phenomenon, as G. Scholem's studies of the Sabbatian movement attest. Such a transmuted messianism, for the ancient period, is better understood as arising in the national homeland, that is, in Palestine itself, rather than in the Diaspora. But this is a very tentative judgment.

To conclude: Although much of the detail of Friedlander's argument is open to question, he has been vindicated in his basic contention, that Gnosticism is a pre-Christian phenomenon that developed on Jewish soil.

*See his remarkable essay, 'Redemption Through Sin,' in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1971) 78-141. Cf. also his remarks on ancient heretical Gnosticism in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965) 9. In this context he also expresses, guardedly, an appreciation for Friedlander's work. In a letter to me, Scholem stated his belief that the Gnostic revolt did indeed arise from within Judaism

next, an examination of Gnosticists Doctrines

dedicate

28-10-2008, 07:37 PM

snoopsnuffleopagus

28-10-2008, 08:36 PM

Snoop-- could you give a brief synopsis -- a paragraph or 2 -- of what is indicated here? I get to reading it, but sort of lose the thread after about 1 1/2 sentences. This is probably because I am not familiar with most of the historical references and personalities or their thought.

Also, could you define Gnosticism? Seems to me that the root word is "To Know", thus gnosticism is a way of knowing things. What you say.

Cordial Felicitations; Dedicate:

All will be revealed. I have just exited a Rumble in the Bronx so I am goin' to chill abit. Like the Judaism 101 Thread, I do not intend to Editorialise, rather present the Materiel in a 'Dry' manner.

Any and all who practice or advocate or study Gnosticism should share their expertise here. It is a very diverse 'School of Thought' which has as its Foundation Speculative Conjecture, and like all 'Schools of Thoughts' there are factions within that group.

I believe an accepted analogy would be a Jazz Improvisation based upon a Classical Theme. The Book of YHWH as the Classical Theme.

The Gnosticists have some very interesting thoughts which merit closer examination.

So a Slow & Steady walk through the Materiel is warranted.

Kind Regards: Snoops

dedicate

28-10-2008, 10:42 PM

Fair enough snoop. I take it your not sure what they are talking about either.

It would be nice to know what an "erstwile coreligionist" is. And what, "Wisdom circles are frequently referred to as the milieus in which it developed.", could mean.

Have you ever read any Burroughs? This sounds like something he might write: Judaism, as a religion that takes history seriously, and that also has a marked tendency in the direction of messianism, provides ipso facto a context in which, given the critical circumstances of history, an attitude of revolt could easily develop.-- But Burroughs might have mixed it up a little more, just to make it clearer what was intended.

I bet you think I'm messing with you.. or might it be "Messiomantic with you"? Ipso facto the true nature of my behaviour is more gnostic than caustic. Rule is, so far: Gnosticism as a religious study of how to know,, is best presented in a way that is neigh impossible to understand.

snoopsnuffleopagus

29-10-2008, 12:23 AM

1977

29-10-2008, 02:08 AM

The Gnostic Religion (http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Religion-H-Jonas/dp/0807057991) by Hans Jonas is, I feel, the best introductory text. He views Gnosticism as a sort of religious existentialism -- in wanting to know why we are here, where we came from, where we are going.

Josephus wrote this about the Essenes, but I think it equally encompasses the Gnostic belief:
For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft.

They viewed the world with a profound sense of alienation. We don't belong here, our real lives stretch back thousands of years, and our true home is in the stars.

Now, the unique aspect of the Gnostic cosmology was the belief (or, perhaps, discovery) that the world was ruled by vain and arrogant Archons who actively conspire to keep us reincarnating in their 3D reality, and that "the soul is the food of the Archons and Powers without which they cannot live, because she is of the dew from above and gives them strength." There's a reason that The Matrix was called a "Gnostic movie".

Now, much of this sounds like bizarre paranoia to most people, but it is exactly what David has been saying about the reptilians for years. Likewise, when he places spiritual people into three categories, it is nothing less than what Valentinus did when he classified people into hylics, psychics, and pneumatics.

snoopsnuffleopagus

29-10-2008, 02:57 AM

Cordial Felicitations, 1977:

An excellent contribution, I thank you.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

Feel free to contribute as you find yourself inspired to do so.

dedicate

29-10-2008, 04:11 AM

Samael Aun Weor wrote over sixty books, gave thousands of lectures, and formed the worldwide Gnostic Movement, whose members number in the millions. Though these accomplishments are certainly impressive by any standard, they are merely the pale terrestrial reflection of the work he accomplished internally, spiritually. And yet, in spite of his wisdom and generosity towards mankind.

His lifelong mission was to deliver to humanity the complete path toward the Self-realization of the Being, or in other words, the total and exact science required by anyone of any religion, race, culture or creed who wishes to fully and completely develop the human soul. The path he taught is the Path of the Bodhisattva, that mysterious and ancient wisdom long hidden in the bosom of every great religion.

The Bodhisattva Path, also known as the Straight Path, is taken by very few. While many aspire to the Light, the vast majority take the easier Spiral Path (did anybody read David Icke's Newsletter this week, wherein he talks about breaking out of the Cycle? This is the spiral path talked about here) which is accomplished over a much longer period. The walker of the Straight Path is rare because that road is bitter, painful and filled with terrors. Embodied in the life story of Jesus of Nazareth, the Path of the Bodhisattva is a path of crucifixion and suffering on behalf of others.

Clearly, the Path taught by Samael Aun Weor is a radical departure from the teachings of the Spiral Path, and is even more sharply opposed to the far more common teachings of the Baalim, or Lunar Path. Thus, the student, when encountering Gnosis for the first time, is often shocked, outraged, or offended, because these teachings contradict much of what we believe or hold dear. Upon closer study, it will be discovered that Gnosis is indeed the Doctrine of the Synthesis, the expression of the Universal Wisdom in the heart of every religion. What is in conflict with Gnosis are the ideas and interpretations of mankind. Truth is One; it is the mind we have within which degenerates that Truth into opinions, dogmas, politics and wars.

As a vibrant embodiment of the Bodhisattva ideal, which renounces all self-interest and seeks instead to benefit others, Samael Aun Weor rejected any notion of personality worship or the attachments of followers. Throughout his life, many thousands of students projected onto him their ideals and their needs, and this continues to this day. While many worship him and make Gnosis into just another system of belief, his own message is very clear: the only Master we should follow is our own inner Divinity. To reach that inner Divinity, we must remove from our mind mere belief: we must instead study the path as taught by all the great teachers of humanity, and put those teachings into daily practice.

http://www.gnosisny.org/?q=node/10

1977

29-10-2008, 04:58 AM

Samael Aun Weor has very little to do with historical Gnosticism. Perhaps he did discover certain hidden truths, and there's nothing wrong with calling himself a Gnostic, but frankly, I find his material a bit misleading for people who are unfamiliar with the subject.

drael

30-10-2008, 04:38 AM

Gnosticism is basically like most other mystic traditions.

Its found wisdom on story, allagory, contradiction, poetry and other more abstract forms that contain wisdom.

It is a particular collection of related stories essentially, which the basic idea being the same as all mystic tradition: physical reality is maya, there is a transcendant reality that may be reached by study & practice.

In that, its not terrible different from various buddhist traditions, the ancient esoteric, or many other simple spiritual forms.

In terms of history, the history is honestly unclear on christian gnosticism.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 01:02 PM

Any 'School of Thought' including Gnosticism will have 'Factions', 'Schisms', and 'Variations'.

Myself, I 'Judge' the Tree by it's Fruit.

Ultimately every reader, searcher, makes their own personal evaluations.

This Thread could be a 'Wiki' for Gnosticism.

Compile the various 'Schools' and Sources and Resources.

I personaly 'thought' this Forum(religion) could serve as a 'Data-Base' for the Worlds 'Schools of Thought'.

Informed Humans have the potential to make informed decisions. :)

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

xpleet

30-10-2008, 01:20 PM

It's funny with how much truth you would come up, cominbing all those religions together, considering you'd filter out all the lies and deceit.

The Gnostic view however is very corrupted and limited, when viewing only the physical realm as being created by the dark overlords. Nonetheless it is eventually better than acknowlading the physical as "sacred" or EVEN much worse, thinking that we create(d) it by our own thought/belief/mind for ourselves.

In gnosticism like most other religion, there is a fundamental base of truth, that again, like any other information streaming into this dimension, has been corrupted right through it.
Afterall it's a prison in which the wardens do not want their prisoners to understand that they are enslaved.

phildee3

30-10-2008, 04:25 PM

In gnosticism like most other religion, there is a fundamental base of truth, that again, like any other information streaming into this dimension, has been corrupted right through it.
Afterall it's a prison in which the wardens do not want their prisoners to understand that they are enslaved.

Gnosticism is not a religion.
Every religion has it's gnostics.
Many gnostics are multi-faith.
Some adhere to none.

"Gnostic doctrine" (see first post) is an oxymoron.
Gnosis is self-realised. Doctrine is given by others.

Gnosticism is only a prison if you (the only "warden") inpose it as such upon yourself.

phildee3

30-10-2008, 04:37 PM

I am starting this Thread because we have numerous Gnosticists on this Forum who like to nip at others ankles yet will not produce their sources and materiels by which they come to their conclusions and base their attacks upon.

So an unbiased examination of the Gnosticists Doctrines and Sources is necessary to understand with greater clarity from whence they are 'coming from'.

As always, all input is welcome and desired.

There is no such thing as a "gnosticist."

You have made up this word in order to turn gnosticism into a religion.

It is not a religion and it cannot be studied as one.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 04:48 PM

There is no such thing as a "gnosticist."

You have made up this word in order to turn gnosticism into a religion.

It is not a religion and it cannot be studied as one.

For phild:

No, I did not make this up. Stay Tuned

Gnoticist

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=gnosticist&btnG=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine
Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organisations, doctrine is simply defined as 'that which is taught', in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel about its internal ways of doing business.

phild; notice I use the term: 'School of Thought'.

You, yourself have Posted you are an: 'Ordained Minister', and you 'Teach' Congregations.

Would you please provide us with some specificty. By what organisation, or in what manner were you 'Ordained'? Who are 'they' that you 'Teach', and what is it that you 'Teach', and upon what resources, sources do you base your 'Teachings' upon.

Thank You for your consideration.

Kind Regards: Snoops

Gnosticists Doctrines

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gnosticists+doctrines&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Gnosticisms Doctrines

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gnosticisms+doctrines&spell=1

phildee3

30-10-2008, 05:20 PM

There is no such thing as a "gnosticist."
You have made up this word

No, I did not make this up.

Then please provide a precidence for the use of this word.
I cannot find it in any dictionary, nor have I ever seen it used before.

notice I use the term: 'School of Thought'.

There will be a number of things that gnostics will agree on because they will have experienced a common truth, but strictly speaking there is no authentic "school" of gnostic thought because a school implies an exoteric teaching/doctrine. Gnosticism is purely esoteric and experiential.

You, yourself have Posted you are an: 'Ordained Minister', and you 'Teach' Congregations.

Would you please provide us with some specificty. By what organisation, or in what manner were you 'Ordained'?

I am ordained in the minor orders of the Old Catholic Church (up to, and including, the office of acolyte).
I don't teach (although I do read the liturgical "lessons" - but it is not I who is the "teacher"). I administer the sacraments of baptism and holy unction healing)/extreme unction (last rites), assist priests in the administration of the other sacraments and help to furnish and maintain chapels for the administration of those sacraments.

eternal_spirit

30-10-2008, 05:26 PM

Then please provide a precidence for the use of this word.
I cannot find it in any dictionary, nor have I ever seen it used before.

There will be a number of things that gnostics will agree on because they will have experienced a common truth, but strictly speaking there is no authentic "school" of gnostic thought because a school implies an exoteric teaching/doctrine. Gnosticism is purely esoteric and experiential.

I am ordained in the minor orders of the Old Catholic Church (up to, and including, the office of acolyte).
I don't teach (although I do read the liturgical "lessons" - but it is not I who is the "teacher"). I administer the sacraments of baptism and holy unction healing)/extreme unction (last rites), assist priests in the administration of the other sacraments and help to furnish and maintain chapels for the administration of those sacraments.

Nice reply and honest. Snoops claims to be a Janitor, but preaches like a Rabbi. :D

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 05:44 PM

[QUOTE=phildee3;591507]Then please provide a precidence for the use of this word.
I cannot find it in any dictionary, nor have I ever seen it used before.

Please peruse Links in above Post.

There will be a number of things that gnostics will agree on because they will have experienced a common truth, but strictly speaking there is no authentic "school" of gnostic thought because a school implies an exoteric teaching/doctrine. Gnosticism is purely esoteric and experiential.

There are Finite paths Humans access for 'Learning':

1: Books, TV, Movies, Records; published materiel of various medias

2: Human to Human

3:Spiritual Being(s)/'otherworldly energies

4: Osmosis: 'I know just because I do'.

you have 'shared' snippets of your 'beliefs' with me on Prior occassions, and I was curious asto what book(s), human(s), non-3D Energy(s) informed you YHWH is an 'inferior god'?

from what resource(s) did you utilise to arrive at this 'conclusion'?

Specificity Required(names, titles)

and if drawing upon Non-3D Energy(s) did you apply the Biblical 'Test of the Spirit'?

And your Position on the Laws is?

Your Position on the OT, and what Parts, if any do you use?

And this 'Mary' you Posted on, who is this and what is the position of this 'Mary' in the Gnostocist Cosmology? Do you consider this 'Mary' the 'Queen of Heaven'?

I am ordained in the minor orders of the Old Catholic Church (up to, and including, the office of acolyte).
I don't teach (although I do read the liturgical "lessons" - but it is not I who is the "teacher"). I administer the sacraments of baptism and holy unction healing)/extreme unction (last rites), assist priests in the administration of the other sacraments and help to furnish and maintain chapels for the administration of those sacraments.

That's nice. :)

And do you and the Congregation 'meet' on Sunday mornings?

Your opinion of this Scholars Opus would be welcome :)

The Divine Council
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Kind Regards: Snoops

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 05:57 PM

Nice reply and honest. Snoops claims to be a Janitor, but preaches like a Rabbi. :D

#1 ES; until you begin to exercise DISCERNMENT you shall not realise the Joy and Peace of Equilibrium.

As I have Posted: I am a Federaly and State Certified Level 'A' Labourer. That is a 'Master Labourer'. Janitorial Service is but one aspect of Labouring. Two of my Primary Specialties are: Demolition & Dismantling of Off Shore Drilling Platforms, PowerHouses.

Buildingwise: Rock Socket Caissons.

That you think that I, a gentile, with about 10 years research into YHWH, is a Rabbi, is another indication of deficient discernment.

And 'IF' the case can be made that I have Preached, it will find all I Preached was Self-Discipline and Self-Restraint'.

You really should read the Bible at least once in your life, then you would be able to make INFORMED commentary about the Book and its' Contents, unlike the 8,000 Posts you have made on this subject, without reading the Bible.

ES-Here are Two Sample Pages of the Bible, let this be the beginning of something very beautiful. The choice is yours.

http://www.yahweh.com/gen1.html

http://www.yahweh.com/yahch1.html

Here is a little something, colour me coo-coo, but I would like to think everybody 'agrees' with this Wisdom, if anyone dis-agrees, shout-out.

http://lpintop.tripod.com/laurasinsp...ages/id17.html
Two Wolves

An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

"One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.

"The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope,
serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."

phildee3

30-10-2008, 06:19 PM

...please provide a precidence for the use of this word.
I cannot find it in any dictionary, nor have I ever seen it used before.

Please peruse Links in above Post.

I have.
I am unable to find the word "gnosticist" used.
How much time do you expect me to put into "perusing"?

There are Finite paths Humans access for 'Learning'

Finite paths are fine for gaining knowledge of finite things.

you have 'shared' snippets of your 'beliefs' with me on Prior occassions, and I was curious asto what book(s), human(s), non-3D Energy(s) informed you YHWH is an 'inferior god'?

from what resource(s) did you utilise to arrive at this 'conclusion'?

Specificity Required(names, titles)

Deja vu.

I cannot answer these questions more clearly than I already have.

...do you and the Congregation 'meet' on Sunday mornings?

No.
I work weekends (like Jesus did).
Only creator-worshippers have a specific "day of rest," in honor of their gods.

All other questions irrelevent to this topic will be ignored from now on.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 06:47 PM

I have.
I am unable to find the word "gnosticist" used.
How much time do you expect me to put into "perusing"?

I expect nothing from you phildee3, nothing at all. I did not 'coin' this 'term'

evidence from supplied links, hundreds more.

[QUOTE]http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001826.html
excerpt.... So they are.

“By blessing sin and denying Christian beliefs…”

Exactly when does a “belief” become Christian?

Who said Neo Platonist and Gnosticist ethics from Alexandria is Christian?

http://rzhblog.blogspot.com/ ..... May our Lord illuminate our hearts to this glorious truth thereby granting us the Spirit-wrought discernment to live righteously, soberly and godly in this present evil age and to keep us from the evil one's subtleties, such as neo-gnosticist "Calvinism"

Finite paths are fine for gaining knowledge of finite things.

Precisely, the book, document or manuscript, or person or spirit which informed you YHWH is a negative entity. There is a Finite source where you were informed. Was this a 'Spirit'; a book, or a human? You have been accusing me and making counter-claims, so it is time to substantiate them.

I cannot answer these questions more clearly than I already have.

You can, but you won't

No.

All other questions irrelevent to this topic will be ignored from now on.

You have made your Position perfectly Clear to me, phildee3.

Thank You

Kind Regards: Snoops

phildee3

30-10-2008, 07:09 PM

I am unable to find the word "gnosticist" used.

...evidence from supplied links, hundreds more.

Thank you for finally providing us with two, -
both very obscure and non-authoritative sources.

It is still not in any dictionary.

Precisely, the book, document or manuscript, or person or spirit which informed you YHWH is a negative entity.
There is a Finite source where you were informed.

No, there is not,
and I never said that he was a "negative" entity.

Creation is a very positive act. The creator, therefore, is a "positive" entity!
In fact, creation is the most positive thing possible!
It's opposite, destruction, is negative.

The "father" of YHVH, the all-that-is, is a perfect balance of positive and negative.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 07:37 PM

Thank you for finally providing us with two, -
both very obscure and non-authoritative sources.

It is still not in any dictionary.

let's be honest phildee3, that is two examples that are from hundreds that are linked. who's to say is authoritative or obscure. Since it is well established I didn't make this word up, it is clear to me, it is used as an adverb, referring to one who embraces the Gnosticism 'School of Thought'. perhaps a 'Trope'; I am not a Grammarian.

No, there is not,
and I never said that he was a "negative" entity.

There is, and you have. You need not discuss this any further.

Creation is a very positive act. The creator, therefore, is a "positive" entity!

The "father" of YHVH, the all-that-is, is a perfect balance of positive and negative.

Your source for this statement. How did you arrive at this 'position'. And what is YHWHs relation to the 'All That Is'; and YHWHs relation to the other gods?

And how does 'Mary' signify in your Cosmology?

Thank You

Kind Regards: Snoops

Dictionary.com 5 dictionary results for: gnostic
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
gnos⋅tic
[nos-tik] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Also, gnos⋅ti⋅cal.
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.
–noun
4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.
Origin:
1555–65; < LL Gnōsticī (pl.) name of the sect < Gk gnōstikós (sing.) pertaining to knowledge, equiv. to gnōst(ós) known + -ikos -ic
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Sponsored LinksThe Gnostic Bookstore
Books & Gifts for Seekers of Truth Meditation, Gnosis, Enlightenment
gnosticstore.org
The Gnostic Gospels?
Download Bible study to learn why Gnostic Gospels aren't in the Bible
ChristianBibleStudies.com
The Mystic Christ - Book
Jesus was a Gnostic - taught gnosticism as inner path to God
www.devipress.com
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Gnostic
c.1585, from L.L. gnosticus, from Late Gk. gnostikos, noun use of adj. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "knowable," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know). Applied to various early Christian sects that claimed direct personal knowledge beyond the Gospel or the Church hierarchy. The adj. meaning "relating to knowledge" (with lower-case g-) is from 1656.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
gnostic

adjective
1. of or relating to Gnosticism; "Gnostic writings"
2. possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things [ant: agnostic]

noun
1. an advocate of Gnosticism

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Gnostic

Gnos"tic\, a. 1. Knowing; wise; shrewd. [Old Slang]
I said you were a gnostic fellow. --Sir W. Scott.
2. (Eccl. Hist.) Of or pertaining to Gnosticism or its adherents; as, the Gnostic heresy.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Gnostic

Gnos"tic\, n. [L. gnosticus, Gr. ? good at knowing, sagacious; as a n., man that claims to have a deeper wisdom, fr. gignw`skein to know: cf. F. gnostique. See Know.] (Eccl. Hist.) One of the so-called philosophers in the first ages of Christianity, who claimed a true philosophical interpretation of the Christian religion. Their system combined Oriental theology and Greek philosophy with the doctrines of Christianity. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual, and material, are derived from the Deity by successive emanations, which they called Eons.

So, I think it is safe to say, that when uses the term Gnosticist, it is used as an Adverb.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 07:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

Gnosticism (Greek: ?????? gn?sis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable Supreme Being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available to all through direct experience or knowledge (gnosis) of (this unknowable) God.[1]

Within the sects of gnosticism however only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnosis, the hylic or Somatics though human, are doomed. Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth. In others (e.g. the Notzrim and Mandaeans) he is considered a mšiha kdaba "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[2]

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. (see OP) [3] Gnosticism may have been suppressed as early as the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ.[4] Along with Gnosticism in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the Second and Third Centuries.

Gnosticism became a dualistic heresy to Judaism (see Notzrim), Christianity and Hellenic philosophy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths (see Huneric), and the Persian Empire. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 07:52 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

Gnostic systems are typically marked by:
The notion of a remote, supreme monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Greek, "deep");
The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;

The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself, rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek, "wisdom"), whose presence in a wide variety of Gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;

The introduction of a distinct creator god, named demiurgos in the Platonist tradition.

Evidence exists that the conception of the demiurge derives from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in Socrates' model of the psyche bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion.

Elsewhere this figure is called 'Ialdabaoth', 'Samael' (Aramaic sæm?a-?el, 'blind god') or 'Saklas' (Syriac sækla, 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent.
The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named 'Archons', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow.

This world is typically an inferior simulacrum of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a painting, sculpture, or other handicraft to the thing(s) of which those crafts are supposed to be a representation. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;

The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;

Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the Syrian-Egyptian school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the Persian gnostic school - Manicheanism and Mandaeanism - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism, due in part to the fact that, prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, which is discussed below, much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preserved in the teachings of early church fathers. The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse religiously, and due to there being no fixed church authority, syncretism with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions was often embraced. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

Irenaeus declares (Adversus Haereses, II, 27, 1. PG, VI, 802) it subjected everything to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. It destroyed, as Clement puts it (Stromata., II, 3, pp. 443-4) the efficacy of Baptism (that is, it set at naught faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament). The Gnostics professed to impart a knowledge "greater and deeper" (Iren. I, 31, 2) than the ordinary doctrine of Christians. This knowledge, to those who were capable of it, was the means of redemption; indeed, in most of the Gnostics systems it was the one and sufficient passport to perfect bliss. But it kept the resemblance of Christianity for in nearly all the Gnostic systems Christ occupied a central place. Without its Christian element, it could not have entered into such close conflict with the Church; without its mythological garb, it would have missed its popularity.

The conception of Gnosticism here has in recent times come to be challenged (see below). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism.

phildee3

30-10-2008, 08:33 PM

Creation is a very positive act. The creator, therefore, is a "positive" entity!

The "father" of YHVH, the all-that-is, is a perfect balance of positive and negative.

Your source for this statement.

The all-that-is. The source of all sources.

The Hindu sages were alot more gnostic than the rabbis who shaped Judaism,
so this depiction is alot closer to the true nature of the "almighty":

2906
Brahma-creator. Vishnu-sustainer. Shiva-destroyer.

NB, Hindism is not "my source" of this knowledge,
merely an attempted rendering of it by the Hindu sages.

The answers to your questions, snoops, are not to be found in books, belief systems or any external source. They can only be found within yourself.

snoopsnuffleopagus

30-10-2008, 09:06 PM

The all-that-is. The source of all sources.

The Hindu sages were alot more gnostic than the rabbis who shaped Judaism,
so this depiction is alot closer to the true nature of the "almighty":

Brahma-creator. Vishnu-sustainer. Shiva-destroyer.

NB, Hindism is not "my source" of this knowledge,
merely an attempted rendering of it by the Hindu sages.

The answers to your questions, snoops, are not to be found in books, belief systems or any external source. They can only be found within yourself.

Thank You for your reply, I shall consider myself fully Enlightened asto 'where you are coming from'.

The 'School of Thought' I embrace predates Judaism, so I am not sure why you are referencing Judaism. The OT is not Judaism, they use it, but it is not the original 'School'. Yahwism. Yahshua Messiah Taught and Amplified Yahwism. Gnosis of YHWH. It's AWESOME!!! WHEEEEEEEE!!!! :D

http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml

Phildee3, the few answers I have garnered have been gleaned from 50+ years of very active Life. We all use books, and you utilised books to inform you of archons, eon, monads, vishnu,..mary..etc.

I am VERY Cognizant.

Very Discerning

Kind Regards: Snoops

Since this is a Thread examining Gnosticism, feel free to share with other Forum Members your personal insights in to this 'School of Thought'

As always, just because somebody says something or reads something, it does not make it true.

The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating :D

phildee3

30-10-2008, 10:54 PM

just because somebody says something or reads something, it does not make it true.

The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating

That's gnosticism.

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 12:41 AM

That's gnosticism.

Well, I'm glad we got that settled. NEXT!!

ES: Get your 'Label Maker' out.

I am a SAVANT

Henceforth you shall address me as : Savant Snoops

Now I have to go create the: 'Debunking the Bible 101' Thread. There are a multitude of erstwhile Bible Debunkers resident of this Forum, and they need my assistance. So I shall not have much time to service this Thread, so please, exchange and share Information in a Cordial Manner.

It is a very broad subject worthy of Meticulous Forensic Analysis

Lexicons are your friend. :)

Double Your Pleasure

Double Your Fun

Two YHWHs

Instead of One! :eek:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

ALOHA

bluestar

31-10-2008, 01:13 AM

snoopsnuffleopagus-

Gnosis is direct revelation and realisation, pure knowledge from the divine.
It is not the study or mentalising of texts but direct experience of supernal reality.
Gnostic texts are the foundation of many religions such as christianity, taoism, buddhism, hinduism etc The inner teachings though cannot be written on paper but are passed on through direct transmission.
You seem to have found the outer teachings only. That which is the true gnosis is beyond thought and must be experienced within. A true gnostic can be known through vibration.

bluestar

31-10-2008, 01:49 AM

I thought some might benefit from this piece...

The Path to Truth

The path to divine Truth is not what people expect it to be.

We may look at the fundamentalist believers of various religions who follow the literal meaning of their sacred texts, and laugh at their narrow-mindedness. We may imagine that we are more open-minded than most people. We may feel that we have a source of knowledge that is far beyond what other people have.

Yet as long as we look to books, gurus, and teachers, we have only gone, perhaps, one more step closer to Truth, but have not actually gone all the way.

We all know people who take the "word of God" literally. Sometimes we have been one of those people ourselves, and have come to realize that the sacred word of God is more than a prop for a narrow sect or religion. We have seen, perhaps, that there are essential truths within all the religions. We may have concluded that there is only one Source behind them all, and thus looked to each religion as being only one of many outer appearances or forms.

Nevertheless in all of this the pure, unadulterated Truth itself has remained elusive. The "truth that sets us free" of this world of illusion is something that many people claim to have but very few people actually demonstrate. We may suspect that the liberating Truth remains something that is a mystery and a secret which, perhaps, we feel that we may one day uncover. We may imagine that when we become worthy and wise, a teacher will arrive to inform us of the greatest secrets of the world — secrets of initiation and the hidden teachings of the mystery schools.

But is this so? Is not divine Truth ever-present? It may be that we are unaware of Truth not because we are inadequate, unworthy, or because our karma does not permit it, but because we are not in a mental place in which such things may be told to us. We are cut off not because of any fault or inadequacy, but because we have — unknown to ourselves — chosen to cut ourselves off. How is this possible?

People grow in their spirituality and thus enter wider and wider spheres of thought. They graduate from narrow-minded fundamentalism or skepticism to teachings that promote unity, brotherhood, and unselfish service to humanity. They may then feel that they have arrived at some place of truth that they were not otherwise in, and to the certain extent this is valid and understandable, for surely the vast nature of TRUTH is not accessible to the narrow dogmatist. And yet, even as they have chosen a wider sphere of thought, they have — chosen a wider sphere of thought. And unknown to themselves, that sphere is still not wide enough in order to access the whole Truth of Life.

Universal Truth has no boundaries, spheres, or limits. We may become more and more inclusive, more and more open, but until we see the emptiness and inherent falsehood of everything that we know, divine Truth will remain unknown to us.

It is easy to see, as we have said, the foolishness of the narrow-minded fundamentalist of any faith. But in the sight of God, all teachings, all religions, and all philosophies of every kind are equally narrow, for they all shut out the light of Truth, which is well beyond all mental conceptions and understanding. They all establish a human substitute for Truth in mental knowledge. By its very nature, that mental knowledge cannot enfold or encompass the divine, limitless Reality. The conceptions and ideals of the dualistic mind can never grasp or approach the non-dual, transcendent Truth.

Thus if we claim to be a follower of religion "X" or philosophy "Y" or teaching "Z" we are simply describing the mental limitations that we have accepted for ourselves, the prison house that we choose to live in, and the barrier we have set between ourselves and God. Therefore the very first step that any person needs to take to approach Truth is to give up all of our cherished and long-held mental conceptions.

There is a Truth for which all acquisition of knowledge is a waste of time and energy. There is a Wisdom that is beyond all the words that have ever been spoken on earth, It is only when all outer institutions, religions, philosophies, and teachings are dropped that this inner Wisdom is accessible. It is only when our human knowledge is let go that the Divine inspiration may flow.

Most people, of course, do not see it this way. They feel that they will obtain divine Wisdom by means of their philosophy, and obtain salvation by following their religion. But the proof is in the results that they obtain. The scholars continuously read book after book, the new age seekers listen to teacher after teacher, the religious followers pour over every word in their sacred texts over and over... and what does it gain them? As a result they spin round and round within the sphere of the mind, pretending to make progress, pretending to evolve, pretending to release themselves from karma, and pretending to be liberated.

Surely one would think that all these people would actually listen to the great teachers of the ages. It is said that Gotama Buddha taught people to search for the Truth alone. We are also told that Jesus said, "the Truth will set you free." But who will look for the Truth alone? Instead people are really looking at Buddha, at Jesus, and whatever other teacher or master they follow instead of Truth. People build a mental construct of philosophy, dogma, and thought. People continuously believe that their minds can know Truth when the human mind is totally incapable of knowing Truth. And by this false belief they build a wall between themselves and Truth. A wall that they do not see. A wall that they lovingly cherish and build stronger. A wall that shuts God out.

The whole Truth of Life is only knowable when all human constructs are let go, when all philosophizing is put to rest and when the mind is no longer trusted to impart knowledge. Truth is only known when we are continuously dissatisfied with every human construct and ideal, and unwilling to accept any substitute for God whatsoever. Only then can we come to the door through which Truth may appear.

http://esotericpublishing.com/discipleship/the-path-to-truth.html

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 02:06 AM

1977

31-10-2008, 05:26 AM

And this 'Mary' you Posted on, who is this and what is the position of this 'Mary' in the Gnostocist Cosmology? Do you consider this 'Mary' the 'Queen of Heaven'?
I do not recall any compelling ideas regarding her and certainly no mention of any "Queen of Heaven." The Gnostics did identify themselves with Mary Magdalene as the archetype of the "spiritual" disciple whom Christ loves more than the male disciples, and by extension a sort of aspect of the Æon Sophia. But royal appellations to that effect are never given.

phildee3

31-10-2008, 07:18 AM

And this 'Mary' you Posted on, who is this and what is the position of this 'Mary' in the Gnostocist Cosmology? Do you consider this 'Mary' the 'Queen of Heaven'?

Which Mary is that?
I do not recall the post, - please link.

If you are referring to the Theotokos, this is a greater mystery than that of the urge of the almighty all-that-is and I think it unlikely that one would be able to comprehend it until the latter be understood.

I do not recall any compelling ideas regarding her and certainly no mention of any "Queen of Heaven." The Gnostics did identify themselves with Mary Magdalene as the archetype of the "spiritual" disciple whom Christ loves more than the male disciples, and by extension a sort of aspect of the Æon Sophia. But royal appellations to that effect are never given.

To my knowledge also, there are no surviving texts by the early Christian gnostics regarding the "Queen of Heaven." However, the concept of the Theotokos is an ancient one which gnostics would have, and do, meditate upon.

Another of her titles is "Star of the Sea"
(those who have ears, let them hear).

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 01:57 PM

To my knowledge also, there are no surviving texts by the early Christian gnostics regarding the "Queen of Heaven." However, the concept of the Theotokos is an ancient one which gnostics would have, and do, meditate upon.

Another of her titles is "Star of the Sea"
(those who have ears, let them hear).

excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

The Gods and Goddess of Paganism are the Gods of Nature.
Chief
among them are, of course, the two great Gods of Earth -- the
Great
Mother and the Horned God. The Great Mother is the
personification of
Earth and her daughter the Moon. She is a Goddess of
fertility and of
life. But she is also Hecate, Goddess of the crossroads, of
death and of
the underworld. Hence she is call the the three-fold Goddess
and her
three aspects, Selene, Diana and Hecate, are symbolized by the
full, half
and dark of the moon. As the Moon rules the tides, she is
also Goddess
of the Sea. So strong was her hold upon the mind of man that
Christians
could not do without her and so they renamed her Mary, the
Mother of God,
Star of the Sea. She is known by many names: Demeter the Corn
Mother,
Cerridwen the White Goddess, Cybele, Astatre, Artemis, Vivien.
She is
Diana of whom St. Paul's audience cried out "Great is Diana of
the
Ephesians."

On a more philosophic plane, she is the all-embracing
Earth Mother,

excerpt

http://www.ardantane.org/about/pagan_spirituality/pagan_spirituality.html

Celebrating the Goddess

She is Queen of Heaven and Earth, Star of the Sea, Mistress of Magick. She has a thousand names, faces, and stories. Come meet Her in many of Her aspects at this intensive weekend of learning, celebration, and spirit.

excerpt

http://www.jwmt.org/v1n6/provence.html

But the name itself is Semitic in origin. To the Egyptians, Bronze Age Cyprus was known as Ay-mari or the land of Mari, because of the island’s devotion to the ancient goddess. And the name Mari appears in the most unexpected places. Ma-ri in Sumerian means fruitful mother. There is a city of Mari on the Euphrates and the Hebrew name Miryam, which is the origin of Maria, is a contraction of Marat-Hayam - Lady of the Sea. Why these names appear among the Basques, of all people, is anyone’s guess. It points perhaps to a very old connection, those Phoenician traders again, between all the peoples around the Mediterranean. It might also explain why the name Maria occupies a prominent position in Christian mythology, and why St. Jerome called the Virgin Stella Maris - Star of the Sea

She has been around for many years..........

many names, many places.

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 02:03 PM

Which Mary is that?
I do not recall the post, - please link.

If you are referring to the Theotokos, this is a greater mystery than that of the urge of the almighty all-that-is and I think it unlikely that one would be able to comprehend it until the latter be understood.

To my knowledge also, there are no surviving texts by the early Christian gnostics regarding the "Queen of Heaven." However, the concept of the Theotokos is an ancient one which gnostics would have, and do, meditate upon.

Theotokos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
Theotokos (Greek: ????????, translit. Theotókos) is a title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include God-bearer and the one who gives birth to God; less literal translations include Mother of God; it is tranliterated Theotocus. The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431, that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.

phildee3

31-10-2008, 02:13 PM

She has been around for many years..........

Yes.
Even more than YHVH.

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 02:30 PM

Sophianic Gnosticism

http://egina.blogspot.com/2005/07/confessions-of-sophianic-gnostic.html

Gnosticism 101

Two thousand years ago, in Northern Egypt, a religious culture existed that embraced early Christianity, Qabalistic Judaism, Roman State Religion, Egyptian Mystery cults, Mithraism, and Greek philosophy. Because this religion emphasized personal revelatory experience and rejected Faith, it was a threat to the conformist orthodoxy which was taking shape in the Christian Church. Gnosticism's adherents were first ostracized, then persecuted, then slaughtered. But Gnosticism's ideas speak to a basic truth, and Gnosticism itself resurfaced countless times in the intervening centuries.

- In the beginning, there is only the Pleroma (the "empty fullness"), a state of infinite potential, unity, nothingness, and totality. For the Gnostic, this is God - without gender, personality, or human characteristics. The Pleroma is the Primal Source, and every universe, and the potential for every universe, is an emanation of the Pleroma.

- At some point, the Pleroma conceives of the "something" as opposed to "nothing". There is a sudden and significant division between these two poles, a fundamental one and zero. As yin and yang, positive and negative, male and female - all Diads are a reflection of these two "magnetic poles of God".

- These two poles, yearning for the unity of the pre-existing Pleroma, again come together. The result of that union is a daughter, Sophia ("Wisdom"). Sophia is as close as a Gnostic comes to ascribing a human personality to God.

- In one myth, Sophia, jealous of Her parents ability to create, creates in turn Her own children. These children, however, do not contain the spark of the Divine, as they do not come from the Pleroma.

- These children - known as the Archons, or rulers - are a huge problem. They are in turn jealous of their Mother's ability to create, and they create an entire universe over which to rule. The set themselves up as gods over their creation, but as they are imperfect their creation is flawed, cruel, and grotesque. This is the universe in which we live, and we are their creatures. It is a caricature of the Real World of union with the Pleroma.

- The early part of human history relates to our imprisonment and the injustice of the created world. A critical part of the Archon's agenda is to hide the truth of the Pleroma from their pawns. The chief of the Archons, the Demiurge, is particularly megalomaniacal and sadistic. He wants the world to worship him as the one true god.

- Sophia discovers the scheme of the Archons and their creation, and is horrified. She returns to the Pleroma and repents for Her error. She then carries a "spark" of Divinity, slips down through the complex hierarchies of the Archons, and conceals a splinter of God into everything and everyone.

- In some traditions, Sophia incarnates as Eve within the garden. Other stories have Her assume the role of Serpent. When the Demiurge appears before Adam and Eve and declares "There is no God but me", Sophia reveals Her True Self and states "You are wrong!" and shames Her monstrous offspring.

- Things start to get paranoid here. A small number of the Archons realize their error, and wish to return with Sophia to the Pleroma. She commands that they remain in their creation to act secretly as her agents, and encourage the spark in humanity.

- Christian Gnostics subscribe to the tradition which implies that Sophia is thereafter trapped in the created world and separated from the Pleroma. One aspect of the Pleroma, the Logos ("Word") is sent down through the Archons to rescue Her. The Logos is incarnated as Jesus, and his mission is to awaken the spark of God among humankind in order to generate a kind of "critical mass" of Divinity. The idea is that this would function as a kind of rocket fuel to return both the Logos and Sophia to the Pleroma. Some traditions state that this was successful, others not.

- Where this leaves us, as Gnostics, is to kindle the inner spark in order to escape the cruelty of the Demiurge and his agents, and light the way home to Divinity. This awakening is called gnosis ("knowledge" - spiritual enlightenment), a first-hand certainty of their relationship with the divine. This also involves a rejection of faith, and of third-party salvation. The Gnostic must personally negotiate with the Archons, and debate, argue, and define the nature of that relationship.

- I've never met a Gnostic who feels this is anything other than a metaphor, a powerful and transformative myth. But it does describe an almost universal sense of "this is not the deal", that the SYSTEM ("kosmos") of time, decay, disease, ignorance, jealousy, pettiness - does not reflect the "true" world, and that the god in charge of this creation must be cruel, insane, or both.

- Gnostics tend to come in one of three main varieties: Christian (about 70%), Hermetic (about 25%) and Sophianic (5%).

- The main sources for Gnostic thought, written between 200 BCE and 200 CE, were narrowly circulated, and hidden from mainstream or orthodox authorities.(see OP) A large collection of these texts, the Nag Hammadi library, was unearthed in 1945. Among these is the Christian Gospel of Thomas, believed by many biblical scholars to be the oldest and most accurate account of the real teachings of Jesus.

- Hermetic Gnostics study the writings of the semi-mythical Hermes Trimegistus, an Egyptian priest (actually a nom-de-plume for up to a dozen philosophers over a few centuries). It is the discipline of magic, of alchemy and metaphysics, the "yoga of the west". The renaissance humanists, the Rosicrucians and early Freemasons were of these.

- Sophian Gnostics hold the idea of the Divine Feminine, inherent in the world and advocating for our enlightenment. She is the Queen of Heaven, Holy Wisdom, the Celestial Bride. Similarly, the Magdalene is also a central figure as an aspect of Sophia, as is the Egyptian goddess Aset, more commonly known as Isis.

phildee3

31-10-2008, 02:43 PM

Sophianic Gnosticism
http://egina.blogspot.com/2005/07/confessions-of-sophianic-gnostic.html

"Opinions expressed herein are entirely my own." Jordan Stratford+

... and therefore not a "school of thought."
Interesting though!

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 02:49 PM

Yes.
Even more than YHVH.

According to my research, she is a created being, by YHWH, who at one time had been YHWHs Wife, Consort.

Became jealous of YHWH and led 1/3 of YHWHs Malakhs in Rebellion.

she is the ruler of earth and the nations at this time. Hold great sway over the Hearts & Minds of a great many humans, using many names and Titles of Office.

Yechetzqyah 28 provides explicit information asto her 'qualities' and 'position' in the Cosmology.

I reccomend you peruse the Divine Council:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Are you familiar with the musings of Hericlitus of Athens?

phildee3

31-10-2008, 04:12 PM

eternal_spirit

31-10-2008, 04:39 PM

Sophianic Gnosticism

- In some traditions, Sophia incarnates as Eve within the garden. Other stories have Her assume the role of Serpent. When the Demiurge appears before Adam and Eve and declares "There is no God but me", Sophia reveals Her True Self and states "You are wrong!" and shames Her monstrous offspring.

http://egina.blogspot.com/2005/07/confessions-of-sophianic-gnostic.html

Could this be Lilith?
Of the all the figures in Midrash, it is Lilith who is most clearly Babalon. It might therefore be helpful to investigate her.
Lilith, aside from a stray reference comparing her to a "screechowl" (the translation is debatable), does not appear in the Bible itself. It is in Rabbinic midrash (presumably relying on earlier legends) that we find the full delineation of Lilith. The rabbis began with the Biblical reference to man's first creation as a bisexual being--"male and female He [God] created them [the first human]". Some of the rabbis found in this image something similar to what Aristophanes proposed in the Symposium: a dual bodied being later divided into two who must thereafter seek each other out. But others tried to take into account the later creation of Eve detailed further on in the text. If woman was created from Adam, after his initial creation, than what happened to the female created at first? The answer, according to the Midrash, was that she was Lilith; created with Adam, she refused to comply with Adam's demand that she submit herself to him, and in the end fled from him by using the Ineffable Name. Adam then complained to God about his loneliness, and the creation of Eve followed, together with the "Fall" and the Expulsion from Eden. Adam, blaming this on Eve, separated from her, and for a time reunited with Lilith, before finally returning to Eve. (The details of this first soap opera are reported with various embellishments.) Lilith bore Adam a number of children in this interval, who became the demons. After Adam's reconcilation with Eve, Lilith assumed the Queenship of the Demons; in some versions she is the consort of Samael, in others she remains unpartnered. As Queen of the Demons, she kills babies in their cribs (apparently this was the folk explanation of SIDS), but only in the first days of their life. Her greatest opportunity is with infant boys before their circumcision on the eigth day, and in Germanic lands Jews developed the custom of the "Watch-night" to counter her, a semi-magical vigil around the crib on the night preceding the performance of the brit milah. In addition to this, she still produces children, according to a much later Kabbalistic elaboration. These demons are the children of men, as her original offspring were the children of Adam, Lilith being impregnated by the semen produced by masturbation and nocturnal emissions.
As may be surmised, the Rabbinic sources do not present Lilith in a favorable light (although Adam does not come off too well either); they were content to see her as filling out the Biblical picture, and as the archetype of the "bad woman". Later, mostly Gentile, writers connected her with the Harlot/Folly figure of Proverbs (most intelligently, Charles Williams's portrait of Lily Sammile in _Descent into Hell_), and leave it at that. Modern feminists, especially Jewish feminists, have tried to show her as une femme ideal, drawing particularly on her spurning of Adam's attempted dominance, and tried to establish her presence among the planets. But Lilith's Babalonic identity goes further than that; and the full legend can profitably comment on Babalon.
There are two foci in the legend: Lilith's position as the original mate of Adam, and her later vocation as the destroyer of children.
As Adam's "other half" (literally), the whole Adam must include her. The androgynous/hermaphroditic Adam-Lilith in union was the original form of humanity. Thus Lesson 1: Babalon is a vital part of ourselves, and must be integrated into our Selves if we are to be whole.
The legend does not say whether this dual human being was joined side by side or back to back. If back to back, then Lilith automatically becomes Adam's Shadow, and just as automatically something which Adam had to deal with, even though he could never actually see her, always there and always out of sight, and always to be cooperated with. (The same is of course true of Adam as viewed from Lilith's perspective.) Side by side, the same applies, although not in such a pictorially dramatic and literal form. Such a conjunction is not conducive to procreation (the unitive emotional side of sex would be rendered in this instance moot), and thus the two halves were divided. Adam could see Lilith not only front to front but also in the round (and she him); but now he must make an effort to unite with him. And here he blundered; instead of accepting her as an equal, he attempted to dominate. (One form of the legend puts this in openly sexual terms: he insisted on utilizing only the classic man-on-top/woman-on-bottom posture. Other forms of the legend depict the error as mutual: she tried to dominate as much as he.) In psychological terms, he identified with his own ego, and not with his full self; confronted with his Shadow/Deeper Self, he rejected it, or at least tried to subject it to the demands of his ego. Lilith's response was to fly away: she literally rose above Adam (now shrunk to the confines of his own ego, not his full, Lilith inclusive self) with the power of the Name. The Ineffable Name is the core of Being, and the generative power of the Cosmos: this indicates how strong the energy must be which allows the liberation of the Deeper Self from the ego, and how potentially catastrophic. (Adam, after all, lost one half of his own self.)
Into the picture now comes Eve, the "mother of all living" (Chavvah, derived from Chai, life, is the name in Hebrew; the connection is lost in the Greek-derived version found in English Bibles.) But at first, she is not this; she merely Ishah, Woman, as he was to her Ish, Man. The Biblical text directly speaks of her being an "extension" of man. The verbal usage in Hebrew portrays this almost directly: Ishah is simply extended Ish, Ish with the female ending tacked on, so that we could render it "female man". The English pairing woman/man mirrors this ("woman" derives from "wife-man"). And then, Scripture continues with the image of man cleaving to woman as one flesh: recreating, in other words, the orignal Androgyne. (It may be noted at this point that in some versions of the bisexual creation, Lilith does not appear. In this tradition, Eve is the original female half; the creation from Adam's rib is the separation into two individuals; there is harmony between the sexes, albeit apparently at the cost of the female accepting the dominance of the male.) Ishah is created from Ish's rib, from a part close to the heart (in Biblical terms, the seat of the emotions, will, and soul), and especially personal and intimate; in tactile terms even more intimate than the genitals. (Is not touching somone's else's breast almost always indicative of some emotional bond--the most intimate being the child feeding from his mother). We see here God (reverting to the Midrashic context) giving Adam another Lilith, another half of himself. And, because of the previous history, it must be done on the sly, with Adam in a deep sleep, so he does not conciously realize that Eve is Lilith.
Then comes the business of the Tree of Knowledge, in which Adam's first patriarchal effort proves disastrous. (Note the Biblical text: Adam extends the original prohibition, and in doing so leaves Eve believing that the extension is also Divine in origin. The Midrash picks up on this; the snake shows Eve that the extension (not to touch the Tree) can be flouted with impunity, which leaves her to believe that the entire prohibition will not be enforced. And the rest is "history".) For our purposes, it is necessary only to note that Eve, the second Lilith, is the one that leads Adam into attaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is thus made into a spiritually aware human being, because of his Deeper Self--only now, he does not realize that Eve is himself, and the consequences are a cosmic catastrophe, at least on one level. So he goes into a pout, and leaves Eve. But it is at this point that Eve gains her name in the Biblical narrative.
The second focus of the Lilith material is the contrast between her offspring and those of Eve. Lilith bears demons; Eve bears humans. Lilith is impregnated by sex that is nominally unfruitful, male autoeroticism, unpartnered. Eve is impregnated by sex that is normal and procreative in the normal, partnered way. And Lilith is tries to destroy the offspring of her rival. Lilith becomes the repository and incubationary of the male sexual drive that can not be satisfied by normal means. It is sex without love, without mutuality, for the sake only of pleasing one's ego: the male complement of the Whore. If we return to our image of Adam as the ego and Lilith as the Deeper Self, then we find that the ego represses and drives into the Deeper Self what it cannot accept, and what it deems as illegitimate. And what is repressed rebounds on the ego in the form of the demonic, destroying what is acceptable and "legitimate" (symbolized by the offspring of Eve). The lesson is, of course, that had the ego not tried to reject its own products, the demonic would not destroy the remaining offspring, and instead been harmonized, the illegitimate with the legitimate.
There is a limit to Lilith's power of destruction: when the child under goes the initiation of *brit milah*, circumcision; which symbolizes in two tradtional phrases, being "sealed into the Covenant" and "coming under the wings [protection] of the Shekinah". By the marking of its member, the child becomes a member of the Community of Israel, both in its literal aspect and in its Kabbalastic aspect ("Community of Israel" being one of the terms denoting the Shekinah). This rite is applicable to infants and to adult converts (to whom the phrase "coming under the Shekinah" is often applied), and it is the essential rite of initiation into the Community. (That the brit milah is exclusively performed on males can be ignored in our context, as can be seen by the fact that woman can circumcise: they can initiate, and only someone already initiated can initiate.) The infant/convert is married to the Shekinah. (Cf. Zipporah's circumcision of Gershom in Exodus, and her reference to "Bridegroom of blood".) The Arabs delay this rite to the onset of maturity (we are leaving out the practice of "female circumcision" which is actually contrary to Islamic law and teaching), but Judaism recognizes that children are part of the Community, and can be initiated as well as any adult, even if they have can not take on adult responsiblities. (The ceremonies of bar/bat mitzvah mark this stage, which has legal but no spiritual ramifications, just as the 18th and 21st birthdays have in Western practice.) The circumcised child is literally the Child Crowned and Conquering, even if he and every one else is unaware of it. He has married the Shekinah, and the physical mark upon the sexual organ is one sign of this.
And what is the Shekinah? And why does the marriage to the Shekinah put an end to the power of Lilith? Because the Shekinah is Nuit, and the Child has thus attained Nuit, and (on the symbolic level at least) put Babalon/Lilith back into Her proper place, as part of the Child's own Self. For Lilith when recognized/integrated as one's Self loses her destructive power, or rather the power is properly directed and recognized as fruitful.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19472

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 04:51 PM

For those of you who don't know, Yechetzqyah is better known as Ezekiel.
Chapter 28 contains nothing about the Mother of God but, in fact, provides plenty of support for those who see YHVH and Satan as one and the same!

And as for the Mother of God being created by her own grandson...
I think I'd better meditate on that one!!!

Most Cordial Felicitations; phildee3:

With all due respect; you understand that since you are an Ordained Minister, an Office of Authority, in the Roman Catholic Church and/or her daughters, church, your assertions require Meticulous Forenensic Analysis asto Provenance, Veracity, Efficacy, Linguistic, Textual, and Contextual Integrity.

'Test the Spirit'

Keep in Mind the Provenance

An examination of the Cited Source Texts; The Nag Hamadi:

Preamble

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread99267/pg1
Gnostic..wise...wisdom based..logic reason....sophist....wizards..

In the gnostic versions ..humanity is played up...by Human reason and logic. God is reasoned out..by mans reason..not by Faith.
This is very popular among many people of religion..particularly those of a Eastern Religiouis slant. God is reasoned out by the wisdom of men. This is what was going on in Alexandria. Paul and some of the other apostles warned about this in the New Testament. Alexandria, Egypt for those of us not up on our geography.

The reason so many dislike the apostle Paul is that he was already brought up in a type of Gnostic Religions...Judaism. THe Hebrew leadership had already deviated from the Law of Moses given on the Mount in Sinai. They had substituted the instructions given by God to Moses on the Mount with the traditions and customs of mens logic with which they had come into contact in captivity and by contact with the nations surrounding Israel. They had tried privily to incorporate these practices of logic and reason..into the Law overlaying these customs as if they were the Law. THe Hebrews were warned over and over by God through His chosen prophets ...not to do this very thing..yet they did it and often killing the Prophets sent by God to warn His people ..Paul was very aware after his conversion of this practice among the Hebrews. This is why Paul is not liked as was Jesus ...they both exposed the Hebrews and particularly the Hebrew leadership for this substitutionary practice..for the Law of Moses. This is called in the New Testament ...the traditions of men.

Remember...the Apostle Paul is no ordinary Hebrew...he is highly educated for his day..(Gamiliel).raised in the inner court of the religion and the Parisee sect...before his conversion. Paul knows to much of the Hebrew Leadership and their dirty laundry.
Todays bible scholars and thinkers know this ..this is why they must downplay Paul.
They must remove Paul and his credibility from the picture.

This is precisely the pattern of operation being attempted by the Gnostic Gospels. Humanity is being attempted to infiltrate Christianity and supplant the instructions of God and the New Testament as if they were in fact the instructions from God. When they get done they will totally alter the Christian practices of centurys and replace them with Gnostic practices and eventually [COLOR="Black"]Eastern Philosophys. This is the intent. Just as they attempted to do with the Hebrews they are attempting to do with the Christians today.

Barbra Theiring has the Gnostic view..of Dan Brown and others ...Lincoln, Blagent , Leigh/Holy Blood Holy Grail. So does Robert Eisenmen...they all have the new age type gnostic view.

Their problem is that Carbon dating of many scrolls ..including the Dead Sea Scrolls has put the dates outside of thier claims. They were very popular for awhile among many scholars and new age thinkers until the Scrolls were carbon dated.
People still like to quote them as authoritative on this subject. The carbon dating results are seldom ever quoted or mentioned.

If you watch these claims of the Gnostic and even new age versions..they all attempt to debunk some basic foundation of the Gospel positions on Jesus Christ. His Divinity, Blood attonement , The Cross. Virgin Birth...et al...all in a attempt to water the doctrine down and shift the basis of belief...preparing the ground for a substitution down the road..to a new gospel and a new christ.

I will not be running out to see Dan Browns tale/movie.. as years ago..I read Holy Blood Holy Grail and immediately recognized the Gnostic/occult substitution principle at work. This is not a new line of thinking..it is centurys olde.
There is nothing new under the sun.

The Nag Hamadi Texts:
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.html

The Earliest Christian Records?

The principal claim to support Brown’s radical historical revision is found in the statements by a character in the novel, Leigh Teabing, who is a Grail researcher and scholar: “These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which I mentioned earlier,” Teabing announces, “[they are} the earliest Christian records” (245). This is spectacularly false. The Dead Sea scrolls are indeed historical documents of almost unparalleled significance. However, they give us no direct knowledge about early Christianity. While the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly add enormously to our knowledge of Judaism during the historical period in which Christianity began and spread, they do not so much as mention Jesus of Nazareth, or any of his followers, or even the movement that came to be known as Christianity. So for Brown to inject the Dead Sea Scrolls as source documents that supposedly overturn our understanding of early Christianity is ludicrous.

What are the earliest surviving Christian texts? If you want to read them, you will find them in the New Testament. Scholars believe that Paul’s epistle, now known as 1 Thessalonians, was written during his second evangelical journey, about the year 51. That would make it the earliest of all surviving Christian documents. Galatians was probably written during Paul’s third evangelical journey, around 54-58. The Book of Acts appears to have been completed by the year 61, although some portions of it appear to be earlier still, and some editing may have occurred a few years later.1 The Gospel of Mark is unquestionably the oldest surviving gospel. It is usually dated around the year 70. Matthew is later than Mark, but was composed before 100. The Gospel of Luke was composed around the year 100. John was written a few years later, but before 120. There is some quibbling about these dates, but New Testament scholars would accept them as being reasonably close.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

As for the Nag Hammadi texts, some of which are unquestionably previously unknown early Christian documents, when were they written? The noted biblical scholar James M. Robinson, who headed up the project to study and translate these invaluable archaeological finds, writes that while an exact dating has not yet been determined, “dates ranging at least from the beginning to the end of the fourth century CE have been proposed.” One Nag Hammadi text makes reference to the Anomoean “heresy,” which briefly flourished in Alexandria around the year 360. Some miscellaneous papers bound with the Nag Hammadi Codices can be dated to the years 333, 341, 346, and 348.2 Thus, the physical Nag Hammadi library is unquestionably from the fourth-century, and at least some of its texts are that recent.

It is certainly possible that even though our copy (the only surviving copy) of the Nag Hammadi texts is relatively late, the works themselves may have been composed much earlier. And indeed, this appears to be the case: but not nearly enough to get Brown’s foot out of his mouth. He makes much of the Gospel of Philip, which does indeed depict Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene on the mouth (246). However, the introduction to that book in The Nag Hammadi Library in English states that it was “probably written in Syria in the second half of the third century C.E.” In other words, it was composed between about 250 and 300, making it at least 150 years later than the canonical gospels. As such, it cannot possibly be considered a primary historical source comparable to the canonical texts.

Brown also quotes from the Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] (247), which carries the suggestion that Jesus “loved her more than us.” According to the Nag Hammadi Library’s introduction to the Gospel of Mary, “Although the date of composition is unknown, the Coptic manuscript itself has been dated to the early fifth century, and a Greek fragment of this gospel to the early third century.” There are no grounds to assign to this work an earlier date of composition.

Thus, for Brown to offer up second-and third-century texts as older and more definitive than the first-century canonical texts is laughable. The canonical New Testament gospels and epistles are mid-to-late first century works, or at latest very early second century. Yet Brown confidently asserts that the New Testament books are later than the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts. In matters of historical analysis, it is not possible to be more wrong than this.

Interesting Kabalistic musings of rabbis, es, whay am I not surprised. I think you're a rabbi. lol

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x268/AmelieJolie7/animals_laughingPuppy.gif

HaSatan
http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/Satan_and_the_Snake.htm

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 05:42 PM

The Gospel of John is NOT Hellenistic:

Evidence: The Dead Sea Scrolls:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/7r4/7r4036.html

But what have the manuscripts shown us that we didn't already know? This question must be answered at several levels.

At one level, the answer is a surprising, "Not much." That is, there have been no dramatic findings proving or disproving the central tenets of the Jewish or Christian faiths, as some had predicted. This lack of surprises is in itself very revealing.

Take the Isaiah scroll. Until 1947, the oldest manuscript of Isaiah was a Masoretic text that had been copied in the late 900s CE. Although any book or scroll produced 1,000 years ago is very old, the Masoretic text is actually very "young" when you consider the prophet Isaiah lived 1,600 years before that (around 700 B.C.). This means it had been recopied many times during that interim, with plenty of opportunity for errors to be introduced. With the Qumran Isaiah text, 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, how accurate was the later text? How significant was "the telephone game" problem?

"Despite the fact that the Isaiah scroll was about a thousand years older than the Masoretic version of Isaiah," says James VanderKam of the University of Notre Dame, "the two were nearly identical except for small details that rarely affected the meaning of the text." In other words, a word like "over" in one text might read "above" in the other—not the kind of difference that rocks your faith in the reliability of the Bible texts. Though the Isaiah text had been "whispered" down the telephone line through generations of scribes, God had carefully protected his Word.

Uncovering Jesus' world
Besides the copies of the Old Testament scriptures, the Dead Sea caves also contained other kinds of writings, including commentaries on the Bible, a plan for rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, fanciful writings about Adam, Eve, and other Old Testament characters, and writings about a coming war between the forces of Darkness and the forces of Light. Many refer to a Righteous Teacher and a coming Messiah who will save the faithful.

Together they give us a picture of how the Jews who lived at Qumran between 200 B.C. and A.D. 70 lived and thought. Having discovered their library, we can compare their sacred writings to those of the New Testament, which would have been composed after A.D. 50.

Interestingly, the comparison has knocked down some long-cherished liberal theories about the New Testament. If we take Bultmann's claim that the Gospel of John is Greek, and therefore foreign to how Jesus would have really taught, we find today a respected expert like Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University writing: "John's Gospel, once considered by critics to be late and Hellenistic (Greek), is now shown by the Qumran parallels (in the Dead Sea scrolls) to be the most Jewish of the Gospels."

Rudolph Bultmann, needless to say, would find this hard to swallow, since John focuses on the divine nature of Christ—that before he was born in Bethlehem he was "with God, and was God." This was "Greek thinking" at its worst, Bultmann believed, and because Jesus was Jewish, he wouldn't have accepted this description of himself, much less taught it to his disciples. Now the Dead Sea scrolls show how wrong Bultmann was—Jesus was a Jew of his day, and there is nothing anti-Jewish with John presenting him as God incarnate.

Today research on the Dead Sea scrolls is moving along faster than ever. Photocopies of the scrolls, which until the early 1990s were available to only a handful of overly busy scholars, have been made available to all scholars. Undoubtedly, we will continue to learn more about the world in which Jesus lived and in which the New Testament was written.

Ironically, however, the scrolls serve to show that the most important manuscripts are the ones we've always held in our hands—the Old and New Testaments. They not only tell us directly about the Jew named Jesus (unlike the Dead Sea scrolls), but through divine inspiration they reveal why he was the true Teacher of Righteousness and Savior for whosoever will believe.

The scrolls also remind us not to put our trust in what biblical scholars may teach in any given generation, but in the One who "was pierced for our transgressions" because "we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way."

Isaiah's words are somehow a fitting perspective for a story that began sixty years ago with a shepherd boy named Abu Dahoud and his straying sheep.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

eternal_spirit

31-10-2008, 06:10 PM

The Nag Hamadi Texts:

Interesting Kabalistic musings of rabbis, es, whay am I not surprised. I think you're a rabbi. lol

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x268/AmelieJolie7/animals_laughingPuppy.gif

HaSatan
http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/Satan_and_the_Snake.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/content/images/2007/09/18/kennethwilliams8_396x222.jpg
As Kenneth would say
Stop messing about :D

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 06:25 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/content/images/2007/09/18/kennethwilliams8_396x222.jpg
As Kenneth would say
Stop messing about :D

mess around, mess fast

mess with snoops, you messed your last

http://www.vintageseduction.com/images/newindex/index_movies.jpg

Let's Dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8nf1236LRw

1977

31-10-2008, 07:15 PM

An examination of the Cited Source Texts; The Nag Hamadi:

Dan Brown is a fiction writer. ATS is an open forum on the Internet.

Now, how about telling us what you really want to know?

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 07:27 PM

Dan Brown is a fiction writer. ATS is an open forum on the Internet.

Now, how about telling us what you really want to know?

Cordial Felicitations; 1977:

Your observation is correct in both instances.

The passages pertinent are in red.

The Scholarship of James M. Robinson is the pertinent Data.

This is an open Thread about Gnosticism. If you have any pertinent information about this subject, Post without restraint.

Kind Regards: Snoops

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.html
The noted biblical scholar James M. Robinson, who headed up the project to study and translate these invaluable archaeological finds, writes that while an exact dating has not yet been determined, “dates ranging at least from the beginning to the end of the fourth century CE have been proposed.” One Nag Hammadi text makes reference to the Anomoean “heresy,” which briefly flourished in Alexandria around the year 360. Some miscellaneous papers bound with the Nag Hammadi Codices can be dated to the years 333, 341, 346, and 348.2 Thus, the physical Nag Hammadi library is unquestionably from the fourth-century, and at least some of its texts are that recent.

Academic Credentials of James M. Robinson:

http://www.jesusseminar.com/Fellows/Robinson/robinson.html

James M. Robinson
Professor Emeritus of Religion, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California

James M. Robinson is the former director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity and Professor Emeritus at The Claremont Graduate School. He was honored as a Fulbright Scholar, American Council of Learned Societies Fellow and American Association of Theological Schools Fellow at the University of Heidelberg. The editor of The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English (2002), The Critical Edition of Q (2000), and author of Trajectories Through Early Christianity (1971, with Helmut Koester) and A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (1959), he is best known for his work on the Nag Hammadi Codices and as the General Editor of The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1977).

Academic Credentials
B.A., Davidson College
B.D., Columbia Theological Seminary
D.Theol., University of Basel
Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

phildee3

31-10-2008, 09:16 PM

you understand that since you are an Ordained Minister, an Office of Authority, in the Roman Catholic Church and/or her daughters, church, your assertions require Meticulous Forenensic Analysis asto Provenance, Veracity, Efficacy, Linguistic, Textual, and Contextual Integrity.

Keep in Mind the Provenance

I was not ordained in the RC church, nor in any of her daughters.

I recognise only ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

My authority comes i) directly from my union with the all-that-is, and ii) through a number of unbroken lines of apostolic succession, one of which came through the RC church.
You can no more say that my authority is from the RC church than to say that you are from Oxford because you drove through it to get to where you are!

But, be that as it may, you are correct in what the reqirements are,
just incorrect with regard to provenance.

snoopsnuffleopagus

31-10-2008, 09:25 PM

Thank You for the clarification.

If you would care to share with us the Name of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I, for one, would be delighted.

My apologies for assuming you meant the Roman Catholic Church, they seem to have monopolised the term: catholic

do you consider the 'word' catholic to mean 'universal'?

so wheres HQ and who's the 'Boss' in this earthly realm?

Anglican? Church of England?

phildee3

31-10-2008, 09:30 PM

Dan Brown is a fiction writer.

He is a writer of historical fiction,
ie. fiction based on historical fact (actually more legend than history, which itself is based on history).

It is up to the reader to sort out what is fiction, what is history and what is legend.
No two readers will entirely agree, nor is there any way to determine who is correct, except by gnosis.

Brown confidently asserts that the New Testament books are later than the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts.

No he doesn't, - Leigh Teabing does,
and Teabing is a fictional character.

phildee3

31-10-2008, 09:42 PM

Thank You for the clarification.

You're welcome.

If you would care to share with us the Name of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I, for one, would be delighted.

I call it "the church"
or the "ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic church."

I've heard it referred to as "the Bride of Christ," "the Body of Christ," "the Body of Believers," "the faithful,"
but I'm not too happy with any of those.

I'm not one for labels. They tend to divide.

do you consider the 'word' catholic to mean 'universal'?

Yes.

so wheres HQ and who's the 'Boss' in this earthly realm?

There is neither, in the earthly realm.
It's bishops are known as episcopi vagrantes (wandering bishops).

amethyst

01-11-2008, 10:09 PM

According to my research, she is a created being, by YHWH, who at one time had been YHWHs Wife, Consort.

Became jealous of YHWH and led 1/3 of YHWHs Malakhs in Rebellion.

she is the ruler of earth and the nations at this time. Hold great sway over the Hearts & Minds of a great many humans, using many names and Titles of Office.

Yechetzqyah 28 provides explicit information asto her 'qualities' and 'position' in the Cosmology.

I reccomend you peruse the Divine Council:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Are you familiar with the musings of Hericlitus of Athens?

Hi Sir Snoops :),

You know I respect your diligent research and studies into the original interpretations of the scriptures.

But in regards to the interpretation that you have studied, you say that Satan was originally of the female gender- as you said " hillel" and was originally Yahweh's wife. You are sighting Ezekiel chapter 28 as the scripture reference.

Can you give further reference as to why you feel that Satan was originally of the female gender and was the wife of Yahweh?

For me, this seems to be a stretch of the interpretation of scriptures, if we are to cross-reference the scriptures with other scriptures, as we are admonished to do as the correct procedure of interpretation.

In other words, it is not advised that one should cherry pick random scriptures out without cross referencing those scriptures with other scriptures in the Bible. Not saying you are doing that, but I am just explaining the more advantageous way of deriving a fuller understanding of what the scriptures are actually saying.

So, with that in mind, another scripture from the New Testament that mentions Satan is in Revelation chapter 20:1-3

Here are the verses:

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

If you notice in particular, I highlighted the gender reference to Satan, that old serpent, the devil.

From these scriptures it is very clear that Satan is of the male gender and not female.

I guess what I am asking is, are you suggesting that Satan changed his gender from female in the Old testament, to male in the New testament?

Again, when Jesus the Christ had dealing with Satan, He too referred to Satan in the male gender:

Matthew 4:5-7:

"Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,

and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus said to him, "It is written again, You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'"

And in Matthew 4:8-10:

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."

Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"

So, I am asking, what have you studied that leads you to conclude that Satan changed from female gender to the male gender? BTW, I do agree with you that Satan is a "created" being.

snoopsnuffleopagus

01-11-2008, 11:45 PM

Most Cordial Felicitations; Lady Amytheste:

I agree with your Criteria of Analysis.

Isayah 14:12 provides a keen insight, and Yechetzqyah 28 provides a very compelling argument. After I present, and you digest my argument,you may inform me If you think I am: Coo Coo or Not Coo Coo :)

I will Post both examples; Isayah and Yechetzqyah, the Methodology will be Textual, Contextual utilising Standard of the Industry(readily availiable) Lexicons, Concordances and Dictionaries. Etymology is a valuable tool

TOOLS
http://www.eliyah.com/

And keep in mind, The word satan means: Adversary, Accuser, etc, a quality of Character, there are many satans. HaSatan is a supra natural being. THE Satan.
.
Hebrew-English Bible
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Satan and the snake. Note:
http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/Satan_and_the_Snake.htm

Isayah=Salvation is Yahweh
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1014.htm

Great Isayah Scroll Directory-Dead Sea Scroll-90BCE
http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qumdir.htm

Yechetzqyah=May Yahweh Strengthen
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1228.htm

I will present Text examples; Contemplate: I shall return and 'Parse' the Text.

ISAYAH=SALVATION IS YAHWEH 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

יב אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם, הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר; נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ, חוֹלֵשׁ עַל-גּוֹיִם.

====================================

YECHETZQYAH=MAY YAHWEH STRENGTHEN

28:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:

2 'Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord GOD: because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas; yet thou art man, and not God, though thou didst set thy heart as the heart of God--

3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! there is no secret that they can hide from thee!

4 By thy wisdom and by thy discernment thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures;

5 In thy great wisdom by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches, and thy heart is lifted up because of thy riches--

6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: because thou hast set thy heart as the heart of God;

7 Therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

8 They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas.

9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee: I am God? But thou art man, and not God, in the hand of them that defile thee.

10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord GOD.'

11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:

12 'Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say unto him: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Thou seal most accurate, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty,

13 thou wast in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the carnelian, the topaz, and the emerald, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the smaragd, and gold; the workmanship of thy settings and of thy sockets was in thee, in the day that thou wast created they were prepared.

14 Thou wast the far-covering cherub; and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness; I have cast thee to the ground, I have laid thee before kings, that they may gaze upon thee.

18 By the multitude of thine iniquities, in the unrighteousness of thy traffic, thou hast profaned thy sanctuaries; therefore have I brought forth a fire from the midst of thee, it hath devoured thee, and I have turned thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the peoples shall be appalled at thee; thou art become a terror, and thou shalt never be any more.'

20 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:

21 'Son of man, set thy face toward Zidon, and prophesy against it,

22 and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Zidon, and I will be glorified in the midst of thee; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall have executed judgments in her, and shall be sanctified in her.

23 For I will send into her pestilence and blood in her streets; and the wounded shall fall in the midst of her by the sword upon her on every side; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor a piercing thorn of any that are round about them, that did have them in disdain; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

25 Thus saith the Lord GOD: When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the nations, then shall they dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob.

26 And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell safely; when I have executed judgments upon all those that have them in disdain round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.'

א וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.

ב בֶּן-אָדָם אֱמֹר לִנְגִיד צֹר כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, יַעַן גָּבַהּ לִבְּךָ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵל אָנִי--מוֹשַׁב אֱלֹהִים יָשַׁבְתִּי, בְּלֵב יַמִּים; וְאַתָּה אָדָם וְלֹא-אֵל, וַתִּתֵּן לִבְּךָ כְּלֵב אֱלֹהִים.

a reccomended by roscoe read:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

amethyst

02-11-2008, 12:43 AM

And keep in mind, The word satan means: Adversary, Accuser, etc, a quality of Character, there are many satans. HaSatan is a supra natural being. THE Satan.

I think I follow what you are saying here. That there are many "satans" but HaSatan is THE Satan. And Jesus was tempted by the Satan or HaSatan. Correct?

This is simliar to the scriptures saying that there are many "antichrists" (many false individuals who deny the Christ) but there will be one Antichrist, who will be be THE false Messiah who comes on the world scene, before the REAL Christ Jesus, the real Messiah returns.

But this doesn't explain about the female gender. Can you elaborate?

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 12:58 AM

I think I follow what you are saying here. That there are many "satans" but HaSatan is THE Satan. And Jesus was tempted by the Satan or HaSatan. Correct?

This is simliar to the scriptures saying that there are many "antichrists" (many false individuals who deny the Christ) but there will be one Antichrist, who will be be THE false Messiah who comes on the world scene, before the REAL Christ Jesus, the real Messiah returns.

But this doesn't explain about the female gender. Can you elaborate?

Yo Babe! I'm 'Loafin',,,, :D

hour or two,

Enjoy this lovely Chanteuse: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ca8gZod7ZM

May it be an evening star
Shines down upon you
May it be when darkness falls
Your heart will be true

You walk a lonely a road
Oh how far you are from home

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now

May it be the shadow's call
Will fly away
May it be you journey on
To light the day

When the night is overcome
You may rise to find the sun

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now
A promise lives within you now...

May it be an evening star
Shines down upon you
May it be when darkness falls
Your heart will be true

You walk a lonely a road
Oh how far you are from home

May it be the shadow's call
Will fly away
May it be your journey on
To light the day

When the night is all gone
You may rise to find the sun

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now.

Kindest Regards: Snoops

amethyst

02-11-2008, 01:50 AM

Yo Babe! I'm 'Loafin',,,, :D

hour or two,

Enjoy this lovely Chanteuse: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ca8gZod7ZM

May it be an evening star
Shines down upon you
May it be when darkness falls
Your heart will be true

You walk a lonely a road
Oh how far you are from home

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now

May it be the shadow's call
Will fly away
May it be you journey on
To light the day

When the night is overcome
You may rise to find the sun

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now
A promise lives within you now...

May it be an evening star
Shines down upon you
May it be when darkness falls
Your heart will be true

You walk a lonely a road
Oh how far you are from home

May it be the shadow's call
Will fly away
May it be your journey on
To light the day

When the night is all gone
You may rise to find the sun

Morni utli (Darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way

Morni alanti (Darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now.

Kindest Regards: Snoops

Thanks Snoops :) I'm loafing too....except I'm baking "loaves" whilst posting ;)

Is that Enya?

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 02:18 AM

The Divine Council Link-PDFs places YHWH at the correct echelon in the Cosmology of The Book. The Concordances and Lexicons provide the Hebrew or Greek words of what is read in the english Text. TYPE: Lucifer into Strongs Hebrew Dictionary:

Result of search for "lucifer":
1966 heylel hay-lale' from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer.

click on Root Word Link:1984

Result of search for "1984":
1947 howlelah ho-lay-law' feminine active participle of 1984; folly:--madness.

1948 howleluwth ho-lay-looth' from active participle of 1984; folly:--madness.
1966 heylel hay-lale' from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer.
1974 hilluwl hil-lool' from 1984 (in the sense of rejoicing); a celebration of thanksgiving for harvest:--merry, praise.
1984 halal haw-lal' a primitive root; to be clear (orig. of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify:--(make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.
1985 Hillel hil-layl' from 1984; praising (namely God); Hillel, an Israelite:--Hillel.
3094 Yhallel'el yeh-hal-lel-ale' from 1984 and 410; praising God; Jehallelel, the name of two Israelites:--Jehalellel, Jehalelel.
4110 mahalal mah-hal-awl' from 1984; fame:--praise.
8416 thillah teh-hil-law' from 1984; laudation; specifically (concretely) a hymn:--praise.
8417 toholah to-hol-aw' feminine of an unused noun (apparently from 1984) meaning bluster; braggadocio, i.e. (by implication) fatuity:--folly.

So the actual name of the being spoken of in Isayah is Hillel, as you may see from root definitions; gender ambiguous, but note: give in marriage.

In the Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros by Koelher & Baumgarttner, pg.235: A Beautiful Woman; A Man Praises His Wife; works praise a woman. Non-Ambiguous

The New Wilsons Old Testament Word Studies, pg.506: To be given in marriage, worthy to be praised.

The Phrase: Son of the Morning=Ben-Shachar

A Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon by Julian Furst pg.215
informs that the word: ben; when connected with abstract nouns, denotes possesion of a quality or virtue.

The Analytical Hebrew Lexicon by Benjamin Davidson, pg. 95 informs: usually translated son, but also children,and also pupils,both gender ambiguous.

Shachar

The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon, by Benjamin Davidson, pg. 709, inform Shachar translates to Light. 'dawn for light'; and metaphor: sense,reason, by the Law and Testimony, Light

Isayah 8:20

To the Law and to the Prohecy: If they speak not according to this word; it is because there is no Light in them. This is a most important verse as it is a: TEST FOR SPIRITS

Proverbs 6:23: ...the Commandments are a Lamp, the Law is Light.

So without any undo 'warm-up' exercises, we may make a case Isayah 'could say'. Hillel, Pupil of the Law.

All the Malakhs were instructed in YHWHs 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes.

Next: Yechetzqyah 28.

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW02-06/plan.htm

The name Lucifer in the Hebrew Dictionary of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is word #1966 from word #1984 and has the following meanings.

1966. ll@yh@ heylel, hay-lale/; from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:-lucifer.

1984. ll^h* halal, haw-lal'; a prim. root; to be clear (orig. of sound, but ususally of color); to shine; hence to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causat. to celebrate; also to stultify:—(make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine.

The word devil in the Greek Dictionary of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is word #1228 from word #1225 and is compared to word #7854.

1228. diabolozV diabolos, dee-ab/-ol-os; from 1225; a traducer; spec. Satan [comp. 7854]:—false accuser, devil, slanderer

1225. diaballw diaballo, dee-ab-al/-lo; from 1223 and 906; (fig.) to traduce:—accuse.

7854. /f*c* satan, saw-tawn/; from 7853; an opponent: espec. (with the art. pref.) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:—adversary, Satan, withstand.

In Mattithyah 7:22, the English word devil is used. This word devil comes from the Greek word daimonian, word #1140 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and has the same meaning as the Caananite word El which means deity, devil, god.

The Caananite word el, adopted by the Hebrew people, is word #410 in the Hebrew Dictionary of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

410. la@ 'el, ale; short. from 352; strength; as adj. mighty; espec. the Almighty (but used also of any deity):- God (god), x goodly, x great, idol, might(-y one), power, strong. Comp. names in "-el."

The plural form of the word el is elohim, word #430 which in turn is the plural of word #433.

430. myh!la$ 'elohiym, el-o-heem/; plur. of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:7angels, x exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), x (very) great, judges, x mighty.

433. H^w.la$ 'elowahh el-o-ah; rarely (short.)
H^.la$ 'eloahh, el-o/-ah; prob. prol. (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:—God, god. See 430.

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, page 817 tells us that a God (el or elohim) is nothing more than a demon.

...In the original sense, a demon may be defined broadly as an anonymous god - i.e., as a personification of one of another of those vaguer, less identifiable powers and influences that were believed to operate alongside the major deities and to condition particular circumstances and experiences. In Homer, e.g., "demon'' (daimwn) and "god'' (qeozV) are virtually interchangeable...

El and Elohim were the titles of pagan Canaanite Gods that were assimilated by our forefathers and used to replace Yahweh's Name. From this same source, we are plainly shown that the power behind these Gods are demons, and their leader Satan.

A. IN THE OT. 1. Daimonism, a Daimon, The Hebrew equivalent of "demon'' (daimon) in the original sense is simply la or <yhla ('elo-him), commonly rendered "god.''

We can clearly see that the previous words do not pertain to the Creator Whose Name is Yahweh. These words refer to deities who have made themselves Gods and Goddesses. Lucifer, the Gods, and many others are in opposition to Yahweh's 613 Laws. The very meanings of these words show us that these beings are adversaries to Yahweh the Creator.

YECHETZQYAH=May YHWH Strengthen. 28:

Biblical Absolutes; No Ambiguity:

Righteousness=Adherence to the Laws of YHWH

Sin=Transgressions of the Laws of YHWH.

The Bible is a mix of Literal. Metaphor, Similitude, Contextual, Allegorical. Textual Evidence. Forced Logic & Deductive Reasoning are useful. To establish a Scriptural Truth, at least two witnesses are required. The use of Verse must remain in Context of its' original intent.

12 'Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say unto him: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Thou seal most accurate, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty,

in this instance Isayah uses king of tyre as metaphor: Bigshot, Exalted. Perfect, something most Mortals are not. Beauty, usually a feminine quality. Handsome being tge masculine quality

13 thou wast in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the carnelian, the topaz, and the emerald, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the smaragd, and gold; the workmanship of thy settings and of thy sockets was in thee, in the day that thou wast created they were prepared

OK; who was in Yahwehs Garden, Eden? Tyre was a city on the Levant, Sea, nowheres near the Land Between the Rivers, where YHWHs Garden, Eden was. Timeline problem for the mortal king/prince. How was the prince/king of tyre in Eden?

Next: The Lovely, Precious Stones. From YHWHs own Treasury, surely the most magnificen t stones in this universe. Nice gift for a Bride. YHWH gives Metaphorical Breastplates of Armour, Swords, Wisdom to men. Yes He gives wisdom to women to, and they then obey His Laws. Let's see: Eden, Jewelry....Hmmmm...

14 Thou wast the far-covering cherub; and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire.
(contention of placement of scribes coma; in phrase: "and I set thee so)

Here, the mortal prince/king does not meet the Criteria of Position in this Verse. Covering Cherub; 'set thee so'; holy mtn. of YHWH; 'walked up and down in the midst of the Stones of Fire'.

The Covering Cherub refers to the Cherubim of the Ark, the Seat of the Most High, the outstretched wings holds YHWHs Tallit/Shawl which represent the Laws. Also some Translations say Annointed, inducted into a Position of Authority. In this case, The Annointed Covering Cherub sitting next to YHWH on the Holy Mountain, upholding the Laws.

THE GESENIUS HEBREW LEXICON, PG.414 DEFINES CHERUB: one who is near to YHWH, Ministers to Him, is admitted into His Presence.

The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon, by Benjamin Davidson, PG. 392 shows the word is derived from Hebrew Root Word: Rabab.

The Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon, by Benjamin Davidson, pg.753
she who has many children.

The phrase, 'I have set you so', as translated by The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, by Benjamin Davidson; page 678, derived from Hebrew word NATHAN: 'give woman to man as wife'. Which corresponds to her given name Hillyl.

After Yechetzqyah, Archaeological, Historic, Artistic and more Linquistic evidence will ensue. Hillel is the Queen of Heaven
Hang Fire:

1977

02-11-2008, 02:39 AM

Okay, now do you want to know something really weird? Robert Monroe confirmed that the Gnostic creation story is entirely accurate (http://www.gnostic.info/outofbody.html):

Someone, Somewhere (or both, in millions, or uncountable) requires, likes, needs, values, collects, drinks, eats, or uses as a drug (sic) a substance ident Loosh. (Electricity, oil, oxygen, gold, wheat, water, land, old coins, uranium.) This is a rare substance in Somewhere, and those who possess Loosh find it vital for whatever it is used for. Faced with this question of Supply and Demand (a universal law of Somewhere), Someone decided to produce it artificially, so to speak, rather than search for it in its “natural” form. He decided to build a Garden and grow Loosh.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=106142&postcount=22

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 03:41 PM

It was 'common knowledge' in the Middle East that YHWH had a Consort, known by dozens of names and titles. Ashera, Astarte,

Called by the locals the wife of Baal or EL, not a proper title for YHWH.

On a Cult Stand known as the Taanach Stand. YHWH is depicted as an invisible 'god' between two cherubim.

When one reads in the OT, that the Hebrews 'Built a grove, and it angered the Lord'. The reader may wish to type GROVE into the Hebrew

Dictionary.http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
result:
Result of search for "grove":
356 'Eylown ay-lone' or (shortened) ;Elown {ay-lone'}; or Eylon {ay- lone'}; from 352; oak-grove; Elon, the name of a place in Palestine, and also of one Hittite, two Israelites:--Elon.

358 'Eylown Beyth Chanan ay-lone' bayth-chaw-nawn' from 356, 1004, and 2603; oak-grove of (the) house of favor; Elon of Beth-chanan, a place in Palestine:--Elon-beth-hanan.
359 'Eylowth ay-loth' or mEylath {ay-lath'}; from 352; trees or a grove (i.e. palms); Eloth or Elath, a place on the Red Sea:--Elath, Eloth.
815 'eshel ay'-shel from a root of uncertain signification; a tamarisk tree; by extension, a grove of any kind:--grove, tree.
842 'asherah ash-ay-raw' or masheyrah {ash-ay-raw'}; from 833; happy; Asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same:-- grove. Compare 6253.
2133 Zeythan zay-thawn' from 2132; olive grove; Zethan, an Israelite:--Zethan.

What they were erecting was Obelisks, just like the ones at the Vatican, The City of London and Washington DC.

Ashera 'gets off' on ashera poles/obelisks-phallic type structures :rolleyes:

Result of search for "6253":
842 'asherah ash-ay-raw' or masheyrah {ash-ay-raw'}; from 833; happy; Asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same:-- grove. Compare 6253.

6252 `Ashtarowth ash-taw-roth' or bAshtaroth {ash-taw-roth'}; plural of 6251; Ashtaroth, the name of a Sidonian deity, and of a place East of the Jordan:--Asharoth, Astaroth. See also 1045, 6253, 6255.
6253 `Ashtoreth ash-to'reth probably for 6251; Ashtoreth, the Phoenician goddess of love (and increase):--Ashtoreth.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judith+M.+Hadley,+The+Cult+of+Asherah+in+Ancient+I srael+and+Judah:...-a094331631

Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess.

Cambridge: University Press, 2000. Pp. xvi + 262. Cloth, $64.95.

The goddess Asherah and her symbol, the asherah (lower case "a"), have generated much scholarly debate and publication in the last couple of decades, stimulated by the discovery in the 1970s of inscriptions at Khirbet el-Qom, near Hebron, and Kuntillet `Ajrud in northern Sinai referring to "Yahweh and his a/Asherah"and dating approximately to the ninth/eighth centuries BCE

. The debate centers on whether the word in question indicates a goddess, Asherah, the consort of the Israelite god Yahweh, denotes her symbol, or is simply emblematic

of Yahweh's presence in blessing. In this book, Judith Hadley re-examines these inscriptions together with the Biblical references and related artefacts such as plaques, cult-stands and female figurines.

In the first chapter, Hadley introduces the topic and provides a masterly and useful survey of books and doctoral dissertations on the subject over the last fifty years. She proposes that the word 'aserah in the First Testament refers occasionally to the goddess, but mostly to her symbol. Hadley then considers (chap. 2) the Canaanite texts from the city of Ugarit that mention the goddess Athirat (Canaanite th becomes sh in Hebrew) in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500-1200 BCE). There Athirat was the wife of the chief god, El, and mother of the gods. It is not possible to determine any direct link with the later Israelite Asherah, but throughout the entire ancient Near East there was the concept of a goddess who possessed the attributes of maternity and fertility manifested under different names and guises. Chapter 3 deals with the biblical references to the asherah/ Asherah; these do not yield to any easy consensus of interpretation. The author suggests that some verses indicate the goddess, but most refer to her symbol, a wooden stylized tree or pole.(obelisk) She detects a process by which the symbol became detached from the goddess and came to denote Yahweh's beneficent presence. By the books of Chronicles its connection with the goddess was forgotten.

The core of the book (chaps. 4 and 5) investigates the inscriptions at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet `Ajrud. The former inscription is difficult to read, but the author examined it personally and confirmed her preferred interpretation. The inscriptions invoke the blessing of Yahweh, Yahweh of Samaria and Yahweh of Teman and 'srth, literally "asherah-his." Since the possessive suffix

is not attached to personal names in classical Hebrew, the word most likely means the symbol, either representing Yahweh's consort or, if Asherah was forgotten, connoting his ability to preserve and protect. Hadley understands Kuntillet `Ajrud as a way station en route to the Gulf of Eilat, where travelers entreated the blessing of Yahweh and "his asherah." The three main inscriptions are on two large wine-jars. On the first wine-jar, the inscription is accompanied by three figures whom Hadley identifies as two representations of the Egyptian god of good fortune, Bes, and an accompanying lyre-player. She is correct in affirming that the figures have no connection with the inscription. On the same jar, a drawing of a stylized tree with two grazing

ibexes probably represents the goddess. The inscriptions testify to Yahweh's being worshiped with the asherah, a symbol that may have represented the goddess Asherah or presented her nurturing qualities.

In chapter 6 archeological discoveries possibly relating to

the goddess are considered, notably cult stands from Pella and Tanaach: the latter clearly displaying the tree and ibexes and a naked goddess between two lions, symbols of Asherah. Taanach was an Israelite site and, according to Hadley, the cult stand is sound evidence for the worship of Asherah in the tenth century BCE. The many little clay "pillar" figurines of females supporting prominent breasts, may be images of the maternal Asherah, and date mainly from seventh century BCE in Judah (chap. 7). A concluding chapter summarizes the work.

The technical parts of the book, notably the chapters on the inscriptions, should not deter any interested reader, for the overall narrative is clearly written. Unlike abundant Egypt where everything comes labeled, the iconic
and archeological evidence for Asherah is limited and sometimes ambiguous, the textual references uncertain. Hadley has done an excellent job of presenting and evaluating this evidence and the scholarship, while advancing the discussion in a substantial way. Asherah and her symbol are very well served by this book.
John Barclay Burns
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

So as anyone can see, the concept of a Consort of YHWH is not speculative conjecture on my part, rather it is supported by Scriptural, Historical and Archaeological evidence. :)

YHWHs Consort:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=yahwehs+consort&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

YHWHs Echelon in the Cosmology of gods:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

The Queen of Heaven
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300005&postcount=363

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300028&postcount=364

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300041&postcount=365

What does YHWH say about this?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=300045&postcount=366

So as has been presented already in this short period of the 'School of Thought' known as Gnosticism. A very Cosmopolitan theology/ideology, incorporating eastern and near eastern dogmas and doctrines. Notice the picture of the Hindu Cosmology that has been Posted.

Notice also how the christian faction of this 'school of thought' Thread. alters the Book of Yahweh. Doing away with YHWHs Laws and Usurping Yahshua/jesus, and transforming Him into a teacher of the 'mysteries'. Hmmmm..............

They all denigrate Yahweh and exalt the Queen of Heaven.............

So peeps, the 'burden' is always upon you. do not accept anything at 'face value'. research, research, research; then make an Informed Decision.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 07:36 PM

Hi Sir Snoops :),

You know I respect your diligent research and studies into the original interpretations of the scriptures.

But in regards to the interpretation that you have studied, you say that Satan was originally of the female gender- as you said " hillel" and was originally Yahweh's wife. You are sighting Ezekiel chapter 28 as the scripture reference.

Can you give further reference as to why you feel that Satan was originally of the female gender and was the wife of Yahweh?

Really! You and snoops make a right pair!

Both of you are trying to study what is essentially an esoteric phenomenon (gnosticism) with an exoteric methodology,
rather like taking a course in soil science to learn about the movement of the planets!

Let me share something with you that I have discovered from my inner work, if I may:

In the non-physical realms there is no such thing as gender as we know it (ie. beings that have complimentary genitalia for the purpose of reproduction).

Any form of reproduction is asexual and occurs more like cell division (although this analogy is still "wanting.")

Beings eminate from other beings.

The "parent spirit" is then as a mother is to a child (hence Theotokos) -
but still genderless.

"Progenitor" would be a better word than either "Mother" or "Father," though both have been used where "progenitor" would make the matter clearer to our understanding.

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 07:44 PM

Phildee3, if this is what 'Floats your Boat' "Sail with it"

But the Xtian Form of Gnosticism does not survive critical analysis, and you present a Case for the Mystery Schools usurping the persona of Yahshua Messiah and using Him to promote the Mystery Schools, the very antithesis of His Labours.

What you posit is Speculative Conjecture, the Intangible.

YHWH and His Laws are Tangible.

Read the Divine Council PDFs.

phildee3; I give more 'weight' to the Anthropomorphic and the coming Supra-Anthropomorphic Aspect of Life then you apparently do.

Thus the Wisdom of YHWHs Laws so that humans live together in peace and harmony.

YHWH is substantive solutions, you offer wisps of gossamer.

You consider YHWHs Creation imperfect and Flawed, as you perceive YHWH. Hey! Your entitled to your opinion no matter how inane I deem it to be. It's yours. own it.

But understand that when you denigrate YHWH and exalt the Queen of Heaven and Brahma, Krishna, Vishnu and all the rest. I KNOW where you are coming from.

And to usurp the persona of Yahshua Messiah and overlay Mystery School Dogma and Doctrines over Him is ignoble, to say the least.

So lets be perfectly clear. This must be answered concisely before I proceed.

What is your considered opinion of YHWHs 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes?

And what do you purport is Yahshua Messiahs position on YHWHs 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes?

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 07:46 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen: For your viewing pleasure. Notice the Gender of the Serpant.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/michelangelo/tempt.jpg

phildee3

02-11-2008, 07:59 PM

...the Xtian Form of Gnosticism does not survive critical analysis, and you present a Case for the Mystery Schools usurping the persona of Yahshua Messiah and using Him to promote the Mystery Schools, the very antithesis of His Labours.

The predominant form of the master's teaching was by imparting spiritual truths concealed in parables, -
often concluding with "those who have ears, let them hear."

Classic esoteric, mysticism!

element

02-11-2008, 08:00 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen: For your viewing pleasure. Notice the Gender of the Serpant.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/michelangelo/tempt.jpg

It's just a piece of art. Just like many sources paint the devil as a male.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 08:01 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen: For your viewing pleasure. Notice the Gender of the Serpant.

Another classic case of man creating gods in his own image!

amethyst

02-11-2008, 08:03 PM

Really! You and snoops make a right pair!

Both of you are trying to study what is essentially an esoteric phenomenon (gnosticism) with an exoteric methodology,
rather like taking a course in soil science to learn about the movement of the planets!

Let me share something with you that I have discovered from my inner work, if I may:

In the non-physical realms there is no such thing as gender as we know it (ie. beings that have complimentary genitalia for the purpose of reproduction).

Any form of reproduction is asexual and occurs more like cell division (although this analogy is still "wanting.")

Beings eminate from other beings.

The "parent spirit" is then as a mother is to a child (hence Theotokos) -
but still genderless.

"Progenitor" would be a better word than either "Mother" or "Father," though both have been used where "progenitor" would make the matter clearer to our understanding.

Please, Phildee can you refrain from making judgment calls? Snoops is an individual who is learning, as I am an individual who is learning, as Phildee is an individual who is learning. We are all on a learning curve. No one has all information, but the Spirit does reveal at certain times to individuals who are willing to learn.

I think I am understanding what you are saying, but what do you Phildee, think was the "sin' in the garden of Eden that caused God to be grieved? I have my own ideas, but what do you think?

phildee3

02-11-2008, 08:07 PM

What is your considered opinion of YHWHs 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes?

They are obsolete.

And what do you purport is Yahshua Messiahs position on YHWHs 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes?

Ditto.

Confirmed by both inner revelation and scripture.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 08:12 PM

...what do you Phildee, think was the "sin' in the garden of Eden that caused God to be grieved?

That caused their creator, YHVH, to be grieved; -
disobedience.

amethyst

02-11-2008, 08:13 PM

That caused their creator, YHVH, to be grieved; -
Disobedience.

Do you think the disobedience was just more than eating a "forbidden apple" from a forbidden tree?

phildee3

02-11-2008, 08:18 PM

Do you think the disobedience was just more than eating a "forbidden apple" from a forbidden tree?

The apple and the tree are metaphors for much more, of course,
but even if it had have been literal, that would have done it.

YHVH is an angry, jealous god.
To violate part of his law is to violate the whole!

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 09:20 PM

The apple and the tree are metaphors for much more, of course,
but even if it had have been literal, that would have done it.

YHVH is an angry, jealous god.
To violate part of his law is to violate the whole!

Yes they are, YHWH Loves us more then you do

1: The Laws are not obsolete nor 'done away with'. Your position is unsupported by any Scripture.

2: your 'inner revelations' are deceptions by the Queen of Heaven. Support your assertion of Yahshua Messiahs Position with at least Two Verses. I can provide Hundreds of Verses that Yahshua Upheld and Taught every Law of Yahweh. You are aware Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles were Teaching from the Old Testament, The Laws and the Prophets, and were Amplifying the Original Message and expanding it to all Gentiles. Acts 10; Cornelus, the Roman Centurion.

Interesting how you share the Vaticans positions as concerns the Laws, and I am sure, His weekly Sabbath, and yearly Holy Days. No day of rest for you? Give Thank, Recharge, Recalibrate? If so, is there a 'usual' time yoy 'relax' weekly?

I will scrutinize the Textual and Contextual Integrity of your proffered Verses

phildee3

02-11-2008, 09:35 PM

Anthropomorphic to SupraAnthropomorphic

As I said, -
gods made in man's image,

and I thought you said that god created man.

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 09:50 PM

As I said, -
gods made in man's image,

and I thought you said that god created man.

Most Cordial Felicitations; Phildee3:

1:you thought wrong, I have said: Yahweh created man, Yahweh is not a god, He is: SPECIES UNIQUE, all the gods are second Tier or lower..

Before Yahweh created man, He created this Universe, and as scripture said. All the heavens. (a non specified quantity)

contrary to your mocking insinuations, the study of the Anthrpomorphic to SupraAnthrpomorphic aspect leads to a Fuller, More Robust Cognisance of the Spiritual Realm, which is PURE.

So the Anthropomorphic Aspect is very important. For instance the MOST COMPLEX OBJECT IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE is your Brain/Mind Complex.

Now Scripturally, which I read Literally, Textually, Contextually, Allegorically, Metaphorically and as Similitudes.

Yahweh is described as having arms, legs, head, mouth, so on.

Humankind was made likewise, image, to become in His Likeness, keeping His Laws, so that when we evolve to the SupraAnthropomorphic Level, Inheriting and Inhabiting the Universe, we will not be creating the problems that beset Humans now.

The Tree of Life

Phildee3:what is your position on the theorys of: Karma and reincarnation?

Thank you.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 10:08 PM

The Laws are not obsolete nor 'done away with'. Your position is unsupported by any Scripture.

Matthew 22:22-24
"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
(my italics).

Working on the Sabbath is an obsolete law to a Christian, health care worker.

Jesus healed on the sabbath and was rebuked by YHVH worshippers for violating the old law.
Matthew ch. 12

"IF YOU FOLLOW THE ISRAELITE LAW, CHRIST HAS BECOME USELESS TO YOU" (Gal.5:3,4)

I'm not saying that the old law is useless if you have not accepted Christ, it is only "done away with" for those who have.

Perhaps your YHVH will look favorably on you if you watch someone bleed to death on the sabbath.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 10:17 PM

Yahweh is described as having arms, legs, head, mouth, so on.

...and a long, white beard
and a big stick to spank you with?

Humankind was made likewise, image, to become in His Likeness,

...to beat our kids and throw them into the fire when they're bad?

No, seriously, though -

He is spirit.
He made in his image as spirits.
Microcosms of the macrocosm.

It is us who have anthropomorphised him.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 10:21 PM

what is your position on the theorys of: Karma and reincarnation?

I won't give such strong meat to one who is still learning to digest milk.

You've been eating alot of it lately and it really doesn't agree with you.

snoopsnuffleopagus

02-11-2008, 10:52 PM

Matthew 22:22-24
"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
(my italics).

Mattithyah=Gift of YHWH 36-40

36: Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the Law? (of the 613)

37: Yahshua said to him. You must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart, and with all your mind, and all your might.

38: This is the first and greatest commandment.

39: And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself(this means all peoples)

40: On these two Commandments hang,(depend), all the Laws and the Prophets.

What we witness here is unparrelled Brilliance. YHWHs 613 Laws fit into 10 Commandments and then into Two Commandments. The 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes provide the specificity of day to day life, and protects the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Individual, thus the group. The Laws prevent creation and dissemination of diseases and emotional imbalance, just to mention a few benefits.

Working on the Sabbath is an obsolete law to a Christian, health
care worker.
Jesus healed on the sabbath and was rebuked by YHVH worshippers for violating the old law.
Matthew ch. 12

I too have laboured in the Health Care Service, vital, life sustaining work MUST continue. Healthworkers/Fire/Police Services.

It is YHWHs Intention that there is no Commercial Business Pursuits. No Discos, No Bars, No Shopping Malls, Restaurants, bowling alleys, cinemas etc. The Talmudists go crazy with these Laws and make a mess of them. Consider phildee3; a Prohibitory Law is: Do not kindle a fire on the Sabbath.

This means simply, one day a week, on YHWHs weekly Sabbath, let nothing anger you for 24 hours. That may spread out through the week. The Talmudists make rules about minutia concerning 3D fires. Clue: YHWH doesn't want you or your family cold. YHWHs Laws are your ultimate friend

"IF YOU FOLLOW THE ISRAELITE LAW, CHRIST HAS BECOME USELESS TO YOU" (Gal.5:3,4)

Galatians 5:

1: Therefore stand fast in the Liberty by which Messiah has made us free, and do not become entangled with the Yoke of Bondage again(Yoke of sin, sin is transgressions of Law))

2: Behold! I, Shaul, testify to you, that if you left yourself be circumcised, will this not benefit you as a saint? (saint, one who keeps YHWHs Laws)
3: And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised: this is your promise to keep the whole Law(circumcision is a Sign between YHWH and His People)

4: You, who by Law were once justified by the undeserved pardon of Messiah, if you have abolished this pardon yourself- you are fallen!

The Law is Spiritual, it teaches Love for one another.

14: For Truly, everything in the Law through the plan, has been accomplished through this: You will love your neighbor as yourself.

Also, 'not one Yodh or Tittle will pass from the Law UNTIL ALL THINGS ARE MADE PERFECT and certainly you can agree All things are NOT perfect

I'm not saying that the old law is useless if you have not accepted Christ, it is only "done away with" for those who have.

Perhaps your YHVH will look favorably on you if you watch someone bleed to death on the sabbath.

This type of salacious remark is both vulgar and profane. I too have laboured in the Health Care Service, and there is a Sabbath clause for such neccessary work. Have you even read the Book of Yahweh? This is outrageous. 'The Sabbath is made for the man, not man for yhe Sabbath', those who rebuked Yahshua Messiah were most likely Talmudists. Not Yahwists. YHWHs intention is not for commercial business. Work 6 days a week, loaf on one.

phildee3

02-11-2008, 11:24 PM

This type of salacious remark is both vulgar and profane.

I too have laboured in the Health Care Service, and there is a Sabbath clause for such neccessary work. Have you even read the Book of Yahweh?

Several of them. Which one?
I'm glad to hear that one of them has that clause.

What of the ones that don't?
How many YHVHs are there with different laws?
I was a goy for an orthodox jewish family once. Lovely people but totally misguided, imo.
I would spend all day, every Saturday, at their house.
In exchange for a fabulous dinner, good times with the kids, chanting their prayers with them (I particularly liked the one about the moon - I learned alot from them) I would do all the things that they thought they would go to hell for if they did - like light the fire and keep it going, turn lights (and all electric appliances) on and off, and all kinds of odd jobs.

It was so bonkers, it was funny. I loved it!

Except for the arguments that I would have privately, out back, when I'd light Pete's fag for him (!) about watching someone bleed to death - which he said he would have to do.

Yes, I agree, vulgar and profane in the extreme!

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 12:22 AM

yes, the service you performed was that of a ''Shabatgoyim', a gentile to do the work.
It's Talmudic, the Talmudists do not understand YHWH, hence the murder of Yahshua Messiah. It is also a Law of the Torah that the servants also have the Sabbath as rest. YHWHs intention are peeps prepare for the weekly and yearly sabbaths so that they are joyful, except for the Day of Atonement.

Yahshua Messiah is the perfect example of a Human upholding YHWHs Laws. You are aware Yahshua is Hebrew, a Yahdaim, like His mother and father, who also kept the Laws perfectly and taught them to Yahshua, as a Commandment of the Law instructs.

As a Health Care Worker you must be aware we are in a Post AntiBiotic Era. Medical Science has not kept pace with the creation of new diseases and mutations of existing diseases. YHWHs Laws prevent these diseases from being created in the first place.

As the baby boomers age, the bill comes due for our licentious behaviour, and the bill must be paid in coin we do not have.

Heart Disease, a large percentage of heart disease has as an underlying causal factor: Chlymidia, which takes decades to weaken the heart. And just last night, I was overhearing a news program medical report: A teen or young adolescent taking just 10 'hits' of Cocaine will have serious heart problems in their 50s, and 60s,.

Solomons Proverb: As a swallow alights on a branch, a curse causeless does not come.

As for your 'personal revelation, they are a dime a dozen. You did not apply the Biblical Test to whatever spirit, force or energy you interacted with.

Are you aware of how many individual 'Personal Revelations' there have been? With many conflicting ideologies.

Are you aware of a National Revelation? Where several million People had a Spiritual Revelation together, simultaneously?

I have Posted this several times, and have not received one comment. perhaps you will be the first. and keep in mind: YHWH is a Species Unique, thus the Unique Revelation. :)

http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp
What support is there for the claim that God spoke to all the Jewish people at the foot of Mount Sinai?

Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, "God gave the Torah to Moses."

And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? "Worshipping the Golden Calf."

Correct answers -- but NOT according to the Bible.

The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille's classic film, "The Ten Commandments." Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It's a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.

The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah's claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.

[Moses told the Israelites]: 'Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children's children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]...

God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)

'You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire.' (Deut. 4:32-36)

Moses called all of Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today -- learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us -- we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire.' (Deut. 5:1-4)

The Torah claims that the entire Jewish nation heard God speak at Sinai, an assertion that has been accepted as part of their nation's history for over 3,000 years.

DeMille's mistake is such a big deal because the Jewish claim of national revelation, as opposed to individual revelation, is the central defining event that makes Judaism different than every other religion in the world.

How so?

HISTORY AND LEGENDS

Two types of stories are part of any national heritage.

The first kind is legends. Included in this category is George Washington's admission to chopping down the cherry tree, along with his statement, "I cannot tell a lie." Johnny Appleseed planting apple trees across America with his discarded apple cores is another legend.

Then there is history. For example, George Washington was the first president of the United States. William the Conqueror led the Battle of Hastings in 1066 in which Harold, King of England, was killed. The Jews of Spain were expelled from their country in 1492, the year Christopher Columbus set sail.

What is the difference between legend and history?

A legend is an unverified story. By their very nature legends are unverifiable because they have very few eyewitnesses. Perhaps little George did chop down the cherry tree. We can't know if it happened. This does not mean that the legend is necessarily false, only that it is unverifiable. No one thinks legends are facts, therefore they are not accepted as reliable history.

History, however, is comprised of events we know actually happened. It is reliable because we can determine if the claimed event is true or false through a number of ways. One key to verification is the assertion that large numbers of eyewitnesses observed the specific event.

Why is the number of claimed original witnesses a principal determining factor in making historical accounts reliable? This can be understood through looking at the nature of the following series of claims and weighing their levels of credibility. The nature of the claim itself can often determine its degree of believability.

THE BELIEVABILITY GAME

Gauge the level of credibility of the following scenarios.

Some claims are inherently unverifiable. For example, would you believe me if I told you the following:

Scenario #1:

"Last week after dinner, I went for a walk through the forest near my house. Suddenly everything was awash in a tremendous light and God appeared to me, designating me as His prophet. He told me to announce this revelation to you at this time."

Believable?

In theory this could have happened. It doesn't seem likely, but you don't know I'm lying. Would you choose to believe me?

Without any substantiating evidence, why choose to believe me? A foolish move, indeed.

Scenario #2:

Would you believe me if I told you the following:

"Last night while I was eating dinner with my family, the room started to suddenly shake and God's booming voice was heard by all of us. He designated me as His prophet and commanded me to announce this revelation."

Believable?

This could have happened too. If I were to bring in my family to confirm the story it would be more believable than the first story. You certainly don't know if I'm lying.

Would you believe me? Would you fork over $10,000 dollars if I told you God commanded you to do so?

No way. There is still not enough evidence to trust my claim -- because it is very possible that my family is lying.

Scenario #3:

There is another type of claim that you can know is false. For example, would you believe me if I told you this:

"Do you remember what happened 10 minutes ago just as you began reading this article? Remember how the room started shaking, then the ceiling opened up to the skies, and you and I together heard God's booming voice come down and say 'Thou shalt hearken to the voice of Nechemia Coopersmith for he is my prophet!' And then the room went back to normal and you continued reading. You remember that, don't you?"

Is this believable?

This kind of claim is completely different. The two previous scenarios at least had the possibility of being true. You chose not to accept them because they were unverifiable. However this third scenario is impossible to believe. I'm claiming something happened to you that you know did not happen. Since you didn't experience it, you know I'm lying. I cannot convince you of something that you yourself know didn't happen.

This first type of claim -- that something happened to someone else -- is unverifiable, because you do not know for certain that the claim is a lie. Therefore it is possible for a person to decide to accept the claim as true if he really wanted to and take that leap of faith.

However, the other type of claim -- that something happened to you -- you know if it is inherently false. People do not accept patently false assertions, especially those that carry significant consequences.

SINAI: AN IMPOSSIBLE HOAX

So far we have seen two types of claims -- one is unverifiable and the other is inherently false.

Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?

Let's imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, "We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God's voice from the fire..."

Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?

"Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you're lying because you're claiming an event happened to us that we know didn't happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!"

If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.

REVELATION CLAIMED LATER IN HISTORY

Perhaps a hoax such as this could have been attempted at a later period in history. Perhaps the claim of national revelation did not originate at Sinai, but began, for example, 1,000 years after the event was said to have occurred. Perhaps the leader Ezra, for example, appears on the scene, introducing a book purported to be written by God and given to a people who stood at Sinai a long time ago.

Could someone get away with this kind of hoax? For example, would you believe the following:

"I want to let you in on a very little-known, but true fact. In 1794 over 200 years ago, from May until August, the entire continent of North America mysteriously sank under the sea. For those four months, the whole continent was submerged and somehow all animal, plant and human life managed to adapt to these bizarre conditions. Then, on August 31, the entire continent suddenly floated up to the surface and life resumed to normal."

Is there a possibility that I'm telling the truth? Do you know for a fact that it is a lie? After all, it happened so long ago, how do you know it didn't happen? Maybe you learned about in school and just forgot about it.

You know North America did not sink hundreds of years ago for one simple reason: If it did, you would have heard about it. An event so unique and amazing, witnessed by multitudes of people would have been known, discussed, and passed down, becoming a part of history. The fact that no one has heard of it up until now means you know the story is not true, making it impossible to accept.

An event of great significance with a large number of eyewitnesses cannot be perpetuated as a hoax. If it did not happen, everyone would realize it is false since no one ever heard about it before. Thus, if such an event was indeed accepted as part of history, the only way to understand its acceptance is that the event actually happened.

INTRODUCED LATER?

Let's assume for the moment that the revelation at Mount Sinai is really a hoax; God did not write the Torah. How did the revelation at Sinai become accepted for thousands of years as part of our nation's history?

Imagine someone trying to pull off such a hoax. An Ezra figure shows up one day holding a scroll.

"Hey Ezra - what are you holding there?"
"This is the Torah."
"The Torah? What's that?"
"It's an amazing book filled with laws, history and stories. Here, take a look at it."
Very nice, Ezra. Where did you get this?"
"Open up the book and see what it says. This book was given thousands of years ago to your ancestors. Three million of them stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak! God appeared to everyone, giving His law and instruction."

How would you respond to such a claim?

The people give Ezra a quizzical look and say,

"Wait a second, Ezra. Something is a little fishy here. Why haven't we ever heard of this before? You're describing one of the most momentous events that could ever happen, claiming that it happened to our ancestors - and we never heard about it?"

"Sure. It was along time ago. Of course you never heard about it."

"C'mon Ezra! It's impossible that our grandparents or great-grandparents would not have passed down the most significant event in our nation's history to some of the people! How could it be that no one has heard about this up until now?! You're claiming all my ancestors, the entire nation, 3 million people heard God speak and received a set of instructions called the Torah, and none of us have heard about it?! You must be lying."

If one cannot pull off a hoax with regard to a continent sinking, so too one cannot pull off a hoax to convince an entire people that their ancestors experienced the most unique event in all of human history.

Everyone would know it's a lie.

For thousands of years, Sinai was accepted as central to Jewish history. How else can this be explained?

Given that people will not fall for a hoax they know is a lie, how could national revelation have been not only accepted -- but faithfully followed with great sacrifice by the vast majority of Jews?

The only way a people would accept such a claim is if it really happened. If Sinai did not happen, everyone would know it's a lie and it would never have been accepted. The only way one can ever claim a nation experienced revelation and have it accepted is if it is true.

SINAI: THE ONLY CLAIM OF NATIONAL REVELATION

Throughout history, tens of thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that God spoke to him or her. All religions that base themselves on some type of revelation share essentially the same beginning: a holy person goes into solitude, comes back to his people, and announces that he has experienced a personal revelation where God appointed him to be His prophet.

Would you believe someone who claims to have received a personal communication from God appointing him or her as God's new prophet?

Maybe He did. Then again, maybe He didn't. One can never know. The claim is inherently unverifiable.

Personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion since one can never know if it is indeed true. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Maimonides writes:

Israel did not believe in Moses, our teacher, on account of the miracles he performed. For when one's faith is based on miracles, doubt remains in the mind that these miracles may have been done through the occult and witchcraft...

What then were the grounds of believing him? The revelation on Sinai which we saw with our own eyes, and heard with our own ears, not having to depend on the testimony of others... (Mishna Torah - Foundations of Torah 8:1)

A BOLD PREDICTION

There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given this inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn't they present the strongest, most believable claim possible -- i.e. national revelation! It's far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person's word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.

Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?

Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims -- that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?

Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!

'You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?' (Deut. 4:32-33)

Let's consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.

How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.

However, aside from the Jewish claim of Mount Sinai, it is a fact that no other nation has ever claimed such a similar national revelation.

Let's summarize two primary questions:

1. Out of 15,000 known religions in recorded history, why is Judaism the only one that claims national revelation, the best of all claims? Why do all other religions base themselves on the inherently weak assertion of personal revelation?

2. If Judaism's claim is indeed an example of a successful hoax that falsely asserts national revelation, the author just got away with passing off the best possible claim, and others will certainly follow suit. Why then would he predict that no one else will ever make a similar claim, a prediction he knows he cannot foresee, and whose outcome is likely to be the exact opposite?

There is one simple answer to both questions. A national revelation -- as opposed to personal revelation -- is the one lie you cannot get away with. It is one event you cannot fabricate. The only way to make this claim is if it actually happened.

If the claim is true, the people will believe it because they are agreeing to something they already know. Either they personally witnessed it, or their ancestors collectively passed down the account as part of their nation's accepted history.

If the claim is false, it's like trying to convince you that God spoke to you or your parents and somehow you never heard of it. No one would ever accept such a claim.

Therefore no other religion has ever made the best of all claims, because it is the one claim that can only be made if it is true. One cannot pass national revelation off as a hoax.

When inventing a religion, the originator must resort to personal revelation, despite its inherent weakness, since it is a claim that is unverifiable. The originator can hope to find adherents willing to take a leap of faith and accept his or her religion. After all, no one can ever know it is a lie. [Of course, no one can know if it's true either.] This simply cannot work with national revelation since it's the one claim that everyone will know is a lie.

Only Judaism can claim national revelation since the Jewish people is the only nation in the history of mankind who ever experienced it.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the other major religions of the world both accept the Jewish revelation at Sinai, including the Five Books of Moses in their Bible, and hold the Sinai revelation as a key component of their religion.

When starting their own religions, why did they build upon the Jewish claim? Why didn't they just deny the revelation ever happened?

The answer is that they knew that if national revelation can never be fabricated; so too, its validity can therefore never be denied.

Now it is understandable how the Author of the Torah can confidently predict that there will never be another claim of national revelation in history.

Because only God knew it would happen only once, as it did -- at Sinai over 3,000 years ago.

by all means phildee3, embrace whatever cosmopolitan cosmology of gods and their ways you so desire.

your denigration of YHWH, Yahshua Messiah, The Patriarchs, the Prophets and Apostles and the Laws is ignoble, and speaks clearly asto your level of actual spiritual awakening.

also you must now understand Yechetzqyah 28 was speaking of a Supranatural being, not the mortal prince/king of tyre? Do you want to exercise that? Do you say the prince was in Eden, sitting next to and Ministering to YHWH?

you're due a refund ;^)

phildee3

03-11-2008, 12:41 PM

The Laws are not obsolete nor 'done away with'.

YHWHs 613 Laws fit into 10 Commandments and then into Two Commandments.

So which of the following would I be violating if I cut my hair in front of my ears, or kindle flame on the sabbath?

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,
or
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
(Matthew 22:22-23).

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 01:52 PM

Hello phildee3:

I have already Posted about 'Kindling a Flame'-'Igniting a Fire'; on the Sabbath, the Non-Talmudic read this as One Day a week, on YHWHs weekly Sabbath, Friday sundown until Saturday sundown, let nothing incite you to anger. when a human can invoke self-discipline and self-restraint, they can control how they react to impetus. So one day a week, let absolutely nothing anger you, the discipline one learns from that may translate into employing this discipline at other times during the week,

Let's be perfectly clear: Yahshua Messiah 'said' the greatest Commandment is to love Yahweh our Father with all our heart, all our mind and all our might, and the second is like that. Love your neighbours as yourself.

This shows the status of all humans. Love your neighbour like you love YHWH, with all your heart, all your mind and all your might.

Yahshua tells us to love our enemies, those that oppress us.

He also tells us how easy it is to love those that love us, He says loving those who don't love you is even more impressive.

Those who were not born into a Torah observing family, learn the Laws piecemeal, we are not expected to keep all 613 Laws at once.

And as you must be aware YHWHs plan has two ressurrections. The first for those who understood and were with his programme, the second for everybody else. At that time proper training will ensue with authentic teachers, with ample time(decades) to learn of the Ways of Yahweh.

Anthropomorphic>SupraAnthropomorphic>Spiritual

This Universe, our Planet; Earth, and All the Critters and our human bodies are astonishing creations.

At this time we are utilising a small percentage of our potential, particularly Mental potential.

what can a child do with a Ferrari? the child can sit in the seat and go Vroom. Vroom, Vroom, yank the steering wheel back and forth and flip some switches.

Never accesing or utilising the potential of the Ferrari.

back soon

eternal_spirit

03-11-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopsnuffleopagus http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=596101#post596101)

The Laws are not obsolete nor 'done away with'.

YHWHs 613 Laws fit into 10 Commandments and then into Two Commandments.

So how come in the New Testament that Catholics etc teach it doesn't say thou shall genitaly mutilate your babies and is not part of Catholic Christianity ritual.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=596988&postcount=105

Your Judaism is from previous pagan religious blood rites.

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 02:20 PM

I am not discusiing Judaism.

I am discussing Yahwism, big difference.

Until you actually read a Bible you will never have a Contextual understanding.

Is it your plan, desire to destroy this Thread with your Rabid Bigotry?

What is your opinion of the National Revelation?

eternal_spirit

03-11-2008, 02:23 PM

What about the commandment thou shall not kill.

Yahweh then commands his followers go and kill every man woman and child of gentiles in the local area etc etc.

Yahweh sucks

eternal_spirit

03-11-2008, 02:24 PM

phildee3

03-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
now hear the word of YHVH.

Written in books,
dem stuffy, old, decaying books.

Where is the life??

It's not in "history" or "law,"
vengeance or retribution,
punishment and fear.

It pumps the blood, pulsating through one's veins
and inspires the mind with flashes of vision -
glimpses of eternal truth,
lifting the soul to oneness with the source
which the creator of decaying flesh once fashioned
into fantastic, complex forms - now dead -
but rising, like the phoenix, soul transcends
in freedom from the bonds of law,
- and stuffy books.

The eye of the eternal soul now sees
what analytic brain and pen once sought,
and finding - through the letting go
of concepts lost through clinging to
and passing on as teachings, laws, commandments -
all weighed down by desperate need to hold,
but freeing now the dove of mind
imagination soars into the all-that-is,
and, for the first time, truly knows.

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 03:14 PM

.

Where is the life??

An excellent reference Tool which aides Biblical Studies is the Strongs Concordance, about 20 dollars.

They Collate and List every word in the Bible, so you may take a word like LAW, look it up in the Concordance, and they show you every sentence that the word is used Both OT & NT. There is also Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries so that you may read the respective definitions.

In this case we will examine the word: LIFE; cited many hundreds of times in both the OT & NT.

I wll provide examples from the NT.

Mattithyah=Gift of Yahweh 19:17

But He said to him: Why do you question Me about righteousness? There is only One Who is the standard of perfection, and that is Yahweh; so if you would enter into LIFE, keep the Laws of Yahweh.

19:21 Yahshua said to him: If you want to come to the perfection of Yahweh, go and sell of what you have, and give your third tithe for the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven; and you will be walking in YHWHs Ways, and following Me.

Revelation 22:14 Testimony of Yahshua:Blessed are those who keep His Laws, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Two uncontestable Biblical Absolutes. Unequivical and Unambiguous.

Righteousness is Keeping and Upholding the Laws of YHWH.

Sin is Transgression of one or more of these Laws.

Testimony of Yahshua Messiah:

Yahshua Keeps and Teaches Keeping the Laws of YHWH

Mattithyah 5:17-20

17: Do not even think that I have come to destroy the Laws or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy them, but to establish them.

18: For truly I say to you; unless heaven and earth passes away, one yodh-the smallest of the letters-will in no way pass from the Law, until all things are made perfect.

19: Whosoever, therefore, will break one of the least of these Laws, and will teach men so, he will be called the least in the Kingdom of Yahweh; but whosoever will do and teach them, the same will be called great in the Kingdom of Yahweh.

20: For I say to you: Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh.

This is telling us how the scribes and Pharisees have altered and changed the Laws with human traditions, based upon venal desires and suppositions and conjecture.

Biblicaly speaking, how does one become perfect?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=454710&postcount=556

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 03:26 PM

Yahweh is the god of the Jews which is Judaism so what the hell are you on about.

First and Formost: Yahweh is not a 'god'; He is a 'Species Unique'.

Prior to working with the Hebrew Tribes, Yahweh worked with Individuals, Abel being the First Righteous Priest.

Then He worked with a group, the 12 Hebrew Tribes, and with the advent of Yahshua Messiah He works with any Human that He draws to Himself.

Cornelus the Roman Centurion Acts 10.

It is a Multi-Phase plan.

Patience is a Virtue, the answer to your other query will be serviced in due time.

You have many 'Disparage The Jews' Threads already going, I suggest you go occupy yourself there.

This is a Subject which requires an Unbiased Examination, so that eliminates you.

Unless you have completely read the Bible, you will not be able to bring a truly informed opinion to this matter.

What about the National Revelation?

phildee3

03-11-2008, 03:35 PM

You have many 'Disparage The Jews' Threads already going, I suggest you go occupy yourself there.

Really, es!
This one is entitled "Yahwism."

Can't you read??

phildee3

03-11-2008, 03:38 PM

Yahweh is the god of the Jews which is Judaism

How is this statement disparaging to Jews?

or this:

"Judaism is from previous pagan religious blood rites."

This is, rather, disparaging to paganism.
Not all pagans practiced blood rites.

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by phildee3
.

Where is the life??

An excellent reference Tool which aides Biblical Studies is the Strongs Concordance, about 20 dollars.

They Collate and List every word in the Bible, so you may take a word like LAW, look it up in the Concordance, and they show you every sentence that the word is used Both OT & NT. There is also Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries so that you may read the respective definitions.

In this case we will examine the word: LIFE; cited many hundreds of times in both the OT & NT.

I wll provide examples from the NT.

Mattithyah=Gift of Yahweh 19:17

But He said to him: Why do you question Me about righteousness? There is only One Who is the standard of perfection, and that is Yahweh; so if you would enter into LIFE, keep the Laws of Yahweh.

19:21 Yahshua said to him: If you want to come to the perfection of Yahweh, go and sell of what you have, and give your third tithe for the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven; and you will be walking in YHWHs Ways, and following Me.

Revelation 22:14 Testimony of Yahshua:Blessed are those who keep His Laws, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Two uncontestable Biblical Absolutes. Unequivical and Unambiguous.

Righteousness is Keeping and Upholding the Laws of YHWH.

Sin is Transgression of one or more of these Laws.

Testimony of Yahshua Messiah:

Yahshua Keeps and Teaches Keeping the Laws of YHWH

Mattithyah 5:17-20

17: Do not even think that I have come to destroy the Laws or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy them, but to establish them.

18: For truly I say to you; unless heaven and earth passes away, one yodh-the smallest of the letters-will in no way pass from the Law, until all things are made perfect.

19: Whosoever, therefore, will break one of the least of these Laws, and will teach men so, he will be called the least in the Kingdom of Yahweh; but whosoever will do and teach them, the same will be called great in the Kingdom of Yahweh.

20: For I say to you: Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh.

This is telling us how the scribes and Pharisees have altered and changed the Laws with human traditions, based upon venal desires and suppositions and conjecture.

It is an ABSOLUTE FACT: That Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew, was raised by Hebrew Parents who upheld the Laws and taught the Laws of Yahweh to Yahshua.

It is an ABSOLUTE FACT: Yahshua Messiah Upheld and Taught the Laws of Yahweh, without interpreting them through a Lens of mortal traditions, speculations and conjectures.

What is your opinion of these Facts?

The Scriptures themselves provide definitive Contextual Evidence to place the Laws in their intended Context, thus aiding 'Enlightenment', personal revelations as guided by YHWHs Holy Spirit, our Helper. The Spirit will not inhabit a human unless the human is making an honest and sincere effort to understand the Laws and Prophets.

I understand, and you both should bear in mind, you are utilising a very tiny amount of your potential cognitive power. Your Bias is a 'wall' between you and your understanding of Yahshua Messiah.

The time for being childish and playing childish games is over, this subject requires an Adult examination of the Facts.

Your Opinions of: The National Revelation; Yahshua Messiah being Hebrew and Upholding and Teaching the Laws of Yahweh?

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 05:05 PM

Love Your Enemies, hey! there's a concept.......hmmmmm

Mattithyah=Gift of Yahweh 5:43-48

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES

43: You have heard that it has been said: You will Love your brother-but hate your enemies(an addition by the pharisees)

44: But I say to you; Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do well to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

45: That you might be sons; children, of your Father in Heaven; for He makes His sun rise over the wicked and the righteous, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust.

46: For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the publicans do the same?

47: And if you only greet your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the publicans do the same?

48: Therefore become perfect, just as your Father Who is in Heaven is perfect.

Perspective; Circumspection

What is 'perfection' Biblicaly speaking:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=454710&postcount=556

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 05:27 PM

Controversy-The Question of Circumcision

Acts 15:

Now certain men who came down from Yahdah(judea) taught the brothers, and said: Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Mosheh(Moses), you cannot be saved.

And since Shaul(Paul) and Barnabas had no small understanding and many questions for them, it was decided that Shaul and Barnabas and some of the brothers should go up to Yerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

When they had been sent on their way by the called out ones, they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, telling of the conversion of the GENTILES; and they caused great rejoicing among the brothers.

And when they had come to Yerusalem, they were welcomed by the called out ones, the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that Yahweh had done through them.

But some of those in the faith who were from the sect of the Pharisees stood up, saying; Not only are they required to be circumcised, they are also to be told to keep legal customs besides(in addition) the Laws given through Mosheh!

so the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

And after there had been a long debate, Kepha(peter) rose up, and said to them; Men, brothers! You know that quite awhile ago Yahweh made a decision among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the words of the message; the Law and the Prophets, and so believe.

And Yahweh, Who knows the hearts, testified to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us;

And made no difference between us and them, purifyiing their hearts by faith.

Now, therefore, why do you test Yahweh, to place a yoke(burden; rabbinical legal customs, not YHWHs Laws) on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers, nor we, were able to bear?

But rather; through the undeserved pardon of Yahshua Messiah, our hope is to be saved accordingly, as well as they also.(under the Laws of YHWH, the majority of us are sinners, thus under the death penalty. Yahshua took upon Himself every sin ever comitted by humans. The unblemished Lamb)

Then all the multitude remained silent, and listened as Barnabas and Shaul told of all the signs and wonders Yahweh had worked through them among the Gentiles.

After they had finished speaking, Yaaqob answered, saying; men and brothers, listen to me.

Yahwehs Prophets have declared from the beginning how Yahweh will visit the nations, to take out of them a people for His Name.

And to this the words of the Prophets agree, as it is written:
After this, I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David that has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up.(prophecies-Amosyah 9:11-12, Yeremyah 12:15, Isayah 45:21)

So that the rest of mankind may seek Yahweh-all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called, says Yahweh, Who does all these things.

Known to Yahweh are all His works from the beginning of the world.

Therefore, my judgement is that we should not make difficulties for the Gentiles who turn to Yahweh.

But rather they should refrain from defilements: such as godworship(worship of elohim), from all sexual impurity, from that which has been cooked with the blood still in it, and from bloodshed by violence-

For Mosheh, from the earliest times, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath Day.

From this dialogue we may discern the apostles agree the legal customs of the Pharisees are an unnecessary burden, only the Laws of YHWH, as defined by scripture and scripture alone are required. And this is an evolutionary process for those who are called out of this world, the Beast System.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=454710&postcount=556

Yahshua Messiah Made Perfect Through Suffering

Many people are not able to see the result of the sin going on around them. Yet, the world is filled with people suffering from sins.

However, when Yahweh calls them out and opens their minds to understanding the importance of His Laws, and they begin suffering, first hand, the hatred of carnally minded people who hate Yahweh's Laws, then they are finally able to see the results of sin. They even come to despise Baal (the lord) just as Yahshua Messiah did. That is the reason the Apostle Shaul wrote that we are actually made perfect through suffering.

Acts 14:22—
They strengthened the minds of the disciples, and exhorted them to remain firm in the faith, and that we must, through much tribulation, enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh.

Yahweh allowed Yahshua to suffer, in order to make Him see, first hand, the results of sin. It may be necessary that Yahweh will also have to let each of us suffer before we, too, fully realize the results of sin. Now let us compare Hebrews 2:10 to Hebrews 5:9.

Hebrews 2:10—
For it was fitting for Him—on account of Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory- to lead the Prince of their salvation to perfection through sufferings.

Hebrews 5:9—
Then being perfected, He became the causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.

Yahshua: Now Fully Created, Mankind: Now Half Created

Yahshua Messiah said the following.

Yahchanan 6:44—
No man can come to Me, unless the Father, Who has sent Me, draws him; and I will establish him as a priest at the last day.

When we are called out of this world by Yahweh's Holy Spirit and begin to understand the importance of Yahweh's Holy Scriptures in our lives, we, even then, are only half of the creation Yahweh requires us to be, in order for us to enter His Kingdom. To understand this, we must understand the Plan of Yahweh.

When Yahshua was resurrected from the dead, He became the firstborn of many brothers.

Romans 8:29—
For whom He did foreknow, He also did foreordain to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

When we are conformed to Yahshua we will also be conformed to the Father Yahweh, because Yahshua conformed to be exactly like the Father.

Hebrews 1:3—
Who, being the reflection of the perfection of Yahweh, and the representation of Yahweh's plan, by upholding all things concerning that which was spoken by Yahweh through the Law and the prophets, when He had purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Yahweh on high;

The definition of the word conform from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language is to make the same or similar, to bring into harmony or agreement; to be in accord or agreement.

In order to receive the reward of eternal life, as Yahshua did, we must be conformed to the same image that Yahshua obtained.

The next question is, how did Yahshua obtain this image? Scriptures show that He was not born with this image but through a process, He became the perfect creation of Yahweh.

Revelation 3:14—
...the first perfected of Yahweh's creation...

Yahweh's perfected creation becomes our hope. We will become perfectly created if we overcome, just as Yahshua is the first perfected now. Yahshua is only the beginning, the first. There are many more to be made perfect and to become Yahshua's brothers, the actual sons of Yahweh.

Colossians 1:18—
For He is the Head of the body, the called out ones, Who is the beginning of the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He may have the pre-eminence.

Keep in mind what the Apostle Shaul said in Romans 10:4. Yahshua is the ultimate result of keeping the Law of Yahweh. Now, notice the warning recorded for us in the following Scriptures.

Romans 10:3-4

Since they, being in ignorance of the Righteousness that comes from Yahweh, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to Yahwehs Righteousness.

For Yahshua is the ultimate result of keeping the Law unto Righteousness for everyone who believes.

Romans 16:19—
For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore, I am glad on your behalf, but I want you to be wise in what is righteous and simple, concerning evil .

Pure Yahwism
:eek:

amethyst

03-11-2008, 06:38 PM

[QUOTE=snoopsnuffleopagus;597215][COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]An excellent reference Tool which aides Biblical Studies is the Strongs Concordance, about 20 dollars.

If you don't want to buy a concordance, you can also easily have internet access to a online concordance from www.blueletterbible.org Plus commentaries, etc.

phildee3

03-11-2008, 08:51 PM

An excellent reference Tool which aides Biblical Studies is the Strongs Concordance, about 20 dollars.

I have owned the Strongs Concordance for years. In fact I'm now on my second copy.
I consider it essential for a serious bible student as well as the Harper Collins Study Bible.

Alas, I find no life in it whatsoever -
only the word "life."

Try again, snoops.

eternal_spirit

03-11-2008, 09:12 PM

This is, rather, disparaging to paganism.
Not all pagans practiced blood rites.

Fair enough should of said Mesopotamian Babylonian Egyptian.

phildee3

03-11-2008, 09:19 PM

Fair enough should of said Mesopotamian Babylonian Egyptian.

All of which were cosmopolitan state religions, not pagan.

(btw, it's should have said...).

phildee3

03-11-2008, 09:51 PM

snoops,

If I'm a "gnosticist,"
does that make you a "yahwismist"?

snoopsnuffleopagus

03-11-2008, 11:44 PM

when you two are finished with your 'comisserations', perhaps you will reply to the queries.

Your Opinions of: The National Revelation;

And the Fact of: Yahshua Messiah being Hebrew and Upholding and Teaching the Laws of Yahweh?

Thank You :)

phildee3

04-11-2008, 02:59 PM

when you two are finished with your 'comisserations', perhaps you will reply to the queries.

Your Opinions of: The National Revelation;

You never asked for mine,
but I would think it would be obvious.
From my experience, the divine reveals itself to individuals,
and since salvation is now available for everybody, without distiction, the so-called "national revelation" would appear to be concocted as a part of the Zionist supremecy agenda.

phildee3

04-11-2008, 03:21 PM

snoopsnuffleopagus

04-11-2008, 04:41 PM

Thanx for the reply: Analysing=Lame-A-Rama

so of course you can usurp Yahshua Messiah and tell us whatever you want about him. OK :rolleyes:

since one sect of gnosticism lays claim to the NT, Yahwism is more than relevant.

May I suggest you tryout Hermetic gnosticism?

Heres the difference between Yahwism and your cosmopolitan Cosmology.

Yahwism is a Rock, that is Tangible, what you offer is Gossamer wisps of amorpheous speculative conjecture.

Thanx, but no thanx.

the Xtian gnosticist attempt of usurption of the NT is merely mortal vanity.

truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Okay, the Floors yours Phildee3, Weave your little Gossamer Web.

I know my post about Acts 15 did not appear on Es screen, is that true for you also.

Acts 10: Kepha brings the Word of YHWH to the Roman Centurion Cornelus, Acts 15 (post 95)explicitly informs us the Word is now availiable for all Gentiles. What don't you understand?

Cheers!

snoopsnuffleopagus

04-11-2008, 09:42 PM

You never asked for mine,
but I would think it would be obvious.
From my experience, the divine reveals itself to individuals,
and since salvation is now available for everybody, without distiction, the so-called "national revelation" would appear to be concocted as a part of the Zionist supremecy agenda.

Thank You: I am Framing this as it has exceeded all expectations by a vast margin. It shall be Classified as: Incredulous

snoopsnuffleopagus

04-11-2008, 09:49 PM

Published by the "House of Yahweh," - a pretty dark and dodgy bunch, by the looks of it:
http://www.amightywind.com/yhawkins/ihoy.htm

On their own website they claim that the "Book of Yahweh" is "the original bible."
Well I know that the original bible consisted of nothing more than the gospels. The epistles were added later, and the Hebrew "old testament" scriptures even later than that.

This is just a new, whacky translation of the bible of the Roman papists, who were themselves Yahwists.

Don't waste my time...
This thread is about gnosticism.
Lets discuss Yahwism elsewhere.

You wouldn't know this, but, the Prophet Isayah(Salvation is YHWH) told us to seek out The Book of Yahweh.

Are you aware the word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblio=book

Books have Titles, Scripture informs us the Title of the Book everybody was talking about, the OT/Tanakh was Titled: The Book of YHWH.

Furthermore you are completely wrong about the Provenance of the NT. Check my Scientific & Historical Evidence Thread. You're Slack. :)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

But enough of that.

Halleluyah!! YHWH has provided us with clarity. Blessings be upon us.

You. Xtian gnosticism; ES, Kasalt and many, many, many, many others prefer: Plastic Jesus, the jesus that is pliable and compliant. Jesus conforms to you and your Cosmopolitan Cosmology and Ideology. He's whatever anybody wants him to be. There are no Laws, we shall do as we wilt
Perhaps the only flaw in this Fantasy is that it is not supported by Scripture

Personaly, I came to find Fluffy/Dashboard Plastic Jesus 'wanting', too fluffy, too pliant, no right, no wrong, everythingscool.

so I looked into the matter of 'Jesus'; and first thing you find out is His Name isn't jesus, it's Yahshua, what does Yahshua mean? Yahweh is Salvation. who is this Yahweh they speak of and what's up with Him?

What do the Scriptures say? What, they removed their Names? WhY?! Oh

So millions and billions of y'all tell millions and billions more about Plastic Jesus everyhour of everyday.

PLASTIC JESUS-He conforms to you!! Wheeeee!!!!

But look!!! It's Granitic Yahshua, He is Massive, He is Resolute, He is Steadfast, He is Enduring, He is the Rock to build upon.

The Scriptural Truth is: To Conform to Yahshua is to Conform to Yahweh.
To conform to Yahshua, you begin to Keep the Laws of YHWH. If this is your true, sincere desire, YHWH will open your mind.

Fortunately for us, the Scriptures, even in the most grossly mistranslated versions tell the Truth. Yahshua Kept and Taught the Laws.

This Link shall serve two purposes; first; it will provide people with a view of Jesus they have never seen before. It is quite unlike the Plastic Jesus they are so accustomed to seeing and hearing about. They will see what Scripture says about this most remarkable Man. What did He say?

Second purpose shall allow you, or anyone, to challenge the Academic Credibility of the Materiel put forth.

So before clicking on the Link, I urge caution, this information may Burst Bubbles, Buckle Your Chinstraps and Saddle Up!! Tally-HO!!!

Granitic Yahshua

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW12-04/search.htm

Thanx, but I'll pass on the Plastic Jesus :)

Phildee3, the Floor is yours.

Don't Mickey Mouse me, K?

1977

05-11-2008, 02:54 AM

snoopsnuffleopagus

05-11-2008, 04:22 AM

Yes, Yahshua Messiah is speaking of the Beast System. The Romans launched 10 Persecutions against the Messianic Yahdaim, wiping them out. This correlates with the time span notated by the first five of the seven congregations in the Book of Revelation.

To understand this verse it is vital to keep it in Context. To understand what is being said here, you must begin with the first verse of Yahchannan(John) 15.

10: If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I kept My Fathers Laws, and abide in His love.

Remember; Yahshua Messiah is the 'Spotless Lamb'; He never Transgressed the least of Father Yahwehs Laws, thus being unblemished.

The word Righteousness, which appears frequently throughout both Testaments is defined as: Keeping the Laws of YHWH.

Sin is defined as Transgression of the Law.

This is why no-one in the mob was qualified to stone the adulteress. No-one was without sin.

The apostles and most of the disciples were living sin free lives, and the carnal world hates nothing more.

phildee3

05-11-2008, 12:13 PM

The Gnostics were ridiculed by upstanding pagans like Plontinus and Celsus just as much as from their Catholic rivals. They called them a bunch of misanthropes who should just go and commit suicide if they hated the world so much!

"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

Neither Plontinus or Celsus were pagans.
Ploninus was of Aleaxandria, Celsus resided in Rome.
Both were very much city folk.

John the Baptist, Jesus and the twelve rejected city life and went out into the wilderness to commune with "the father." In the above quote, from Jesus, "the world" refers to the civilised, city world and proves the following statement:

Original Christianity is pagan.

It was (and is) totally compatible with true druidism and other nature religions.
Christianity was first assimilated by that Celtic, priestly class in northern Europe as "Celtic Christianity," which was brutally wiped out by Charlemagne.

My religion is not cosmopolitan, snoops. It is pagan -
Celtic Christianity.
Neither is it gnosicism.
Gnosticism is a methodology, which I apply to my religion.

snoopsnuffleopagus

05-11-2008, 02:05 PM

Hi phildee3;

It is appears you are confusing Cosmopolitan for Metropolitan:cos·mo·pol·i·tan (kzm-pl-tn)
adj.
1. Pertinent or common to the whole world: an issue of cosmopolitan import.
2. Having constituent elements from all over the world or from many different parts of the world: the ancient and cosmopolitan societies of Syria and Egypt.
3. So sophisticated as to be at home in all parts of the world or conversant with many spheres of interest: a cosmopolitan traveler.
4. Ecology Growing or occurring in many parts of the world; widely distributed.
n.
A cosmopolitan person or organism; a cosmopolite.

Pagan, only defined as Rural, not as in service or worship to Hinder gods.

Yahshua certainly had nothing to do with Druidism. He Worshipped and Served Father Yahweh alone.

Yahshua was not the Founder of Xtianity, the Xtians Usurped Yahshua and imprinted their Pagan-worship and service of Hinder gods- upon Him.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, page 509,
JESUS AND HIS FIRST DISCIPLES. As has been indicated before, the teaching and activity of Jesus cannot be properly described under the heading "Christianity."
There is no valid reason for doubting his historical reality or assuming him to be a purely mythical figure.

Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, page 511,

With its spread among the gentiles, the pagan characteristics of Christianity gained in influence, and after Constantine the Great and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the traditional Hellenistic-pagan forms of civic, social, and cultural anti-Semitism (see *Apion) merged with the specifically Christian theological motifs to form an amalgam that has left a tragic legacy to history.

It's OK phildee3; the days of this Usurption are drawing close. :)

Falsely mis-representing and attempts to change the Character of those who went before us, will end.

Yahchanan 14:28—
You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Yahchanan 12:49-50—
49 For I have not spoken on My own; but the Father Who sent Me gave Me the Laws—what I should say and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His Laws are life everlasting; so whatever I speak, I am saying exactly what My Father has told Me to say.

II Corinthians 4:4—
For the god (el) of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the message of the glory of the Messiah, Who is the image of Yahweh, should not shine unto them.

Romans 6:15-16—
15 What? May we sin as though we are not under the Law, yet under Yahweh's undeserved pardon? by no means!
16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey—whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Phildee3; please provide your Scripturaly Supported Definitions of: Righteousness; Sin; Inequity.

Thank You.

phildee3

05-11-2008, 08:54 PM

It is appears you are confusing Cosmopolitan for Metropolitan

Well spotted, snoops.
You are correct.
My religion is, indeed, cosmopolitan.
It is for everyone (who choses it), without distinction.

Pagan, only defined as Rural, not as in service or worship to Hinder gods.

Well done again, snoops. You're on a roll!

Yahshua certainly had nothing to do with Druidism. He Worshipped and Served Father Yahweh alone.

Uh, oh!
You failed on that one!
The reason why Christianity took root in Glastonbury is because it was a major centre of druidism when the first missionaries arrived.
That they were empowered by a supernatural force to overcome the "evil pagans" is a Roman lie. They were given sanctuary by the druids, who recognised their common faith (and gnosis!).

Yahshua was not the Founder of Xtianity, the Xtians Usurped Yahshua and imprinted their Pagan-worship and service of Hinder gods- upon Him.

Correct again, snoops. It was Christ who was the founder of Christianity (through Jesus/Yahshua).

eternal_spirit

05-11-2008, 10:57 PM

quote: snoopsnuffleopagus
Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, page 511,

With its spread among the gentiles, the pagan characteristics of Christianity gained in influence, and after Constantine the Great and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the traditional Hellenistic-pagan forms of civic, social, and cultural anti-Semitism (see *Apion) merged with the specifically Christian theological motifs to form an amalgam that has left a tragic legacy to history.

.........................................

Like I've been saying all along Judaism and Christianity came from other previous religions! That includes your beloved Yahweh!
EDIT LOL anti semitic Jewish Popes.
http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#23

Jews in the Vatican The Vatican is Roman Catholic; this we know, don't we? Well, how come then that even Popes are Jews? The late Pope John Paul II, for example was Jewish (http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/PopeJohnPaulWasJewish.htm), having a Jewish mother. And let us not forget that the first, original Pope, Peter, was of course Jewish [however, see the second paragraph beneath the List of Jewish Popes below for clarification]. Likewise, some other early Popes were from Jewish families as well, such as St. Zosimus (417-418); his father's name was Abram. Pope Evaristus (100-109) has also been mentioned as being Jewish, based upon the writings of Pope Pius V. [17 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#17)]
Here is a more detailed list of more Jewish Popes throughout history:
Pope No. 211: Callistus III (1455-1458) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 216: Alexander VI (1492-1503) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 217: Pius III (1503) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 219: Leo X (1513-1521) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 221: Clement VII (1523-1534) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)] (cousin of Leo X)
Pope No. 222: Paul III (1534-1549) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 227: St. Pius V (1566-1572) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 228: Gregory XIII (1572-1585) Jew [18 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#18)]
Pope No. 262: Pius XII (1939-1958) Jew [19 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#19)]
Pope No. 264: Paul VI (1963-1978) Jew [20 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#20)]
Pope No. 266: John Paul II (1978-2001 or 2005) Jew [21 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#21)]
Pope No. 268: ? (This would be the last pope in accordance to St. Malachy) [22 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#22)]
Among the cardinals of the Catholic Church today there is a converted Jew, Cardinal Lustiger, the archbishop of Paris. There have been numerous articles about him in the Jewish press over the years and all have somehow raised the possibility that he someday could be pope. [16 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#16)]
Despite the fact there was no such office or word as "pope" until about the fourth century and that Peter was neither Roman Catholic nor pope, commencing with Peter, the first ten popes were "Jews" of some description (Philip I by William Thomas Walsh, Shead & Ward London, 1938).

Some "Jewish" popes previous to Malachy's prophecy include, Zephyrin (199-217), Siricus (384-399), Hormidas (514-523), and Analdet II (1130-1138). (Gert Haendler: Kirchengeschichte, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Berlin, 1980).

Conclusively, the "New Testament" of the Bible was authored and written by Jews. [23 (http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/04.html#23)]
:eek:
:D

sparrow7

06-11-2008, 04:08 AM

http://www.drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4755/?id=4755&showID=1159

this only showed the very tip of the iceberg about the house of yahweh and yisrayl hawkins...

since this place's material is on so many threads by a certain person, i figured i might actually help someone from NOT going there and enduring the lies they promote.

too bad so many fall for the pronunciation of yahweh, when there is so much out there to the contrary.

snoopsnuffleopagus

06-11-2008, 05:09 AM

lol, one of your best ones yet sparrow.

You, Es, and phildee won't answer my questions so you attack HoY. lol

Clue #1: A Mentaly and Emotionaly and Spiritualy deficient individual will have issues before they become a member of any group. The group may either amplify or diminish these deficiencies in the member.

Dr.Phil; you; phil, es and kasalt like to stand two inches taller standing on the back of others, what does that say about you?

You all have been provided adequate time to present your academic critiques of the Materiel I have Posted and challenged you to critique.

Why not? Why not answer my questionaire I presented to you?

I think you were a loser before you joined HoY, and your a loser now. Your bitter, you wanted an earthly paradise and you didn't find it.

Since I'm the only commited Yahwist who has stuck his head up, I have received a Tsunami of Bullshit. You're just the latest in a long line. I'm a pragmatist, and I would bet the percentage of readers who are curious about the HoY would be to the right of a decimal point. Like 00.001%

You're concern doesn't seem sincere to me, you would have answered my questionaire so that we might understand you.

I think you're ready for an appearance on the Jerry Springer show. Get BB and the Elders and you and the other disgruntled and wrassle it out.

How many members in HoY.

You owe me answers.

Phildee; you owe me answers: Righteousness; Sin; Inequity. Definitions

ES: you owe me answers about the National Revelation and Yahshua Messiah being Hebrew and upholding and teaching the Laws of YHWH.

The above three Posts from phil, es and sparrow is bullshit to divert from the FACT I have been Carpet Bombing the foundation of Xtian Gnosticism lol

sparrow7
too bad so many fall for the pronunciation of yahweh, when there is so much out there to the contrary.

you keep flappin your lips about this but your supporting evidence has been underwhelming. As a matter of fact I haven't seen any. Have you?

You, like many, many others just don't want that Name 'out there' on its correct context. Why no Link to all this evidence that is "out there to the contrary'. Unlike you, sparrow, I have provided Dozens of Links, Dozens of Peer-Reviewed Academic sources to validate the Name: Yahweh. Dozens. You haven't provided anything. Why not?

Frankly sparrow, I think you are full of shit. you MUST be aware of this, right? If you wish to engage me in further discourse, answer the questionaire. I think you are a phony who has been untruthful, prove me wrong.

Phildee3: you also answer the queries put to you. Time to 'Man Up'.

Es: The same to you, answer the queries, you're full of shit and you know it, right? :)

Very pathetic performances from the three of you.

You've been trying to Blind me with your Bullshit, but I have been wearing safety glasses, try, to dazzle me with your brilliance.

Cheers! Snoops

kasalt

06-11-2008, 05:39 AM

Dr.Phil; you; phil, es and kasalt like to stand two inches taller standing on the back of others, what does that say about you?

Snoops, you are far more propagandist than truth-seeker. (I've been told that I have an uncanny knack for observing the obvious.)

You've been trying to Blind me with your Bullshit, but I have been wearing safety glasses, try, to dazzle me with your brilliance.

Those safety glasses are so dark that you can't see where you are headed. Careful now, I can see that you are headed for a ditch, you may fall in.

You'd better take those blinders off.

snoopsnuffleopagus

06-11-2008, 02:38 PM

kasalt;601514]Snoops, you are far more propagandist than truth-seeker. (I've been told that I have an uncanny knack for observing the obvious.)

Don't quit your day job K. More baseless and unsupported allegations.

Since the position I assumed here was neither Propagandist or Truthseeker, your analysis is deficient.

I was sharing academically acredited research materiels. The HoY was a Vehicle for SOME of the materiel. Like David Icke says. Use only what you deem appropriate, ignore the rest. The choice is the readers.

Those safety glasses are so dark that you can't see where you are headed. Careful now, I can see that you are headed for a ditch, you may fall in.

You'd better take those blinders off.

Praise be to YHWH, but due to my age and life experience, my 'Life Senses' are razor sharp. Thanx to the information I have learnes over many, many years. I see the Ditchs quite clearly. Like Mullet Jesus that you endorse, or your Cosmopolitan Cosmology and Ideology.

Rather, it is very telling, that out of 20,000 Members, I am the only one who has used The Name Yahweh in its correct Biblical Context, for this I have been abused, Insulted, Disparaged and lied to, by you and numerous others.

That is one unique Voice out of 20,000. Who do you think your kidding.

One Voice out of 20,000 saying Yahweh reverently and clarifying what thousands obscure. For this ireceive deceitful abuse.

Since you found your way here, find it again and answer the question I put to you, as honestly as you are able to:

It is Factual that Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew, raised by Hebrew parents that upheld and taught the Laws of Yahweh, they in turn taught by example and academicaly the Laws of YHWH to Yahshua Messiah. So Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew and upholds and teaches the Laws of Yahweh, what is your opinion of Him?

Remember kasalt, as honestly as you are able.

phildee3

06-11-2008, 08:56 PM

Phildee; you owe me answers: Righteousness; Sin; Inequity. Definitions

I owe you nothing, snoops
(even if you had asked me before!).

Just because you ask people questions doesn't mean that they "owe" you.
Do you realise how arrogant and bizarre that sounds?
What about all the questions that you've been asked and not answered?
(don't bother answering - you owe me nothing either...)

eternal_spirit

06-11-2008, 09:15 PM

Ignores snoops pathetic name calling well almost but need to say (which is a refelection of his own hate and bile for anyone who knows Yahweh represents evil and hate towards gentiles as proven in the Old Testicle erm I mean Testament)
And Snoops likes to call Jesus mullet etc (See what the Talmud says about Jesus and Mary it's sick stuff)

This is the question and the facts he keeps ignoring

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=474736#post474736)
http://www.rondart.com/The%20Essential%20Talmud.jpg

Look carefully at the flowery pattern, if you don't see it look again.

Looks like it says Satan IMO. (infact I'm convinced 100% that's what it says)

Jackie: I was trying to do a search I found something interesting. The first five books of the Old Testament being the Torah, I wound up in this Jewish website and I think it's called Judaism 101 or something of frequently asked questions, what does tora mean? They said, listen folks, it can have several meanings.

The Torah can mean the first five books of the Old Testament, which they call the Book of Moses, or it can be all of that writing in what Christians call the Old Testament, or it can be the first five books of that Old Testament which is their Torah and all of the subsequent writings that make up the entire Talmud.

So for Christians who want to put so much emphasis and attention on that Old Testament, Alan, like it's the world of God.

You know what I mean? I thought that was quite fascinating and I'll tell you what else they said. They said for the Jews there is no Old Testament, yet they say the reason they're taking all that land in Israel is because it is their biblical mandate. They didn't say Talmudic mandate. They said it’s their biblical mandate. So they claim the Bible when it serves them, don't they?

Alan: That's what most legalists do. Anything to do with legalism or law is just a matter of picking and choosing what parts you want to use for that particular purpose. That's what law is all about.

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5024/003001c8df8bcb35d49053ajn8.jpg

Zionism is the NWO.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5130/pyramidmasonxf7.gif EDIT follow the letters at the points of the hexagram aka Star of David aka Seal of Solomon it spells Mason! On the American Bank notes - Flag of IS (ISIS-moon) RA (RA-sun) EL (SATURN AKA SATAN) = ISRAEL Identity of the Jews.

Wanna know more? here
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33582

1977

07-11-2008, 04:05 AM

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9121/lionfaceddeityjp0.jpg

Saturn was the demiurge Yaldabaoth in the Gnostic cosmology, an arrogant tyrant and progenitor of all evil in the world; also known as the Masonic "Great Architect," or the Egyptian Ptah, which name the Mandaeans appropriated as Ptahil, or Ptah-El.

Nobody has ever been able to quite figure out what the origin of this word is, other than it probably means "child of chaos".

kasalt

07-11-2008, 04:05 AM

It is Factual that Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew, raised by Hebrew parents that upheld and taught the Laws of Yahweh, they in turn taught by example and academicaly the Laws of YHWH to Yahshua Messiah. So Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew and upholds and teaches the Laws of Yahweh

If all that you say here is true, then why did the Hebrews wish to have Yahshua killed?

kasalt

07-11-2008, 07:14 AM

Praise be to YHWH, but due to my age and life experience, my 'Life Senses' are razor sharp. Thanx to the information I have learnes over many, many years. I see the Ditchs quite clearly. Like Mullet Jesus that you endorse, or your Cosmopolitan Cosmology and Ideology.

First of all, mullets are cool. If every man in the world sported a mullet, the world would be a much hipper place, and pot would be legal. Furthermore, for all your age and life experience, you still have a lot of maturing to do. It wasn't you who brought us the news about Hawkins being a fraud, it was we who had to inform you of this fact. I cautioned you from the beginning--you, who endorsed that fraud hook, line, and sinker. So don't tell me that you can "see the ditches quite clearly", as you have already proven that you cannot.

Rather, it is very telling, that out of 20,000 Members, I am the only one who has used The Name Yahweh in its correct Biblical Context, for this I have been abused, Insulted, Disparaged and lied to, by you and numerous others.

That is one unique Voice out of 20,000. Who do you think your kidding.

So far as I am concerned, you can call God by whatever name you like. It is irrelevant to me. I've never had an arguement over that with you or anyone else, ever. Sparrow seems to have an issue with that, but that is his issue. To me, it matters not.

BTW, thank you, Sparrow, for posting the link to the Dr. Phil show on HOY. Great find, very relavent and revealing information there.

One Voice out of 20,000 saying Yahweh reverently and clarifying what thousands obscure. For this ireceive deceitful abuse.

Again, most of us who have bothered to engage you have not done so over the pronounciation of "Yahweh" (as if most of us could care), but over your promotion of a cult and a fraudulent cult leader. With the passage of time, the truth has won out. But it's nothing personal. It's not about us being opposed to you, it's about truth being opposed to lies, and right being opposed to wrong.

phildee3

07-11-2008, 12:37 PM

Yahshua Messiah is Hebrew and upholds and teaches the Laws of Yahweh,

If he had have done that they would have crowned him with gold, which is very much what they wanted, instead of a crown of thorns.

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 01:32 PM

kasalt;603480]First of all, mullets are cool. If every man in the world sported a mullet, the world would be a much hipper place, and pot would be legal. Furthermore, for all your age and life experience, you still have a lot of maturing to do. It wasn't you who brought us the news about Hawkins being a fraud, it was we who had to inform you of this fact. I cautioned you from the beginning--you, who endorsed that fraud hook, line, and sinker. So don't tell me that you can "see the ditches quite clearly", as you have already proven that you cannot..

no doubt yisrayl hawkins has sinned, as well as some of his elders.
this was not the case in 2000 when i had performed my due diligence. your only hope of suppressing YHWHs Teachings are to destroy a messenger HE used. Regrettably, Yisrayl/Buffalo Bill succumbed to lust and has brought disgrace upon himself and the work of HoY. The merit of the scholarship remains due to the sensible Methodology they employed. Cited and sourced materiels. Lexicons, encyclopedias, dictionaries, used in proper context.

Since I am an pragmatic adult, who is not, nor ever was a member of his flock, his fall from grace was less disturbing to me than sparrow, if sparrow has been truthful about their history, i doubt it, I suspect you are sparrow. :D I have provided you with critical pieces of their scholarship, challenged you to critique it, and so far no reply.

The sinner falls, yet the work remains, because it is of quality. and I was the first to Post yisrayls arrest.

In the vatican; YHWH Name thread I asked you to compare Yisrayls sin and fraud compared to the vatican. again no reply. If you are so discerning, why did you Post the fraud who was channeling a demon spirit/mullet jesus and request forum members to send her money for 'essential oils'. end of the day that is a larger fraud than yisrayls. Also, if you are so discerning, why have you embraced the Nazi sympathizer/supporter who is in our midst? Eternal Spirit?

So far as I am concerned, you can call God by whatever name you like. It is irrelevant to me. I've never had an arguement over that with you or anyone else, ever. Sparrow seems to have an issue with that, but that is his issue. To me, it matters not.
BTW, thank you, Sparrow, for posting the link to the Dr. Phil show on HOY. Great find, very relavent and revealing information there.

of course it matters not to you because like so many others you embrace a Cosmopolitan Cosmology and Ideologies.

Again, most of us who have bothered to engage you have not done so over the pronounciation of "Yahweh" (as if most of us could care), but over your promotion of a cult and a fraudulent cult leader. With the passage of time, the truth has won out. But it's nothing personal. It's not about us being opposed to you, it's about truth being opposed to lies, and right being opposed to wrong.

This is wrong, I have endorsed their work product, which hold up under close scrutiny, due to their methodology. Who has analysed the Bible better? no-one that I know of. No, your truth has not won out because you desire to throw the baby out with the bath water. Xtian Gnosticism is a much larger fraud, so you attack Hoy to forestall the demise of
xtian gnosticism. your truth is the suppression of YHWHs Truths, to be replaced by the new age cosmopolan cosmologies and ideologies, hence mullet jesus. Again I challenge you to dispute HoYs findings about YHWH, Yahshua and the doctrines they espouse.

If all that you say here is true, then why did the Hebrews wish to have Yahshua killed?

1: Yahshua was using the Name openly, in violation of Pharisee laws/traditions/superstitions, thus leading to charges of blasphemy and heresy.

2: He denounced the Talmudic traditions and writings. The Post on
Acts 15 clearly shows this opposition. Yahshua taught the Laws only, no added traditions.

And anyone who openly supports and endorses YHWH receives abuse. The History of my Postings reveal this.

this has been made quite clear in scripture, from any bible.

I will Post an Essay, by yisrayl, and I expect all of you to challenge the veracity of what is put forth. Also, in the vatican thread, lets list all of Hoys sins and frauds and compare them to the vaticans, it should be very revealing. as the influence of each organisation is quite different in quantity and quality. Xtian Gnosticism is actually a far larger fraud than Hoys as they usurp Yahshua and the apostles and the entire NT.

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 01:39 PM

Phildee3; when I first Posted this many months ago, you responded by declaring this Post: Abominable lies. I asked you what lies? you never replied. here is another opportunity to make your case, likewise kasalt and sparrow. forget Eternal Spirit, he is a nazi supporter and has never read the bible.

The phrase Alpha and Omega is written four times in the King James Version of the Scriptures. However, this phrase should only have been written three times. It was added to the Scriptures once, in order to infer that it is Yahshua Messiah Who is Alpha and Omega. Alpha and Omega are first written in:

Revelation 1:8, KJV—
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending...

This Scripture cannot be any clearer than it is. This is Yahweh speaking about Himself.

Then, Alpha and Omega are again written in:

Revelation 1:11, KJV—
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

After Yahchanan heard this being spoken, he turned around to see Who said it (verse 12), but saw Yahshua Messiah (verses 13-17). We can see this for ourselves in:

Revelation 1:17-18—
17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand upon me, saying to me: Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last.
18 I am He Who lives, but was dead. And: Behold, I am alive forevermore. HalleluYahweh! And I have the keys of death and Sheol; the grave.

In other words Yahshua told Yahchanan not to be afraid, for He was alive forevermore. Yahshua did not identify Himself by that title Alpha and Omega.

Then, the phrase Alpha and Omega is again written in Revelation 21:6-7, which is speaking of Yahweh.

Revelation 21:6-7, KJV—
6 And He said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh will inherit all things; and I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.

Yahweh is the Father, so it is definitely Yahweh Who is doing the speaking in this prophecy.

Now, we come to the Scripture in which the words Alpha and Omega were added, in order to say that Yahshua is the Alpha and Omega. This Scripture is Revelation 22:13. Revelation 22:16 undeniably states that these are Yahshua's words.

Revelation 22:12-17, KJV—
12 And behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, 117the beginning, and the end, the first and last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the cities.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine Angel, to testify unto you these things in the Churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth, say, Come. And let him that is athirst, come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice Footnote Number 117, which has been circled in verse 13. The footnote of this Bible, shows that the Alexandrian (NU) and the Vatican (M) texts omit the phrase, Alpha and Omega.

117 NU-Text and M-Text read the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Well, you might say, "What difference does it make that those three little words were added to this Scripture in Revelation 22:13?"

Never before has there been a true understanding of what Yahweh actually said when He identified Himself as the first and the last.

Since we know that Yahweh said that He is the first and the last in Revelation 21:6, let us thoroughly study the Scriptures to come to Yahweh's truth.

In Revelation 1:8, the Being Who is speaking identifies Himself as the Almighty, Who we all know is Yahweh.

Following is an exact copy of this Scripture from The Concordant Version of the Sacred Scriptures, which one can see differs greatly from the more modern Greek Interlinear:

Almost all English versions of the Bible render Revelation 1:8 in the same way the King James Version is translated.

Revelation 1:8, KJV—
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

By merely leaving this text as it is written, a tremendous understanding has been lost. However, if these two Greek letters are researched in detail, one will readily see that Yahweh is revealing much more about Himself than just being the beginning and the end.

In the Greek alphabet, the letter alpha is the first letter, and omega is the last letter. However, in the Hebrew Language, in which even the so-called New Testament Scriptures are now known to have been originally written, the letter aleph is the first letter, and the letter tau is the last.

It is an admitted fact by the Biblical scholars that Revelation 1:8 should say in Hebrew:

I am the ALEPH and the TAU
instead of
I am the ALPHA and OMEGA

The Anchor Bible, Revelation Volume 38, page 379, gives us the explanation of this phrase.

8. the Alpha and the Omega. The Hebrew would be aleph and taw, probably standing respectively for Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots of the high priest used to determine the will of God, and also meaning all "encompassing."

Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, Volume 6, page 971, agrees that alpha and omega are aleph and tau in Hebrew.

[The beginning and the ending.] That is, as aleph or alpha is the beginning of the alphabet, so am I the author and cause of all things; as tau or omega is the end or last letter of the alphabet, so am I the end of all things, the destroyer as well as the establisher of all things.

We would not be any better off, however, if this Scripture (Revelation 1:8) is properly rendered: "I am the Aleph and the Tau." We still would not know what Yahweh means when He identifies Himself by the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, unless this is further researched.

The letters aleph and tau must be researched to see if they do have a meaning, or message, to convey.

What the Bible translators did not realize (or they rejected) is that each individual Hebrew letter can be a word or phrase unto itself, with a specific meaning. This is clearly pointed out by Fabre d'Olivet in his book, The Hebraic Tongue Restored. Dr. d'Olivet gives clear, precise explanations of the meanings of each individual Hebrew letter, and what they point out or declare. On page 98 of his book, Dr. d'Olivet also states that knowing that each Hebrew letter has a meaning of its own, is the key to understanding the Scriptures.

In reference to the letters aleph and tau, Dr. d'Olivet gives clear proof that these two letters make statements in their own right.

The first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, as Dr. d'Olivet points out from The Hebraic Tongue Restored on pages 95 and 287, stands for unity.

On pages 98 and 465 of this book, Dr. d'Olivet clearly points out that the letter tau, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, means and stands for perfection.

Incredible as it may sound, both single letters aleph and tau, are in themselves Hebrew words that have specific meanings.

As Clark in his Commentary, and the writers of The Anchor Bible, Revelation, have shown, the Alpha and Omega should have been written: the Aleph and the Tau.

Now, with the true meanings of these Hebrew letters revealed, all can see the statement that Yahweh is actually making in these Scriptures.

Revelation 1:8—
I am unity (Aleph) and perfection (Tau), the Beginning and the End, says Yahweh: Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come: the Almighty.

Other Scriptures verify that Yahweh is unity and perfection.

Deuteronomy 6:4—
Hear, O Israyl, Yahweh is our Father. Yahweh is One.

Yahshua Messiah, a begotten Son of Yahweh, Who was the Savior sent by Yahweh, taught that Yahweh is perfection.

Mattithyah 19:17—
But He said to him: Why do you question Me about righteousness? There is only One who is the standard of perfection, and that is Yahweh; so if you would enter into life, keep the Laws of Yahweh.

Mattithyah 5:48—
Therefore, become perfect, just as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.

Yahweh is revealing Himself again to be unity and perfection. These Scriptures that reveal the Alpha and Omega, the Aleph and the Tau to be Yahweh Almighty (Revelation 1:8; 1:11; and 21:6) do not point out Yahshua Messiah. Nor can Revelation 22:13, in which this phrase was added, be used to claim that Yahshua Messiah pre-existed.

Yahshua Messiah: First And Last—Beginning And End

Having proven that the words Alpha and Omega were added to this Scripture, Revelation 22:13, The Book Of Yahweh correctly reads.

Revelation 22:13—_
I am the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

We know Yahshua said this. We know it is no contradiction for Him to call Himself the last, for He will live forever.

We know it is no contradiction for Him to call Himself "the end," for He is the end result of having kept His Father's Laws perfectly.

Romans 10:4—
For Yahshua is the ultimate result of keeping the Law unto righteousness for everyone who believes.

The translators tried to distort this Scripture to try to make you believe that Yahshua Messiah ended the Law. Romans 10:4 taken from the King James Version, shows us how this Scripture has been distorted.

Romans 10:4, KJV—
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.

If you will research the meanings of the word translated end in this Scripture, then you will see that this word means ultimate, prophetic purpose, and not end as is universally understood in the English context.

The word translated end in Romans 10:4, as well as Revelation 22:12 is word #5056, from Strong's Greek Dictionary and means to set out for a definite point or goal; prop. the point aimed at as a limit, ultimate or prophetic, purpose.

Religious imposters also use Romans 10:4 in order to deceive the people in this world into thinking that Shaul taught against Yahweh's Laws. The Apostle Shaul never once taught against the Law of Yahweh. In fact, he taught all to keep Yahweh's Law. In the same book of Romans, which Shaul wrote, we find the following Scriptures.

Romans 2:13—
For not the hearers of the Law are the righteous in the sight of Yahweh, but the doers of the Law are the righteous.

Romans 6:16—
Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey; whether of sin which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness?

There are many Scriptures in the book of Romans, which teach against sin: against breaking the Law of Yahweh (I Yahchanan 3:4). However, these two should be enough to show you that the Apostle Shaul did not teach against the Laws of Yahweh, as the false religious leaders would have you believe.

Now, in Revelation 22:13, Yahshua called Himself the "last" because He has been resurrected to eternal life, and now He will never die again. He called Himself the "end" because He is the end product, the ultimate result of keeping the Law of Yahweh.

What did He mean when He called Himself the first in Revelation 22:13? Did He mean that He was the first being to ever exist? Many would have you think so. Did He mean that He was the Father of all living? There are some who would have you believe this. Was Yahshua saying that He pre-existed? If you will let Scripture interpret the Scriptures, then understanding will come.

Revelation 1:5—
And from Yahshua Messiah; the faithful witness, and the firstborn from the dead , and the Ruler of future kings of the earth. To Him Who loved us and freed us from our sins by His own blood.

When Yahshua called Himself the first in Revelation 22:13, He made no reference to pre-existence. Yahshua simply meant that He was the firstborn from the dead, which means that He was the first to be raised from the dead and given eternal life. Because Yahshua was raised from the dead, He is now immortal, He was the first to be fully created in the full image of Yahweh. This is what Yahshua meant when He said He was the first, in Revelation 22:13.

What, then, did He mean when He called Himself the beginning in this same Scripture? Does this mean that He was in the beginning with Yahweh, as some would also have you to believe? The answer to this question is found in:

Revelation 3:14—
And to the malak of the congregation of The House of Yahweh in Laodicea, write: These things says the Faithful and the True One, the One testifying of the faith and the truth; the first perfected of Yahweh's creation.

In this Scripture, Yahshua called Himself the beginning of the creation of Yahweh. Yes, man in his present physical state, is only a half-created being, because we are still corruptible flesh, as Shaul said.

I Corinthians 15:53—
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

We are still dying in this world. If you do not believe this, just read the obituaries. Man is only in the likeness of Yahweh at this time; man was created to resemble Yahweh. Man has a form just like Yahweh, a head, a chest, arms, legs and feet, just as Scriptures describe Yahweh as having.

However, Yahshua Messiah, because He is the first to be raised from the dead to eternal life, is now in the full image of Yahweh. Yahshua is perfected. He has become the first or the beginning, among men, to reach the state of perfect, completed, whole creation, as Yahweh's Plan for mankind is.

Therefore, He still has no reference to pre-existence in calling Himself the beginning in Revelation 22:13. Yahshua Messiah simply meant that He was the beginning, the first perfected of Yahweh's whole creation, or plan for man.

quote and critique

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 01:42 PM

Yahshua: Now Fully Created, Mankind: Now Half Created

Yahshua Messiah said the following.

Yahchanan 6:44—
No man can come to Me, unless the Father, Who has sent Me, draws him; and I will establish him as a priest at the last day.

When we are called out of this world by Yahweh's Holy Spirit and begin to understand the importance of Yahweh's Holy Scriptures in our lives, we, even then, are only half of the creation Yahweh requires us to be, in order for us to enter His Kingdom. To understand this, we must understand the Plan of Yahweh.

When Yahshua was resurrected from the dead, He became the firstborn of many brothers.

Romans 8:29—
For whom He did foreknow, He also did foreordain to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

When we are conformed to Yahshua we will also be conformed to the Father Yahweh, because Yahshua conformed to be exactly like the Father.

Hebrews 1:3—
Who, being the reflection of the perfection of Yahweh, and the representation of Yahweh's plan, by upholding all things concerning that which was spoken by Yahweh through the Law and the prophets, when He had purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Yahweh on high;

The definition of the word conform from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language is to make the same or similar, to bring into harmony or agreement; to be in accord or agreement.

In order to receive the reward of eternal life, as Yahshua did, we must be conformed to the same image that Yahshua obtained.

The next question is, how did Yahshua obtain this image? Scriptures show that He was not born with this image but through a process, He became the perfect creation of Yahweh.

Revelation 3:14—
...the first perfected of Yahweh's creation...

Yahweh's perfected creation becomes our hope. We will become perfectly created if we overcome, just as Yahshua is the first perfected now. Yahshua is only the beginning, the first. There are many more to be made perfect and to become Yahshua's brothers, the actual sons of Yahweh.

Colossians 1:18—
For He is the Head of the body, the called out ones, Who is the beginning of the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things He may have the pre-eminence.

Keep in mind what the Apostle Shaul said in Romans 10:4. Yahshua is the ultimate result of keeping the Law of Yahweh. Now, notice the warning recorded for us in the following Scriptures.

Romans 16:19—
For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore, I am glad on your behalf, but I want you to be wise in what is righteous and simple, concerning evil .

Then Comes Persecution

Yahshua Messiah was most definitely persecuted. The thing to understand about these persecutions is that He benefitted from them. Notice what is recorded for our instruction.

Hebrews 5:8-9—
8 Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience from the things which He suffered;;
9 Then being perfected, He became the Causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.

It is a Scriptural fact that Yahshua Himself learned obedience from the things He suffered. That is, He saw the cruelty of those who did not follow Yahweh's way, and that impressed upon Yahshua all the more the need for every person's obedience to Yahweh's Laws.

Yahshua experienced the hatred of those who were disobedient, and through this suffering He came to despise the shame that comes with disobedience.

Hebrews 12:1-2—
1 Therefore, since we are also surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily entraps us; and let us run the race that is set before us, with endurance,
2 Looking to Yahshua, the first Who was led and perfected by the faith, Who, for the joy that was set before Him: endured the sacrifice, despising The Shame; Bosheth: Baal, Lord, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of Yahweh!

Yes, Yahshua suffered because He lived by every Word that proceeded out of the mouth of Yahweh. Because He lived that kind of life in front of the carnally minded, He suffered persecution. But through that persecution He became perfect, because any temptation He experienced quickly disappeared when He saw what was coming from those carnally minded people who persecuted Him.

Yahshua Messiah Tempted In All Points

Then, we see another aspect of Yahshua's trials and suffering in:

Hebrews 2:18—
For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted; tested and tried, He is able to help those who are being tempted.

Yes, Yahshua Messiah was tempted. He was human. Therefore, He was subject to temptation. In fact, Yahshua was tempted in every way we are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15—
For we do not have a High Priest Who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all ways tempted as we are—yet was without sin.

This one point that Yahshua was tempted in all ways, sets Yahshua apart from Yahweh, because Yahweh cannot be tempted.

Yaaqob 1:13—
Let no one say when he is tempted: I am tempted by Yahweh; for Yahweh cannot be tempted with evil, nor does he tempt anyone .

Yahshua Messiah Made Perfect Through Suffering

Many people are not able to see the result of the sin going on around them. Yet, the world is filled with people suffering from sins.

However, when Yahweh calls them out and opens their minds to understanding the importance of His Laws, and they begin suffering, first hand, the hatred of carnally minded people who hate Yahweh's Laws, then they are finally able to see the results of sin. They even come to despise Baal (the lord) just as Yahshua Messiah did. That is the reason the Apostle Shaul wrote that we are actually made perfect through suffering.

Acts 14:22—
They strengthened the minds of the disciples, and exhorted them to remain firm in the faith, and that we must, through much tribulation, enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh.

Yahweh allowed Yahshua to suffer, in order to make Him see, first hand, the results of sin. It may be necessary that Yahweh will also have to let each of us suffer before we, too, fully realize the results of sin. Now let us compare Hebrews 2:10 to Hebrews 5:9.

Hebrews 2:10—
For it was fitting for Him—on account of Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory- to lead the Prince of their salvation to perfection through sufferings.

Hebrews 5:9—
Then being perfected, He became the causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.

Hebrews 5:9 from the King James Version is rendered differently from The Book Of Yahweh, and says:

Hebrews 5:9, KJV—
And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him.

Just reading the King James Version, one might think that (1) Yahshua was made perfect, and (2) that He was the author of eternal salvation.

However, I want you to know that the translators of the King James Version lied to you.

They, as well as all the false religious leaders in this world, want you to think that Yahshua pre-existed and Hebrews 5:9 is one of the Scriptures they try to use to prove their doctrine. However, there is quite a difference in the meanings of the verb forms: being made perfect and having been perfected.

The translators, and deceived preachers who teach false doctrines, are the very ones who want you to also believe that Yahshua is the author of salvation. They want you to believe that the Plan of salvation was written by Yahshua, however, Yahshua is not the author; Yahweh is the author.

The word translated author in the King James Version is word #159, from word #154, in Strong's Greek Dictionary, and means a causer, to ask. We are also instructed to compare word #4441, in order to find the complete meaning of word #154. Word #4441 means strictly a demand of something due.

Therefore, because Yahshua Messiah came to perfection, He received that which was His due: eternal life, and became the causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Yahweh.

Hebrews 13:20-21—
20 Now may the Father of peace—the One having brought up out of the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep, our Redeemer Yahshua, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every righteous work to do his will; working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight, as he did in Yahshua Messiah—to Whom belongs the glory forever and ever. HalleluYahweh!

Life Or Death?

This day Yahweh has set before you life and righteousness, through the true Savior sent by Him, High Priest over The House of Yahweh: Yahshua Messiah.

This day, there is also set before you death and evil through a pre-existent god savior who supposedly "did it all for you" if you "only believe," even though you continue to practice evil.

It is your choice. Yahweh, the kind, merciful and loving Heavenly Father asks that you choose life, through Yahshua Messiah, the true Savior sent from Father Yahweh.

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 02:30 PM

Romans 10

Yahshua the Ultimate result of keeping YHWHs Laws

Brothers, my hearts longing and prayer to Yahweh for Israyl is, that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for Yahweh, but their zeal is not according to knowledge. Since they, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from Yahweh, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to Yahwehs righteousness. For Yahshua is the Ultimate Result of keeping the Law unto righteousness for everyone who believes.

For

mosheh writes about the righteousness that is through the Law: that the man who does these things will live by them. For the righteousness of the faith speaks in this way: Do not say in your heart; Who will ascend to heaven? That is to bring Messiah down. Or; Who will descend into the grave? That is, to bring Messiah up from the dead.

But what does righteousness say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. That is, the word of the faith which we preach: That if you confess with your mouth the Messiah, Yahshua, and believe in your heart that Yahweh raised Him from the dead. you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scriptures says: Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.

For there is no distinction between Yahdai(person of YHWH/Hebrew/jew) and Greek(gentile). For the same Father of all is rich to all those who call upon Him.(YHWH is Father to ALL)

For whoever calls with the Name of Yahweh will be saved.

How, then, can they call upon Him in Whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

and how can they preach, unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the message of peace, who bring glad tidings of righteous things.(Isayah 52:7)

But they have not all obeyed the message. For Isayah say: Yahweh, who has believed our report.(Isayah 53:1)

So then. faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Yahweh. But I ask: Have they not heard? Yes. truly; Their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Again I ask, Did Israyl not understand? First, Mosheh says: I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation; I will anger you by a foolish nation.

Then, Isayah(salvation is YHWH) is very bold, and says: I was found by those who didn't seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.(Isayah 65:1) But concerning Israyl, He says: All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

Romans 11

I ask then; Has Yahweh cast away His people?(the Yahdaim/ hebrews) By no means! For I am also an Israylite, of the seed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benyamin. Yahweh has not cast away this people Whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the scripture says about Yliyah,(Strength of YHWH/Elijah) how he appealed to Yahweh against Yisrayl, saying: Yahweh, they have killed your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life?

this one chapter alone dismantles many of the xtian gnosticists claims; the gnosticists Claim, that the Father of the NT is a different Father than the OT, yet you read Shaul/paul citing Isayah amd Mosheh/
moses.

The gnosticists claim the Laws of YHWH are obsolete, yet the reader can read for themselves this is not true. Read the above Essay: Alpha & Omega or Aleph & Tau.

These are two of the gnosticists primary building blocks, they are demolished.

The gnosticist positions rely upon a persons ignorance, that they themselves have not read the Bible, both the OT and the NT. Yahshua and the apostles constantly cite the Patriarchs and the Prophets, who were messengers and servants of YHWH. The Messiah and the apostles all upheld, kept and taught the Laws of YHWH. Why is Yahshua Messiah considered the Unblemished Lamb? What is the criteria? The criteria is: Yahshua Messiah kept the Laws of YHWH perfectly.

please note: several times I have requested the challengers to Post their Scripturaly supported definitions of: Righteousness, Sin, and Inequity, as these are terms used throughout the entire Book

Righteousness is upholding and Keeping the Laws of YHWH. Sin is the Transgressions of the Laws, Likewise Inequity, transgressions of the Laws. Understanding the meaning of these three words clarify many passages throughout the Book. These definitions are scripturaly supported.

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 02:31 PM

for those unfamiliar with gnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

Gnosticism (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable Supreme Being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available to all through direct experience or knowledge (gnosis) of (this unknowable) God.[1]
Within the sects of gnosticism however only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnosis, the hylic or Somatics though human, are doomed. Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth. In others (e.g. the Notzrim and Mandaeans) he is considered a mšiha kdaba "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[2]
Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. [3] Gnosticism may have been suppressed as early as the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ.[4] see first Post; judaic origins of gnosticism

Along with Gnosticism in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the Second and Third Centuries. Gnosticism became a dualistic heresy to Judaism (see Notzrim), Christianity and Hellenic philosophy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths (see Huneric), and the Persian Empire. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.
Contents
[hide]
1 Nature and structure of Gnosticism
1.1 The main features of gnosticism
1.2 Dualism and monism
1.3 Moral and ritual practice
2 Major Gnostic movements and their texts
2.1 Persian Gnosticism
2.2 Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism
2.2.1 Syrian-Egyptic scripture
2.3 Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups
2.4 Kabbalah
3 Important terms and concepts
3.1 Aeons
3.2 Archon
3.3 Abraxas/Abrasax
3.4 Demiurge
3.5 Gnosis
3.6 Monad (apophatic theology)
3.7 Pleroma
3.8 Sophia
4 History
4.1 The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school
4.2 The development of the Persian school
4.3 Buddhism and Gnosticism
4.4 Influence in East Asia
5 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category
6 Gnosticism in modern times
7 See also
8 Footnotes
9 References
9.1 Books
9.1.1 Primary sources
9.1.2 Secondary sources
9.2 Videos
10 External links
[edit]Nature and structure of Gnosticism

[edit]The main features of gnosticism
Gnostic systems are typically marked by:
The notion of a remote, supreme monadic divinity - this figure is known under a variety of names, including 'Pleroma' and 'Bythos' (Greek, "deep");
The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded; the progressive emanations are often conceived metaphorically as a gradual and progressive distancing from the ultimate source, which brings about an instability in the fabric of the divine nature;

The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself, rather than as occurring either entirely or indeed partially through human agency; this stage in the divine emanation is usually enacted through the recurrent Gnostic figure of Sophia (Greek, "wisdom"), whose presence in a wide variety of Gnostic texts is indicative of her central importance;

The introduction of a distinct creator god, named demiurgos in the Platonist tradition.
Evidence exists that the conception of the demiurge derives from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic. In the former, the demiurge is the benevolent creator of the universe from pre-existent matter, to whose limitations he is enthralled in creating the cosmos; in the latter, the description of the leontomorphic 'desire' in Socrates' model of the psyche bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of the demiurge as being in the shape of the lion.
Elsewhere this figure is called 'Ialdabaoth', 'Samael' (Aramaic sæmʕa-ʔel, 'blind god') or 'Saklas' (Syriac sækla, 'the foolish one'), who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes opposed to it; thus in the latter case he is correspondingly malevolent.

The demiurge typically creates a group of coactors named 'Archons', who preside over the material realm and, in some cases, present obstacles to the soul seeking ascent from it;
The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow.

This world is typically an inferior simulacrum of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a painting, sculpture, or other handicraft to the thing(s) of which those crafts are supposed to be a representation. In certain other cases it is also perceived as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;

The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening (leading towards salvation). The salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrent restoration of the divine nature; a central Gnostic innovation was to elevate individual redemption to the level of a cosmically significant event;

Knowledge of a specific kind as a central factor in this process of restoration, achieved through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
The model limits itself to describing characteristics of the Syrian-Egyptian school of Gnosticism. This is for the reason that the greatest expressions of the Persian gnostic school - Manicheanism and Mandaeanism - are typically conceived of as religious traditions in their own right; indeed, the typical usage of 'Gnosticism' is to refer to the Syrian-Egyptian schools alone, while 'Manichean' describes the movements of the Persia school.

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is vital in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism, due in part to the fact that, prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, which is discussed below, much of what we know today about gnosticism has only been preserved in the teachings of early church fathers. The age of the Gnostics was highly diverse religiously, and due to there being no fixed church authority, syncretism with pre-existing belief systems as well as new religions was often embraced. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

Irenaeus declares (Adversus Haereses, II, 27, 1. PG, VI, 802) it subjected everything to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. It destroyed, as Clement puts it (Stromata., II, 3, pp. 443-4) the efficacy of Baptism (that is, it set at naught faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament). The Gnostics professed to impart a knowledge "greater and deeper" (Iren. I, 31, 2) than the ordinary doctrine of Christians. This knowledge, to those who were capable of it, was the means of redemption; indeed, in most of the Gnostics systems it was the one and sufficient passport to perfect bliss. But it kept the resemblance of Christianity for in nearly all the Gnostic systems Christ occupied a central place. Without its Christian element, it could not have entered into such close conflict with the Church; without its mythological garb, it would have missed its popularity.

The conception of Gnosticism here has in recent times come to be challenged (see below). Despite this, the understanding presented above remains the most common and is useful in aiding meaningful discussion of the phenomena that compose Gnosticism.
[edit]Dualism and monism

Typically, Gnostic systems are loosely described as being 'dualistic' in nature, meaning they had the view the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities. Hans Jonas writes: "The cardinal feature of gnostic thought is the radical dualism that governs the relation of God and world, and correspondingly that of man and world."[5] Within this definition, they run the gamut from the 'extreme' or 'radical dualist' systems of Manicheanism to the 'weak' or 'mitigated dualism' of classic gnostic movements; Valentinian developments arguably approach a form of monism, expressed in terms previously used in a dualistic manner.

Radical Dualism - or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely inherits this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism, in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis, Angra Mainyu; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant.

The Mandaean creation myth witnesses the progressive emanations of Supreme Being of Light, with each emanation bringing about a progressive corruption resulting in the eventual emergence of Ptahil, the god of darkness who had a hand in creating and henceforward rules the material realm.

Additionally, general Gnostic thought (specifically to be found in Iranian sects; for instance, see 'The Hymn of the Pearl') commonly included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep elements of the light trapped inside it, or literally to keep them 'in the dark', or ignorant; in a state of drunken distraction.

Mitigated Dualism - where one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented by the physical realm.

Qualified Monism - where it is arguable whether or not the second entity is divine or semi-divine. Elements of Valentinian versions of Gnostic myth suggest to some that its understanding of the universe may have been monistic rather than a dualistic one: 'Valentinian gnosticism [...] differs essentially from dualism' (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospel, 1978); 'a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic' (William Schoedel, 'Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth' in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The School of Valentinus, edited by Bentley Layton, E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1980). In these myths, the malevolence of the demiurge is mitigated; his creation of a flawed materiality is not due to any moral failing on his part, but due to his honest ignorance of the superior spiritual world above him. As such, Valentinians already have more cause to treat physical reality with less contempt than might a Sethian Gnostic.

Perhaps for this reason Valentinus appears to conceive of materiality, rather than as being a separate substance from the divine, as attributable to an error of perception. Thus it follows that the Valentinian conception of the universe may be of a fundamentally monistic nature, in which all things are aspects of the divine; our ordinary view which is limited to the material realm is owing to our errors of perception, which become symbolized mythopoetically as the demiurge's act of creation.[citation needed]
[edit]Moral and ritual practice

The question of Gnostic morality can only be resolved by reading the claims of their contemporaries. Numerous Christian writers accused some Gnostic teachers of claiming to eschew the physical realm, while simultaneously freely indulging their physical appetites; however there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims.

Evidence in the source texts indicates Gnostic moral behaviour as being generally ascetic in basis, expressed most fluently in their sexual and dietary practice.[6] Many monks would deprive themselves of food, water, or necessary needs for living. This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: this mode of behavior was one which they themselves favoured and supported, so the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism (see the Cainites), or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks' (Panarion, 40.1.4).

In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora lays out a project of general asceticism in which the basis of action is the moral inclination of the individual:
External physical fasting is observed even among our followers, for it can be of some benefit to the soul if it is engaged on with reason (logos), whenever it is done neither by way of limiting others, nor out of habit, nor because of the day, as if it had been specially appointed for that purpose.
– Ptolemy, Letter to Flora

This extract marks a definite shift away from the position of orthodoxy, that the correct behaviour for Christians is best administered and prescribed by the central authority of the church, as transmitted through the apostles. Instead, the internalised inclination of the individual assumes paramount importance; there is the recognition that ritualistic behaviour, though well-intentioned, possesses no significance or effectiveness unless its external prescription is matched by a personal, internal motivation.

Charges of Gnostic libertinism find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument was that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Irenaeus reports of the Valentinians, whom he characterizes as eventual inheritors of Simon, that they are lax in their dietary habits (eating food that has been 'offered to idols'), sexually promiscuous ('immoderately given over to the desires of the flesh') and guilty of taking wives under the pretence of living with them as adopted 'sisters'. In the latter case, Michael Allen Williams has argued plausibly that Irenaeus was here broadly correct in the behaviour described, but not in his apprehension of its causes. Williams argues that members of a cult might live together as 'brother' and 'sister': intimate, yet not sexually active. Over time, however, the self-denial required of such an endeavour becomes harder and harder to maintain, leading to the state of affairs Irenaeus criticizes.
Irenaeus also makes reference to the Valentinian practise of the Bridal Chamber, a ritualistic sacrament in which sexual union is seen as analogous to the activities of the paired syzygies that constitute the Valentinian Pleroma. Though it is known that Valentinus had a more relaxed approach to sexuality than much of the orthodox church (he allowed women to hold positions of ordination in his community), it is not known whether the Bridal Chamber was a ritual involving actual intercourse, or whether human sexuality is here simply being used in a metaphorical sense.

Of the Carpocratians Irenaeus makes much the same report: they 'are so abandoned in their recklessness that they claim to have in their power and be able to practise anything whatsoever that is ungodly (irreligious) and impious ... they say that conduct is only good or evil in the eyes of man' (Adversus Haereses, I.25.4). Once again a differentiation might be detected between a man's actions and the grace he has received through his adherence to a system of gnosis; whether this is due to a common sharing of such an attitude amongst Gnostic circles, or whether this is simply a blanket-charge used by Irenaeus is open to conjecture.

On the whole, it would seem that Gnostic behavior tended towards the ascetic. This said, the heresiological accusation of duplicity in such practises should not be taken at face value; nor should similar accusations of amoral libertinism. The Nag Hammadi library itself is full of passages which appear to encourage abstinence over indulgence. Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis:The Nature and History of Gnosticism, 262).
[edit]Major Gnostic movements and their texts

As noted above, schools of Gnosticism can be defined according to one classification system as being a member of two broad categories. These are the 'Eastern'/'Persian' school, and a 'Syrian-Egyptic' school. The former possesses more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian Zoroastrians. Among the Syrian-Egyptian schools and the movements they spawned are a typically more Monist view. Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians which are included in their own section.

[edit]Persian Gnosticism
The Persian Schools are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from Christianity or Judaism.

Mandaeanism is still practiced in small numbers, in parts of southern Iraq and the Iranian province of Khuzestan. The name of the group derives from the term: Mandā d-Heyyi which roughly means "Knowledge of Life." Although the exact chronological origins of this movement are not known, John the Baptist eventually would come to be a key figure in the religion. As part of the core of their beliefs is an emphasis placed on baptism. As with Manichaeism, despite certain ties with Christianity, Mandaeans do not believe in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Their beliefs and practices likewise have little overlap with the religions that manifested from those religious figures and the two should not be confused. Significant amounts of original Mandaean Scripture survive in the modern era. The primary source text is known as the Genzā Rabbā and has portions identified by some scholars as being copied as early as the 2nd century CE. There is also the Qolastā, or Canonical Book of Prayer and The Book of John the Baptist (sidra ḏ-iahia).

Manichaeism which represented an entire independent religious heritage, but is now mostly extinct was founded by the Prophet Mani (210-276 CE). Although most of the literature/scripture of the Manichaeins was believed lost, the discovery of an original series of documents have helped to shed new light on the subject. Now housed in Cologne Germany, the Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis contains mainly biographical information on the prophet and details on his claims and teachings. Despite connections with Jesus Christ, it is not believed that the Manichaeins in any way practiced a religion with identifiable overlap with any of the various Christian sects.

[edit]Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism
The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from Platonist influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being relative descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an inherent negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called Orthodox or Roman Catholic forms).

[edit]Syrian-Egyptic scripture
Most of the literature from this category is known/confirmed to us in the modern age through the Library discovered at Nag Hammadi.
Sethian works are named after the third son of Adam and Eve, believed to be a possessor and disseminator of gnosis. These typically include:

The Apocryphon of John
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Reality of the Rulers, Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons
The Thunder-Perfect Mind
The Three-fold First Thought (Trimorphic Protennoia)
The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also known as the (Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians)
Zostrianos
Allogenes
The Three Steles of Seth
Thomasine works are so-named after the School of St. Thomas the Apostle. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
The Hymn of the Pearl, or, the Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect

Valentinian works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher Valentinius, also spelled Valentinus. ca. 153 AD/CE, Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one point he was close to being appointed the Bishop of Rome of what is now the Roman Catholic Church. Works attributed to his school are listed below, and fragmentary pieces directly linked to him are noted with an asterisk:
The Divine Word Present in the Infant (Fragment A) *
On the Three Natures (Fragment B) *
Adam's Faculty of Speech (Fragment C) *
To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System (Fragment D) *
Annihilation of the Realm of Death (Fragment F) *
On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom (Fragment G) *
Epistle on Attachments (Fragment H) *
Summer Harvest*
The Gospel of Truth*
Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora
Treatise on Resurrection (Epistle to Rheginus)
Gospel of Philip
Basilidian works are named for the founder of their school, Basilides (132–? CE/AD). These works are mainly known to us through the criticisms of one of his opponents, Irenaeus in his work Adversus Haereses. The other pieces are known through the work of Clement of Alexandria:
The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
Reincarnation (Fragment F)
Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

The Gospel of Judas is the most recently discovered Gnostic text. National Geographic has published an English translation of it, bringing it into mainstream awareness. It portrays Judas Iscariot as the most enlightened disciple, who acted at Jesus' request when he handed Jesus over to the authorities. Its reference to Barbelo and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism.
[edit]Later Gnosticism and Gnostic-influenced groups
Other schools and related movements; these are presented in chronological order:

The circular, harmonic cross was an emblem used most notably by the Cathars, a medieval group that related to Gnosticism
Simon Magus and Marcion of Sinope both had Gnostic tendencies, but such familiar ideas that they presented were as-yet unformed; they might thus be described as pseudo- or proto-Gnostics. Both developed a sizeable following. Simon Magus' pupil Menander of Antioch could potentially be included within this grouping. Marcion is popularly labelled a gnostic, however most scholars do not consider him a gnostic at all, for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Marcion clearly states: "In Marcion's own view, therefore, the founding of his church — to which he was first driven by opposition — amounts to a reformation of Christendom through a return to the gospel of Christ and to Paul; nothing was to be accepted beyond that. This of itself shows that it is a mistake to reckon Marcion among the Gnostics. A dualist he certainly was, but he was not a Gnostic - Depending of course on one's definition of 'Gnostic'."

Cerinthus (c 100), the founder of a heretical school with gnostic elements. Like a Gnostic, Cerinthus depicted Christ as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus, and he cited the demiurge as creating the material world. Unlike the Gnostics, Cerinthus taught Christians to observe the Jewish law; his demiurge was holy, not lowly; and he taught the Second Coming. His gnosis was a secret teaching attributed to an apostle. Some scholars believe that the First Epistle of John was written as a response to Cerinthus.[7]

The Ophites, so-named because they worshipped the serpent of Genesis as the bestower of knowledge.

The Cainites, as the term implies, worshipped Cain, as well as Esau, Korah, and the Sodomites. There is little evidence concerning the nature of this group; however, it is surmisable that they believed that indulgence in sin was the key to salvation because since the body is evil, one must defile it through immoral activity (see libertinism). The name Cainite is used as the name of a religious movement, and not in the usual Biblical sense of people descended from Cain. According to Biblical text, which is our only source of knowledge about the man Cain, all descendants of Cain perished in Noah's Flood, as only Noah's family survived, deriving from the line of Seth.
The Carpocratians
The Borborites
The Bogomils
The Paulicans
The Cathars (Cathari, Albigenses or Albigensians) are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism; whether or not the Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism is disputed. Though the basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion of a lesser, Satanic, creator god), they did not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (gnosis) as an effective salvific force. For the relationship between these medieval heresies and earlier Gnostic forms, see historical discussion above.

[edit]Kabbalah
Gnostic ideas found a Jewish variation in the mystical study of Kabbalah. The Kabbalists took many core Gnostic ideas and used them to dramatically reinterpret earlier Jewish sources according to this new foreign influence. See Gershom Scholem's Origins of the Kabbalah for further discussion. The Kabbalists originated in Provence which was at that time also the center of the Gnostic Cathars. It is thus believed that Cathar Gnostics persuaded Jews to Gnostic ideas, leading to the development of Kabbalah. Another influence on Kabbalah was probably that of the Muslim Ismailis. (By contrast, however, followers of Kabbalah date its origins as early as the Garden of Eden.)

Kabbalah, however, does not employ the terminology or labels of gentile Gnosticism, but grounds the same or similar concepts in the language of the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible). Nevertheless, during the time periods when Gnosticism was drawing large numbers of followers from various religions, creating Gnostic versions of those religions, many Jews also developed a mystical version of Judaism remarkably similar to Gnostic beliefs.

While Kabbalah shares several themes with Gnosticism, such as a multiplicity of heavenly levels and archetypes and the importance of mystical knowledge of these, it does not reflect the distinctive Gnostic belief that the material world and the Hebrew Bible are the work of an inferior and malevolent deity. Rather than describing Kabbalah as a form of Gnosticism, it would be more accurate to describe both Kabbalah and Gnosticism as members of a family of Neoplatonic/Neopythagorean Oriental mystical traditions, which would also include Sufism.

[edit]Important terms and concepts

Main article: List of gnostic terms
[edit]Aeons
Main article: Aeon
In many Gnostic systems, the various emanations of the God, who is also known by such names as the One, the Monad, Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), Bythos (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek προαρχη), E Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ἡ ἀρχή), are called aeons. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoia (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).
The aeons often came in male/female pairs called syzygies, and were numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were Jesus and Sophia. The aeons constitute the pleroma, the "region of light". The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness; that is, the physical world.
When an æon named Sophia emanated without her partner aeon, the result was the Demiurge, or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as Ialdaboth in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, Christ and the Holy Spirit to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, Jesus, in order to be able to teach man how to achieve gnosis; that is, return to the pleroma.

These systems, however, are only a sample of the various interpretations that exist. The roles of familiar beings such as Jesus Christ, Sophia, and the Demiurge usually share the same general themes between systems but may have somewhat different functions or identities ascribed to them.

[edit]Archon
Main article: Archon
In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term Archon to refer to several servants of the Demiurge, the "creator god" that stood between spiritual humanity and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they may be seen as having the roles of the angels and demons of the Old Testament.
The Orphics accepted the existence of seven archons: Iadabaoth or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), Iao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Elaios, Astaphanos and Horaios (Origen, Contra Celsum, VI.31). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like Mithraic Kronos (Chronos) and Vedic Narasimha, a form of Vishnu.
[edit]Abraxas/Abrasax
Main article: Abraxas

Engraving from an Abraxas stone.
The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans referred to a figure called Abraxas who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear.
The word Abraxas was engraved on certain antique stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as amulets or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a god who incorporated both Good and Evil (God and Demiurge) in one entity, and therefore representing the monotheistic God, singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not omni-benevolent (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an Egyptian god and a demon, sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of Satan/Lucifer. The word abracadabra may be related to Abraxas.

The above information relates to interpretations of ancient amulets and to reports of Christian heresy hunters which are not always clear.
Actual ancient Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, such as the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians, refer to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Spiritual Fullness in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge and Archon's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abrasax, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Divine Fullness that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.
Words like or similar to Abraxas or Abrasax also appear in the Greek Magical Papyri. There are similarities and differences between such figures in reports about Basiledes' teaching, in the larger magical traditions of the Graeco-Roman world, in the classic ancient Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in later magical and esoteric writings.
The Swiss Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a short Gnostic treatise in 1916 called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas a God higher than the Christian God and Devil, that combines all opposites into one Being.
[edit]Demiurge
Main article: Demiurge

A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in Bernard de Montfaucon's L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures may be a depiction of the Demiurge.
The term Demiurge refers to an entity (usually seen as evil) responsible for the creation of the physical universe and the physical aspect of humanity.
The term occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably Platonism. While always suggestive of a creator god, the moral judgements regarding the demiurge vary wildly, from a benign grand architect to an evil subvertor of God's will.
Like Plato, Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic "creator" of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus fundamentally flawed, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil. In the Apocryphon of John (several versions of which are found in the Nag Hammadi library), the Demiurge has the name "Yaltabaoth", and proclaims himself as God:
"Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come."

Gnostic myth recounts that Sophia (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See Sethian Gnosticism.)
"Samael" may equate to the Judaic Angel of Death, and corresponds to the Christian demon of that name, as well as Satan. Literally, it can mean "Blind God" or "God of the Blind" in Aramaic (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel). Another alternative title for Yaldabaoth, "Saklas", is Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac sækla "the foolish one").
Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, in opposition and contrast to the God of the New Testament. Still others equated the being with Satan. Catharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism.
[edit]Gnosis
Main article: Gnosis
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge', gnosis (γνῶσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy.
Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and empirical knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward 'knowing' or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (ca. 205–270 AD). However, as may be seen, the term 'gnostic' also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

[edit]Monad (apophatic theology)
Main article: Monad (Gnosticism)
In many Gnostic systems (and heresiologies), God is known as the Monad, the One, The Absolute, Aion teleos (The Perfect Æon), Bythos (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, προαρχη), and E Arkhe (The Beginning, η αρχη). God is the high source of the pleroma, the region of light. The various emanations of God are called æons.
Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspired by Monoimus, the Monad was the highest God which created lesser gods, or elements (similar to æons).
According to Hippolytus, this view was inspired by the Pythagoreans, who called the first thing that came into existence the Monad, which begat the dyad, which begat the numbers, which begat the point, begetting lines, etc. This was also clarified in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. This teaching being largely Neopythagorean via Numenius as well.

This Monad is the spiritual source of everything which emanates the pleroma, and could be contrasted to the dark Demiurge (Yaldabaoth) that controls matter.
The Sethian cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ('Secret book') of John describes an unknown God, very similar to the orthodox apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is omniscient, omnipotent and truly benevolent. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through negative theology: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, 'he' is seen as being hermaphroditic, a potent symbol for being, as it were, 'all-containing'. In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.
An apophatic approach to discussing the Divine is found throughout gnosticism, Vedanta, and Platonic and Aristotelian theology as well. It is also found in some Judaic sources.

[edit]Pleroma
Main article: Pleroma
Pleroma (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means fullness, and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in Colossians 2.9.

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil archons, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the Old Testament who holds the human spirit captive.
The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as aeons (eternal beings) and sometimes archons. Jesus is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic cosmology.
Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that Paul was actually a gnostic, such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

[edit]Sophia
Main article: Sophia (wisdom)
In Gnostic tradition, the term Sophia (Σoφíα, Greek for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God.
In most if not all versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the demiurge, who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth (this is a feature of Ptolemy's version of the Valentinian gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90[8] .

Almost all gnostic systems of the Syrian or Egyptian type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable God, referred to as the Parent or Bythos, as the Monad by Monoimus, or the first Aeon by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously emanated further Aeons, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and Christ. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.
[edit]History

Main article: History of Gnosticism
[edit]The development of the Syrian-Egyptian school
Bentley Layton has sketched out a relationship between the various gnostic movements in his introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures (SCM Press, London, 1987). In this model, 'Classical Gnosticism' and 'The School of Thomas' antedated and influenced the development of Valentinus, who was to found his own school of Gnosticism in both Alexandria and Rome, whom Layton called 'the great [Gnostic] reformer' and 'the focal point' of Gnostic development. While in Alexandria, where he was born, Valentinus probably would have had contact with the Gnostic teacher Basilides, and may have been influenced by him.
Valentinianism flourished throughout the early centuries of the common era: while Valentinus himself lived from ca. 100–180 AD/CE, a list of sectarians or heretics, composed in 388 AD/CE, against whom Emperor Constantine intended legislation includes Valentinus (and, presumably, his inheritors).[citation needed] The school is also known to have been extremely popular: several varieties of their central myth are known, and we know of 'reports from outsiders from which the intellectual liveliness of the group is evident' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 94). It is known that Valentinus' students, in further evidence of their intellectual activity, elaborated upon the teachings and materials they received from him (though the exact extent of their changes remains unknown), for example, in the version of the Valentinian myth brought to us through Ptolemy.
Valentinianism might be described as the most elaborate and philosophically 'dense' form of the Syrian-Egyptian schools of Gnosticism, though it should be acknowledged that this in no way debarred other schools from attracting followers: Basilides' own school was popular also, and survived in Egypt until the 4th century.
Simone Petrement, in A Separate God, in arguing for a Christian origin of Gnosticism, places Valentinus after Basilides, but before the Sethians. It is her assertion that Valentinus represented a moderation of the anti-Judaism of the earlier Hellenized teachers; the demiurge, widely regarded to be a mythological depiction of the Old Testament God of the Hebrews, is depicted as more ignorant than evil. (See below.)

Manichean priests writing at their desks, with panel inscription in Sogdian. Manuscript from Khocho, Tarim Basin.
[edit]The development of the Persian school
An alternate heritage is offered by Kurt Rudolph in his book Gnosis: The Nature & Structure of Gnosticism (Koehler and Amelang, Leipzig, 1977), to explain the lineage of Persian Gnostic schools. The decline of Manicheism that occurred in Persia in the 5th century AD/CE was too late to prevent the spread of the movement into the east and the west. In the west, the teachings of the school moved into Syria, Northern Arabia, Egypt and North Africa (where Augustine was a member of the school from 373-382); from Syria it progressed still farther, into Palestine, Asia Minor and Armenia. There is evidence for Manicheans in Rome and Dalmatia in the 4th century, and also in Gaul and Spain. The influence of Manicheanism was attacked by imperial elects and polemical writings, but the religion remained prevalent until the 6th century, and still exerted influence in the emergence of the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathari in the Middle Ages, until it was ultimately stamped out as a heresy by the Catholic Church.
In the east, Rudolph relates, Manicheanism was able to bloom, given that the religious monopoly position previously held by Christianity and Zoroastrianism had been broken by nascent Islam. In the early years of the Arab conquest, Manicheanism again found followers in Persia (mostly amongst educated circles), but flourished most in Central Asia, to which it had spread through Iran. Here, in 762, Manicheanism became the state religion of the Uyghur Empire.
[edit]Buddhism and Gnosticism
Early 3rd century–4th century Christian writers such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius write about a Scythianus, who visited India around 50 CE from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to Cyril of Jerusalem, Scythianus' pupil Terebinthus presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas").[9] Terebinthus went to Palestine and Judaea ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in Babylon, where he transmitted his teachings to Mani, thereby creating the foundation of Manichaeism:
"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas."
—Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical lecture 6"
In the 3rd century, the Syrian writer and Christian Gnostic theologian Bar Daisan described his exchanges with the religious missions of holy men from India (Greek: Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas), passing through Syria on their way to Elagabalus or another Severan dynasty Roman Emperor. His accounts were quoted by Porphyry (De abstin., iv, 17[citation needed]) and Stobaeus (Eccles., iii, 56, 141).
Finally, from the 3rd century to the 12th century, some Gnostic religions such as Manichaeism, which combined Christian, Hebrew and Buddhist influences (Mani, the founder of the religion, resided for some time in Kushan lands), spread throughout the Old World, to Gaul and Great Britain in the West, and to China in the East. Some leading Christian theologians such as Augustine of Hippo were Manichaeans before converting to orthodox Christianity.
Such exchanges, many more of which may have gone unrecorded, suggest that Buddhism may have had some influence on early Christianity: "Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

[edit]Influence in East Asia
Early missionaries, including Manicheans, Zoroastrians, and Nestorians, traveled and proselytized along the Silk Road east to Chang'an, the Tang Dynasty capital of China. The first introduction of Christianity, under the Chinese name Jĭngjiào (景教, literally "bright/luminous religion"), was from Nestorianism or the Assyrian Church of the East. In 635, when Nestorian missionaries arrived in Chang'an, the Emperor assigned his famous Prime Minister Fang Xuanling (房玄齡) to hold a grand welcome ceremony. Chinese Nestorianism was popular in the late 8th century, but never became a widely-practice mainstream religion in China. In 845, Emperor Wuzong of Tang ordered the Great Persecution of Buddhism, which affected other foreign religions, weakened Nestorianism and practically destroyed Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism in China.
Chinese Nestorianism revived during the 13th-14th century Yuan Dynasty, but was replaced by Roman Catholicism in 16th-17th centuries. Rudolph reported that despite the suppression, Manichean traditions are reputed to have survived until the 17th century (based on the reports of Portuguese sailors).
[edit]'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category

In 1966 in Messina, Italy, a conference was held concerning systems of gnosis. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently-acquired Nag Hammadi library (see above) and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of 'Gnosticism'. This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the eighteenth century, to use the term 'gnostic' less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for contemporary philosophical and religious movements. For example, in 1835, New Testament scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminates in the religious philosophy of Hegel; one might compare literary critic Harold Bloom's recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary American religion, or Eric Voegelin's analysis of totalitarian impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism.
The 'cautious proposal' reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:
In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was 'by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods' to designate 'a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ' as 'gnosticism', and to use 'gnosis' to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as 'knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite'.
– Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13
In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' was a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly constituted knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.
These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of Michael Allen Williams in Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category, in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).
Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.
[edit]Gnosticism in modern times

Main article: Gnosticism in modern times
A number of 19th century thinkers such as William Blake, Schopenhauer,[10] Albert Pike, Madame Blavatsky, studied Gnostic thought extensively and were influenced by it, and even figures like Herman Melville and W. B. Yeats were more tangentially influenced.[11] Jules Doinel "re-established" a Gnostic church in France in 1890 which altered its form as it passed through various direct successors (Fabre des Essarts as Tau Synésius and Joanny Bricaud as Tau Jean II most notably), and which, although small, is still active today.[12]

Early 20th century thinkers who heavily studied and were influenced by Gnosticism include Carl Jung (who supported Gnosticism), Eric Voegelin (who opposed it), Jorge Luis Borges (who included it in many of his short stories), and Aleister Crowley, with figures such as Hermann Hesse being more moderatedly influenced. Rene Guenon founded the gnostic review, Le Gnose in 1909 (before moving to a more "Perennialist" position). Gnostic Thelemite organizations, such as Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and Ordo Templi Orientis, trace themselves to Crowley's thought.

The discovery and translation of the Nag Hammadi library after 1945 had a huge impact on Gnosticism since World War II. Thinkers who were heavily influenced by Gnosticism in this period include Hans Jonas, Philip K. Dick and Harold Bloom, with Albert Camus and Allen Ginsberg being more moderately influenced.[11] A number of ecclesiastical bodies which think of themselves as Gnostic have been set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the Society of Novus Spiritus, Ecclesia Gnostica, the Thomasine Church, the Apostolic Johannite Church, the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, the North American College of Gnostic Bishops. Celia Green has written on Gnostic Christianity in relation to her own philosophy[13] .
Also there are Gnostic Churches and Organisations based in the United Kingdom due to popularity of the Gnostic Scriptures since the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.[1

phildee3

07-11-2008, 02:51 PM

.

1: Yahshua was using the Name openly, in violation of Pharisee laws/traditions/superstitions, thus leading to charges of blasphemy and heresy.

2: He denounced the Talmudic traditions and writings. The Post on
Acts 15 clearly shows this opposition. Yahshua taught the Laws only, no added traditions.

So he taught the laws whilst violating them?

mmmm...

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-11-2008, 04:56 PM

Yahshua Messiah violated/broke the rabbinical laws, not YHWHs.

A very salient difference.

It's all about YHWHs Laws, Yahweh considers the traditions of men worthless.

Think King Melchezidek, who was Abrahams teacher of Righteousness, whom Abraham Tithed.

please; provide your definitions. the definitions are uniform in both OT & NT.

Hebrews 1:3—
Who, being the reflection of the perfection of Yahweh, and the representation of Yahweh's plan, by upholding all things concerning that which was spoken by Yahweh through the Law and the prophets, when He had purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Yahweh on high;

Quote:
As I have repreatedly Posted: The Book of Yahweh is the Antithesis of the Mystery Schools. It is about Self-Discipline, developing a Robust Moral Character. To Conform to the Persona of Yahshua, who Conformed to Father Yahweh.

The Laws are much more understandable when one ignores the rabbinical musings, the opinions of mortal men. "The Sabbath is made for the man, not man for the Sabbath"

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=600196&postcount=110
Yahchanan 14:28—
You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Yahshua and Yahweh are two, separate and distinct Beings. When Yahshua was dead. it was Yahweh who ressurected Yahshua.

Yahchanan 12:49-50—
49 For I have not spoken on My own; but the Father Who sent Me gave Me the Laws—what I should say and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His Laws are life everlasting; so whatever I speak, I am saying exactly what My Father has told Me to say.

Again, two separate and distnct Beings, and Yahshua is speaking of Father YHWHs Laws.
also, Yahshua is 'subject' to YHWH.

II Corinthians 4:4—
For the god (el) of this world (HaSatan) has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the message of the glory of the Messiah, Who is the image of Yahweh, should not shine unto them.

HaSatan, the deceiver, she is the first to reject YHWHs Laws and Government.

Romans 6:15-16—

15 What? May we sin as though we are not under the Law, yet under Yahweh's undeserved pardon? by no means!
16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey—whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

This verse makes vividly clear the Laws are still in force, the earthly penalties are suspended, as we are all sinners.

Again; your definitions of Righteous, Sin and Inequity would be very illuminating. Thank You. :)

Romans 14

Precepts of the Law of Liberty

Accept one who is weak in the faith, but not if he wants to argue and dispute. For one believes that he may eat all Lawful things; another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. Do not let him who eats be despiteful of him who does not eat, and do not let him who does not eat condemn him who eats; for YHWH has accepted him into His House.

Who are you to condemn someone elses servant? To his own ruler he stands or falls. And he will stand, for YHWH is able to make him stand.

One person considers one Feast more holy than another; another considers every Feast of the same holiness. Let everyone be fully warned in his own mind.
He who keeps yhe Feast, keeps it to YHWH, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who eats, eats to Yahweh, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who does not eat to Yahweh, is not eating to, nor is thanking Yahweh.

For none of us lives of himself, and no man dies of himself.

For if we live, we live in Yahweh forever; but if we die; we will die in Yahweh. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are Yahwehs.

For this very reason Yahshua died and was restored to life again, that He might be the Judge of both the dead and the living.

But why do you pass judgement on your brother? Or why do you look down upon your brother? For we will all stand before the Judgement Seat of Yahshua.

For it is written: As surely as I live, says Yahweh, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will confess to Yahweh.(Isayah 45:23)

So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to Yahweh.

Therefore, let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, set your mind not to put any stumblingblock, or an occasion of falling, in our brothers way.

For I know, and am convinced by Yahshuah Messiah, that nothing is common in itself; except to the one accounting anything to be common-to that man, it is common.

But if your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not destroy him for whom Yahshua died, with your food.

Therefore do not allow your righteousness to be spoken of as evil.

For the Kingdom of Yahweh is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit:

pause

kasalt

08-11-2008, 01:38 AM

Yahshua Messiah violated/broke the rabbinical laws, not YHWHs.

That's what you say. The Jews have a different story to tell. I culled the following from a Hasidic Jewish website:

"The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

"To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). This is the reason that verse 1 commands us not to add or subtract any details from the Law, and verse 5 warns us to remain steadfast with all the traditions of the Law.

"In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

"Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":
Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45)."
Read more at the source: http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

phildee3

08-11-2008, 08:57 AM

Hebrews 1:3—
Who, being the reflection of the perfection of Yahweh, and the representation of Yahweh's plan, by upholding all things concerning that which was spoken by Yahweh through the Law and the prophets, when He had purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Yahweh on high;

Quote:
As I have repreatedly Posted: The Book of Yahweh is the Antithesis of the Mystery Schools. It is about Self-Discipline, developing a Robust Moral Character. To Conform to the Persona of Yahshua, who Conformed to Father Yahweh.

This quote from Hebrews is from the "Book of Yahweh" translation
which we have already shown to be falsified, modern, Yahwist propoganda.

The word translated here as "Yahweh," in the original Greek, is θεος - God.

Most gnostics know that Yahweh is a demi-god, not the all-that-is who is the "father" of the christos (to whom Jesus/Yahshua surrendered his mortal "persona").

You are quite right, the "Book of Yahweh" is the antithesis of the mystery schools, particularly that of Christ - founded by him through Jesus/Yahshua and taught primarily through occultist parables.

snoopsnuffleopagus

08-11-2008, 02:57 PM

This quote from Hebrews is from the "Book of Yahweh" translation
which we have already shown to be falsified, modern, Yahwist propoganda.

The word translated here as "Yahweh," in the original Greek, is ???? - God.

Most gnostics know that Yahweh is a demi-god, not the all-that-is who is the "father" of the christos (to whom Jesus/Yahshua surrendered his mortal "persona").

You are quite right, the "Book of Yahweh" is the antithesis of the mystery schools, particularly that of Christ - founded by him through Jesus/Yahshua and taught primarily through occultist parables.

phildee3: Try, just try for once in your life to be honest. The primary characters in the NT are Yahdaim=People of Yahweh/Hebrews. They thought, spoke, taught and SCRIBED in Hebrew. The ORIGINAL NT was scribed in Hebrew. So it is not 'the original greek'. Again, you, and others of your ilk: The Cosmopolitan Cosmologists and Ideologists usurp/steal others WORK, and overlay your Heathen Imprimatur.

Hello, your 'day' draws close.

where did you show this Book to be a fraud? I didn't see it.

The Book of Yahweh is a restoration, not a Fraud.

I dare you to compare your watered-down greek based drivel to authentic scholarship,

Two Examples:
http://www.yahweh.com/gen1.html

http://www.yahweh.com/yahch1.html

Let's be Honest; you, kasalt and es have no shame. You persist in your falsehoods no matter how harmful to others or yourself.

Shameful.

Define: Righteousness; Sin, and Iniquity.

You won't provide the definition of these words because it pulls down the Circus Tent of xtian gnosticism,

It is you who has purchased a fraud and you won't admit it.

Question: Who were the apostles citing to make their points?

You've been calling me a liar for many months, why no explicit evidence.

Quote any passage from the NT an we'll work it out.

You are a Usurper, xtian gnosticism is pure fraud, I suggest you morph your ideology to hermetic gnosticism.

You say you 'know' Yahweh is a demi-urge, but your only evidence is Speculative Conjecture.

Clue: ALL the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles and Yahshua Messiah call upon, and cite Father Yahweh.

I think it is very revealing that you stand upon the rubble and dust of xtian gnosticism and declare victory.

Priceless

Define: Righteousness, Sin and Iniquity

Thank You :)

phildee3

08-11-2008, 03:10 PM

Define: Righteousness, Sin and Inequity

Dictionaries are the best place to go for word definitions.

The all-that-is, within each one of us as the life-force, is the place to go for spiritual truth.

snoopsnuffleopagus

08-11-2008, 03:17 PM

Dictionaries are the best place to go for word definitions.

The all-that-is, within each one of us as the life-force, is the place to go for spiritual truth.

riiiight, :rolleyes: people ar too stooopid to research for themselves and let the actual facts inform them.

rather, they must seek out those who have 'special' insights not availiable to the profane or unwashed.

words have meanings. by understanding a words meaning, the profane and unwashed may understand the word and its usage in a passage of text. Say a Biblical verse.

very often through scripture the words: Righteous, Righteousness, Sin, and Inequity are employed to inform anyone who understand words have 'set' meanings.

phildee3; the apostles speak to you across Time & Space:

Romans 8:7

Because the Carnal Mind is enmity against(bitterly opposed to) Yahweh: for it is not subject to the Law of Yahweh, nor indeed can be.

Anybody can try Phildees3 suggestion. wherever it say 'god' in the NT, substitute Monad or All that Is. See how that works out. lol

Lets ask phildee3 what the Laws of the Monad/Allthatis are. lol

that we have known since the beginning. lol

how the Laws of the Monad/Allthatis will lead us to righteousness. lol

How 'All knees will bow to the Monad/Allthatis. lol

Yahweh IS NOT a 'god', 'gods' are created beings

The Divine Council-A very worthy read. do yourself a flavour phil, give it a little looky. :)
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Why is Yahweh not a god? Neither is Yahweh a demi-god, archon, moon god, volcano god, demi-urge. Read for yourself my fellow profane and unwashed brothers and sisters what the elite illumined do not want you to know. First two Posta. :)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

All phildee offers is: I GNO!! I DO!!! REALLY!!! TRUST ME!!! I have been initiated into the mysteries.

So I observe phildee3 and lo and behold he's baking cookies for the queen of heaven. lol

From the beginning, unlike you, I have provided a plethora of academically credentialed resources: Lexicons, Dictionaries, Concordances and Encyclopedias. This is so that they may inform themselves rather than 'letting' someone else tell them what a particular verse or passage 'means. Let the people learn themselves.

In the Real World, people do not just assign whatever meaning they want to a word. words may be flexible but they are not amorpheous, or gossamer.

let's look at the word 'god' okay?

The Encyclopedia Judaica in a prior Post informed us: in order to bring forth the false, pagan, pre-existent God-savior, Christianity was forced to change and reinterpret the writings of Volume Two of The Holy Scriptures, the NT. The Encyclopedia Judaica confirms that Yahshua and the Apostles did not break nor teach the breaking of Yahweh's Laws. But Christianity has falsely translated their words to bring forth a savior who "did away with Yahweh's Laws."

So according to phidee3, the entire staffs of the Encyclopedia Judaica are either: Morons or Deceivers, just like the entire Staffs and Personell of the Jewish Encyclopedia, All the Encyclopedias, Lexicons, Concordances, and Dictionaries ever published. Because deep secrets have been revealed to phildee which cannot be verified.

Everything the Patriarchs, Prophets, Yahshua Messiah and the apostles told us can be verified through scripture. What phildee3 tell us is unsupported by scripture.

Provide two verses that agree with each other and supports your position.

the 'word' 'god' is a generic title of 'Office'. No specificity asto what Supernatural Being or Force is being referenced. Generic. Who thinks Yahshua or the Apostles would be speaking 'genericly', without specificity.

'Father' is a 'Title of Office' used to specifically reference Yahweh in both Testaments. Father Yahweh=Supreme Teacher of Righteousness.

To illustrate how absurd phildee3s position is: where in the New Testament do the apostles; Mattithyah=Gift of Yahweh(matthew), or Yahchannan=Yahweh is Merciful(john) INFORM us explicitly, or even crypticaly, that the Messianic Yahdaim(people of Yahweh), have switched allegiances. No longer do they Reverence, Worship and Serve Father Yahweh.

Wouldn't have Yahshua changed His Name to: monadshua? allthatisshua? lol

Mattithmonad? monadchannan?

When Yahshua and the apostles cite scriptures they are citing the Old Testament. More than %30 of the New Testament is citations of the Old Testament. Yahshua magnificient Talk: The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes is directly from Deuteronomy.

Yahshua Messiah and the apostles proved and amplified the Old Testament.

YAHWEH-YHWH is the Name of the Creator Being of Both Books of the Book of Yahweh(bible)

YAHSHUA-("Yahweh is Salvation") is the Name of YHWHs Only Begotten Son. NOT jesus

snoopsnuffleopagus

08-11-2008, 04:37 PM

Definitions

Strongs Concordance-Hebrew & Greek Dictionaries, also Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary, and multiple search-engines.
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Hebrew ResultResult of search for "righteous":
6662 tsaddiyq tsad-deek' from 6663; just:--just, lawful, righteous (man).

6663 tsadaq tsaw-dak' a primitive root; to be(causatively, make) right (in a moral or forensic sense):--cleanse, clear self, (be, do) just(-ice, -ify, -ify self), (be turn to) righteous(-ness)

SIN:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=sin

sin
23 dictionary results for: sin
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sin
1 [sin] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, sinned, sin⋅ning.
–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
–verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
–verb (used with object)
6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.
Origin:
bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE syn(n) offense, misdeed; akin to G Sünde, ON synd sin, L sōns guilty; (v.) deriv. of the n., r. ME sin(i)gen, syn(i)gen, OE syngian, itself deriv. of the n.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sin
2 [seen] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the 22nd letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
2. the consonant sound represented by this letter.
Origin:
1895–1900; < Heb śīn
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Cite This Source
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sīn
[seen] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
the 12th letter of the Arabic alphabet.
Origin:
< Ar
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Cite This Source
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Sin
[seen] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
the Akkadian god of the moon: the counterpart of the Sumerian Nanna.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Cite This Source
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sin

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sin 1 (sĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.
A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v. sinned, sin·ning, sins
To violate a religious or moral law.
To commit an offense or violation.

[Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; see es- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sin (n.)
O.E. synn "moral wrongdoing, offense against God, misdeed," from P.Gmc. *sundjo (cf. O.S. sundia, O.Fris. sende, M.Du. sonde, Ger. Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense"), probably ult. "true" (cf. Goth. sonjis, O.N. sannr "true"), from PIE *es-ont-, prp. of base *es- "to be" (see is). The semantic development is via notion of "to be truly the one (who is guilty)," as in O.N. phrase verð sannr at "be found guilty of," and the use of the phrase "it is being" in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the L. word sons (gen. sontis) "guilty, criminal" from prp. of sum, esse "to be, that which is." Some etymologists believe the Gmc. word was an early borrowing directly from the L. genitive. Sin-eater is attested from 1686. To live in sin "cohabit without marriage" is from 1838. Ice hockey slang sin bin "penalty box" is attested from 1950.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sin (v.)
O.E. syngian "to commit sin," from synn (see sin (n.)). Cf. Du. zondigen, Ger. sündigen. Form alt. from M.E. sunigen by influence of the noun.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
sin

noun
1. estrangement from god
2. an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will
3. ratio of the length of the side opposite the given angle to the length of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle [syn: sine]
4. (Akkadian) god of the Moon; counterpart of Sumerian Nanna
5. the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet
6. violent and excited activity; "they began to fight like sin"

verb
1. commit a sin; violate a law of God or a moral law
2. commit a faux pas or a fault or make a serious mistake; "I blundered during the job interview" [syn: drop the ball]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source
American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms - Cite This Source - Share This
sin

see live in sin; more sinned against than sinning; multitude of sins; ugly as sin; wages of sin.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source
The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sin
Abbreviation of sine

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Sin

Sin\, adv., prep., & conj. Old form of Since. [Obs. or Prov. Eng. & Scot.]
Sin that his lord was twenty year of age. --Chaucer.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Sin

Sin\, n. [OE. sinne, AS. synn, syn; akin to D. zonde, OS. sundia, OHG. sunta, G. s["u]nde, Icel., Dan. & Sw. synd, L. sons, sontis, guilty, perhaps originally from the p. pr. of the verb signifying, to be, and meaning, the one who it is. Cf. Authentic, Sooth.]
1. Transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission.
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. --John viii. 34.
Sin is the transgression of the law. --1 John iii. 4.
I think 't no sin. To cozen him that would unjustly win. --Shak.
Enthralled By sin to foul, exorbitant desires. --Milton.
2. An offense, in general; a violation of propriety; a misdemeanor; as, a sin against good manners.
I grant that poetry's a crying sin. --Pope.
3. A sin offering; a sacrifice for sin.
He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. --2 Cor. v. 21.
4. An embodiment of sin; a very wicked person. [R.]
Thy ambition, Thou scarlet sin, robbed this bewailing land Of noble Buckingham. --Shak.
Note: Sin is used in the formation of some compound words of obvious signification; as, sin-born; sin-bred, sin-oppressed, sin-polluted, and the like.
Actual sin,
Canonical sins,
Original sin,
Venial sin. See under Actual, Canonical, etc.
Deadly, or
Mortal,
sins (R. C. Ch.), willful and deliberate transgressions, which take away divine grace; -- in distinction from vental sins. The seven deadly sins are pride, covetousness, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth.

Forunately for us profane and unwashed masses, the scriptures themselves define Righteousness; Sin and Inequity. Let's examine a few utterences of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles:
Using the Methodology od allowing scripture to define Terms/Words, we may compare what someone else is telling us to what is actually written in scripture.

The Patriarch Mosheh/Moses informs us:
and it will be our Righteousness 'IF' we observe to DO all these Commandments(The Law of Yahweh) before Yahweh our Father, as He has commanded us.

Now Yahshua Messiah explicitly speaks to phildee3:

Mattithyah=Gift of Yahweh(matthew) 7:23

23: But then I will declare to them: I NEVER KNEW YOU. Get away from Me, you who practice Iniquity. The word 'Iniquity', as used in Mattithyah 7:23 is word 458

Result of search for "iniquity":
92. adikema ad-eek'-ay-mah from 91; a wrong done:--evil doing, iniquity, matter of wrong.

93. adikia ad-ee-kee'-ah from 94; (legal) injustice (properly, the quality, by implication, the act); morally, wrongfulness (of character, life or act):--iniquity, unjust, unrighteousness, wrong.
458. anomia an-om-ee'-ah from 459; illegality, i.e. violation of law or (genitive case) wickedness:--iniquity, X transgress(-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.
3892. paranomia par-an-om-ee'-ah from the same as 3891; transgression: iniquity.
4189. poneria pon-ay-ree'-ah from 4190; depravity, i.e. (specially), malice; plural (concretely) plots, sins:--iniquity, wickedness.

Yahshua was well aware of the future Usurpers/Purloiners.

I urge you to 'Listen' to the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Yahshua Messiah, phildee3.

They are all 'Hep' to you, and what you are about.

The Apostle Yahchannan=Yahweh is Merciful(John) uses the word 'sin' in a very definitive manner.

1 Yahchannan (1 John) 3:4-8

4: Whoever commits sin, transgresses the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law.

5: and you know that He(Yahshua Messiah) was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin.

6: Whoever abides in Him(Yahshua Messiah) does not sin, whoever sins has not seen Him, nither knows Him.

7: Little children, let no man deceive you; he who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.

8: He who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose was the Son of Yahweh was manifested; that He might destroy the works of the devil.

1977

08-11-2008, 05:36 PM

The gospels and epistles quote from the Septuagint and use puns that only work in the Greek language. But regardless of this, Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and had no reason to write in Hebrew.

snoopsnuffleopagus

08-11-2008, 05:57 PM

Hello 1977:
Shaul/paul was probably the most educated amongst the inner group.
expert in the Laws of YHWH. First the writings were scribed into Hebrew, then into Greek.

the entire New Testament is Hebraic Thought, Prose and Poetry that is still apparent in the Greek.

Even the septuagint originally had the Tetragrammaton, however it was redacted.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?
p=452572&postcount=17

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=487404&postcount=18

http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/evidenceforhebrew.html#101

http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/1_2_Bliz_JesusSpokeHebrew.html#101

These were all very devout Messianic Yahdaim, the Greek translations are used as a 'Vehicle' to introduce Hellenistic, Alexandrian and Neo-Platonic 'thought' that was not the intention of the original authors. A Usurption.

Read Romans 10:4 and Kepha/Peter was an Apostle to the Gentiles also. Acts 10 is when ALL Gentiles were 'cleansed'.

the meeting with Cornelus the Roman Centurion.

excerpt from Bible-Researchers Link

2. AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES

From beginning to end, the New Testament authors ascribe unqualified authority to Old Testament Scripture. Whenever advanced, a quotation is viewed as normative. Nowhere do we find a tendency to question, argue, or repudiate the truth of any Scripture utterance. Passages sometimes alleged to prove that the Lord and his apostles challenged at times the authority of the Old Testament, when carefully examined, turn out to bolster rather than to impair the evidence for their acceptance of Scripture as the Word of God. In Matthew 5:21-43 and 19:3-9, our Lord, far from setting aside the commandments of the Old Testament, really engages in a searching analysis of the spiritual meaning and original intent of the divine precept, and from this vantage point he applies it in a deeper and broader way than had been done before him. In some passages in which comparison is made between the revelation of the Old Testament and that of the New (John 1:17; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:19ff.; Hebrews 1:1, 2, and so forth), the superior glory of the New Testament is emphasized, not as in conflict with the Old, but as the perfect fulfillment of a revelation still incomplete, yet sanctioned by divine authority.

It is noteworthy that the New Testament writers and the Lord Jesus himself did not hesitate on occasion to base their whole argumentation upon one single word of Old Testament Scripture (Matthew 2:15; 4:10; 13:35; 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 4:8; 20:42, 43; John 8:17; 10:34; 19:37; Acts 23:5; Romans 4:3, 9, 23; 15:9-12; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 3:8, 10,13; Hebrews 1:7; 2:12; 3:13; 4:7; 12:26), or even on the grammatical form of one word (Galatians 3:16).

Of special interest are the formulas by which the New Testament writers introduce their quotations. In a particularly significant way these formulas reflect their view of the Old Testament Scriptures, since they do not manifest any design to set forth a doctrine of Scripture, but are rather the instinctive expression of their approach to the sacred writings.

The formulas emphasize strongly the divine origin of the Old Testament, and commonly (at least 56 times) refer to God(Yahweh) as the author. In a number of passages God is represented as the speaker when the quotation is not a saying of God recorded as such in the Old Testament, but the word of Scripture itself, in fact, at times a word addressed to God by man (Matthew 19:5; Acts 4:25; 13:35; Hebrews 1:5-8, 13; 3:7; 4:4). These “can be treated as a declaration of God’s only on the hypothesis that all Scripture is a declaration of God’s” (B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 143).

Often passages of the Old Testament are simply attributed to the Scripture, which is thus personified as speaking (John 7:38, 42; 15:25; 19:37; Romans 4:3; 7:7; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Corinthians 14:24; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Galatians 3:8; 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18; James 2:23; 4:5). In Romans 9:17 and Galatians 3:8 the identification between the text of Scripture and God as speaking is carried so far that the actions of God are actually ascribed to Scripture, which is represented as speaking to Pharaoh and as foreseeing justification by faith. Warfield urges that “These acts could be attributed to Scripture only as the result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking that it became natural to use the term ‘Scripture says,’ when what was really intended was ‘God, as recorded in Scripture, said’ “ (ibid., pp. 299 f.).

The collaboration of man in the writing of Scripture is also emphasized. The names of Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Joel and Hosea appear in the formulas of quotation. It is noteworthy that, in the majority of the cases where the human author is named, reference is made not to a personal statement recorded in Scripture but to an utterance of God(Yahweh), which the writer was commissioned to transmit as such. In a number of passages both the divine and the human authorship appear side by side.

“... which was spoken by the Lord through, the prophet... ” (Matthew 1:22). “David himself said in the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 12:36; cf. Matthew 22:43). “... the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16; cf. 4:25). “Well spake the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet... ” (Acts 28:25). “He saith also in Hosea... ” (Romans 9:25).

These passages supply clear evidence that the divine superintendence was not viewed as obliterating the human agency and characteristics of the writers, but rather, that God secured a perfectly adequate presentation of the truth through the responsible and personal agency of the men he called and prepared for this sacred task.

“It is written” is one of the frequent formulas of introduction, the one, in fact, which our Lord used three times in his temptation (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). This expression does not connote merely that an appeal is made to the written text of Scripture but, as Warfield so aptly has said, “The simple adduction in this solemn and decisive manner of a written authority carries with it the implication that the appeal is made to the indefectible authority of the Scriptures of God, which in all their parts and in every one of their declarations are clothed with the authority of God Himself” (ibid., p. 240).

The use of the terms “law” (John 10:34; 15:25; Romans 3:19; 1 Corinthians 14:21), or “prophets” (Matthew 13:35), where reference is made to passages belonging, strictly speaking, to other parts of the Hebrew Canon, indicates that the New Testament writers viewed the whole Old Testament Scripture as having legal authority and prophetic character.

snoopsnuffleopagus

08-11-2008, 07:15 PM

My Fellow Profane and Unwashed Brothers and Sisters and Gender Ambiguous, Most Cordial Felicitations!

Let there be no doubt: Father Yahweh is the Creator Being; a Species Unique that is spoken of by the Patriarchs, Prophets, Yahshua Messiah, and all the Apostles and Yachannan the Immerser/John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit is a 'Force/Energy' of Father Yahweh-Supreme Teacher of Righteousness-The Law. And the Law has not: 'Been done away with'. Beware of those who tell you that. Let that be a very big clue. The Law shall remain 'until all things are made perfect'. Things are not, nor have they, been 'Perfect'. So this tells us the Laws have a possible finite Term of Service. 'Until ALL Things Are Made Perfect. When All of us are like Yahshua Messiah. The Good Shephard. Yahshua being the First Perfected according to Yahwehs plan. He accomplished this by obeying the Laws of YHWH. Simple Really. :)

very important information that reveals YHWHs relationship with other gods
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Psalm 82:1-7—
1 Yahweh stands in the assembly of the gods (elohim), and He gives judgment among the gods (elohim)!
2 Yahweh says: How long will you defend the unjust, and show partiality to the sinners?
3 You should defend the weak and fatherless! You should maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed!
4 You should rescue the poor and needy, and deliver them from the hands of the wicked.
5 You know nothing, you understand nothing; you walk about in darkness, and all the foundations of the Earth are shaken because of you!
6 I have said: You are gods (elohim), you sons of the Most High;
7 And like Adam you will die. Just like all the other rulers, you will fall.

Notice; in verse 7, Father Yahweh is informing the other gods, they will die.

Many say the Laws of Father Yahweh are: Draconian; Obsolete, Repressive; The Most Horrible Things ever Conceived, Satanic (rolleyes), ignorant, Myopic, Repressive, Stupid, Unworkable, Outdated; Too Many, Not Enough, Too Soft, Too Hard, Unnecessary.

But are they really?

I think not.

First; because we live in a 'Commercial Age', are there any 'Celebrity Endorsers'?

Why; yes there is. :)

All the Patriarchs from Abel, the First Righteous Priest. King Melchezadek, All the Prophets including Yachannan the Immerser/John the Baptist, Yahshua Messiah and All the Apostles and many Disciples, and others like: Cornelus the Roman Centurion, The Ethiopian Eunuch.

A useful assest in examining the 613 Laws, Judgement and Statutes is Circumspection.

A very broad scope of vision utilising all your life experience and knowledge in addition to your own personal interface with the World At Large.

How do these Laws apply in the 'here and now', what is their purpose?

The Proposition is: When everyone observes these Laws, there are no STDs, Wars,Militaries, Police Forces, Many Diseases, Inter-marital and racial strife. The children will be raised by both parents. No Homelessness, Starvation, Unemployment. The Resources of the Planet are preserved and distributed equitably. In essence, the opposite of life here on earth at this time.

Historicaly, only a few small groups for very brief periods ever accomplished this.

They are a Blue-Print for a Meritocracy.

According to scripture; at this time, this is HaSatans world. So the entire world, including Israel, rejects YHWHs Laws. Not one Nation on earth abides by YHWHs Laws.
Iyyob/Job(to suffer) 1:6-7—

6 Now there was a day when the sons of Yahweh came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan; the Adversary and Accuser, also came among them.
7 Yahweh said to Satan: Where do you come from? Satan answered Yahweh, and said; From going back and forth in the Earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Psalm 19:7—
The Laws of Yahweh are perfect, converting the whole person. The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making the simple ones wise.

I Kings 8:61—
Let your heart be perfect with Yahweh our Father, to walk in His statutes, and to keep His Laws, as it is this day.

II Timothy 3:16-17—
16 All Scripture that is given through inspiration of Yahweh is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
17 That the man of Yahweh may become perfect, thoroughly furnished for every righteous work.

Deuteronomy 32:4—
He is the Rock. His works are perfect; Yahweh's ways are justice indeed! He is the Father of truth, and does no wrong. Upright and Just is He.

Hebrews 13:21—
Make you perfect in every righteous work to do His will; working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight, as He did in Yahshua messiah—to Yahweh Who belongs the glory forever and ever. HalleluYahweh!

Yahweh has never claimed that the righteous genes of one man insures the righteousness of his son or daughter. Yahweh's claim is that each person has the right and opportunity to make up their mind about the way they desire to live, whether it is righteous or evil. see Romans 10:4

The one after the order of Melchizedek, Yahshua Messiah, did hold up under the pressure and now sits at the right hand of Yahweh. He did so by taking hold of the Strength of Yahweh7the 613 written Laws. He will rule the Kingdom with the rest of the Holy Priesthood who also proved themselves worthy.

Hebrews 5:5-10—
5 So the Messiah also did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a High Priest, but Yahweh said to Him: You are My Son; today I have begotten You.
6 As He also says in another Scripture: you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
7 Who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the One Who could save Him from death, was heard because of His holy reverence.
8 Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience from the things which He suffered;
9 Then being perfected, He became the Causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.
10 Called by Yahweh a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek,

Psalm 110:4—
Yahweh has vowed an oath, and will not relent nor change His mind: you are a priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek.

kasalt

09-11-2008, 05:14 AM

A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of discomfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of belief persistence in members of a UFO doomsday cult, and documented the increased proselytization they exhibited after the leader's "end of the world" prophecy failed to come true. The prediction of the earth's destruction, supposedly sent by aliens to the leader of the group, became a disconfirmed expectancy that caused dissonance between the cognitions, "the world is going to end" and "the world did not end." Although some members abandoned the group when the prophecy failed, most of the members lessened their dissonance by accepting a new belief, that the planet was spared because of the faith of the group.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

synergy777

09-11-2008, 01:06 PM

some bad people preach religion, does that mean what they preach is wrong?

see if a priest is corrupt and preaches scriptures, does that make scripture bad?

if a new age guru/author preaches gnostic stuff and is himself bad, a luciferian, atheist etc, does that make him bad, does that make his info bad?

the fact is all people no matter what their beliefs are a mixture of good/bad.

the fact is truth is truth, no matter how dishonest/bad the person saying it is.

people attack religion due the corrupt practioners of it, no one attacks the new age/spiritual/gnostic stuff, they ignore these aspects of these gurus/doctrines.

i say treat all the same, and analyse info in the same way eg objectively, without prejudice/bias.

people condemn religion, while they believe gnostic/new age fairytales, which only pander to their ego.

i believe a man called yashuah existed. i believe god exists, god has many names as their are many languages/cultures/religions. there is but one god, what you call him/her is up to you, the most important thing is understanding and living the message.

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 01:43 PM

Hi Syn:

Hey Buddy, miss your input, but I am sure you are busy in positive and productive ways. :)

Kasalt has ''issues',

I'm a pragmatic adult in my mid-50s. I have lived under the threat of nuclear war my entire life. I have a very pragmatic world view. Lyndon LaRouche has been telling me since 1974 that the US and World Economy are going to crash soon.

Que Sera, Sera; What will be, will be. Pragmatic.

The shame is he/she probably read this but did not understand.

Romans 14

Precepts of the Law of Liberty

Accept one who is weak in the faith, but not if he wants to argue and dispute.

For one believes that he may eat all Lawful things; another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. Do not let him who eats be despiteful of him who does not eat, and do not let him who does not eat condemn him who eats; for YHWH has accepted him into His House.

Who are you to condemn someone elses servant? To his own ruler he stands or falls. And he will stand, for YHWH is able to make him stand

One person considers one Feast more holy than another; another considers every Feast of the same holiness. Let everyone be fully warned in his own mind.

He who keeps yhe Feast, keeps it to YHWH, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who eats, eats to Yahweh, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who does not eat to Yahweh, is not eating to, nor is thanking Yahweh.

For none of us lives of himself, and no man dies of himself.

For if we live, we live in Yahweh forever; but if we die; we will die in Yahweh. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are Yahwehs.

For this very reason Yahshua died and was restored to life again, that He might be the Judge of both the dead and the living.

But why do you pass judgement on your brother? Or why do you look down upon your brother? For we will all stand before the Judgement Seat of Yahshua.

For it is written: As surely as I live, says Yahweh, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will confess to Yahweh.(Isayah 45:23)

So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to Yahweh.

Therefore, let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, set your mind not to put any stumblingblock, or an occasion of falling, in our brothers way.

For I know, and am convinced by Yahshuah Messiah, that nothing is common in itself; except to the one accounting anything to be common-to that man, it is common.

But if your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not destroy him for whom Yahshua died, with your food.

Therefore do not allow your righteousness to be spoken of as evil.

For the Kingdom of Yahweh is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit:

This is the Essence of the Book

Who are you to condemn someone elses servant? To his own ruler he stands or falls. And he will stand, for YHWH is able to make him stand.

I think this a most revealing Verse. 'Who the Hell do we think we are?'

Like in the Book of Iyob/Job when YHWH asks Iyob/Job 'Where you there when I created the foundations of the earth?'

We will not have absolutely definitive answers due to our degree of completion. We are partialy created beings at this time.

Heres some Links for ya Bro, enjoy.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255
Hebrew-English Bible>compare the Tetra-Grammaton with the references in this Video linked below.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
The Concept of a godhead in the OT
http://www.logos.com/media/lecture/heiser/LectureSeries-Heiser.html

Dead Sea Scrolls-The Great Isayah Scroll
http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qa-tran.htm

http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qumdir.htm

Stop by the Tetragrammaton Thread, I'm sure you always have something positive to add.

Cheers! Synergy777

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 01:52 PM

Since the Disparagement of Father Yahweh is a well exercised 'freedom' around here, let us see what Scripture says of His Character.
The 13 Attributes of Yahweh and His Mercy are listed in Exodus 34:6-14

1: Almighty

2: Merciful and Compassionate

3: Longsuffering

4: Abounding

5: Possessing Righteousness and Truth

6: Keeping Mercy

7: Forgiving

8: Punishes Sin

9: Heavenly Father

10: Making the Covenant with His.

11: Doing Marvels

12: Awesome

13: Jealous/Ardent/Passionate

Exodus 34:6-14

6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;

examine now the Hebrew, particularly the usage of the Tetra-Grammaton

http://www.yahweh.com/Newsletters/9-08nl_files/tetra1.jpg

וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן--אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת
34:6 Yahweh passed in front of him and proclaimed: YAHWEH, YAHWEH Almighty, merciful and compassionate, longsuffering, and abounding in righteousness and truth.

Read it yourself: :) יְהוָה http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm[/B]

וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל
וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל

phildee3

09-11-2008, 04:36 PM

there is but one god,

There is a creator (or creative principle)

then there is the creator + the creation (= all that is)

are these not both "gods"?

What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva,
are they not gods?

phildee3

09-11-2008, 04:47 PM

The ORIGINAL NT was scribed in Hebrew.

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-045.gif

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 05:10 PM

are you aware of this?:

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

Having said that, there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the texts were originally written in Hebrew, and also that Hebrew was not a "dead language" (as was thought of for quite some time). A good source of information on the latter is "Biblical Archaeology Review" (BAR) magazine. BAR has had articles in the past few years on digs that have unearthed documents from around the first century written in Hebrew, including legal documents and one woman's personal diary.

Other sources testifying to Hebrew being the language of 1st century Jews and a Hebrew origin of the "New Testament" documents include:

1. Recent Qumran findings (Dead Sea Scrolls) shows secular documents written at that time concerning "current events" (i.e., not just copies of old religious texts.) indicating Hebrew was a "living" language. There are several books on the Dead Sea Scrolls available. Contact YashaNet for recommendations if interested.

2. Jewish coins found from that era are minted with Hebrew text on them.

3. A study of the writings of the Christian "Church Fathers" shows that much of the "New Testament" was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by; Papias, Ireneus, Origin, Eusubius, Epiphaneus, Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

4. The prominent first century historian Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars, that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

5. Modern linguistics (thanks to the input of cognisant Messianic Jewish and gentile scholars) shows that the text themselves don't lend to an "original Greek" translation. A very good book you want to get with dozens of examples is, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, by James Trimm. This can be ordered via www.nazarene.net. Also recommended is the Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute at www.nazarene.net/hantri/

6. Other books, such as The Jewish New Testament, by David Stern are also helpful in showing the Hebrew thought that gets lost in the Greek/English. (The latter can be ordered through Amazon.com.)

An example of a proof for an original Hebrew text, is Matthew 6:19-24:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

In these verses we have Yeshua speaking about money, and not making it more important than God. Note that He begins speaking about money, then says something about "an evil eye," then finishes His statement about money. If this were penned in Greek originally, you would have to ask, "Why this odd verse about an "evil eye" in the midst of a money topic?" It makes no sense. However, if you happen to know that having an "evil eye" is a Hebrew idiom of that time for "being stingy with your money," then, a) the passage makes sense, and b) you realize it HAD to be written in Hebrew first, then whoever translated it into Greek, (unaware of the idiom), simply took it word-for-word from Hebrew into the Greek.

There are many "New Testament" verses that are very hard, if not impossible, to understand without knowledge of the deeper teachings of the Judaism of that day. There are also many places where Yeshua and Paul quote from Jewish literature as shown elsewhere in this study.

It is important to note who these letters were originally meant to be read by "leaders" in the Messianic community (most likely Jews), who were well versed in the Judaism of the first century and its understanding of Torah.. (Note Peter's concerns about Paul's letters being hard to understand and often twisted about by "lawless" people -- "lawless" meaning not knowing or respecting Torah, the "Law.")

Nothing in the "New Testament" was ever meant to be read out of context, by people from another culture ignorant of the Hebrew meaning to the words and the concepts behind them, and replacing this with their own personal meaning. Nor were any of the "New Testament" documents ever meant to stand on their own, apart from being interpreted in the context of the Torah (God's direct revelation/instruction), which of course came first.

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 06:10 PM

Hello Phildee3:

Is Yahshua Messiah Hebrew, who thought, spoke and wrote in Hebrew?

When Yahshua Messiah, and His Apostles taught, they were teaching the Laws and the Prophecies of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is Hebrew. Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles taught on the Sabbaths in the Temples, in Hebrew.

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_5/newtestament

Is the New Testament Jewish? by Catherine Damato

January 1, 1996
This is an archived article. It originally appeared on January 1, 1996. Some information may be outdated.

When Abby had some doubts about her Jewish beliefs, she consulted a rabbi. He recommended that she read books by Jewish authors. "Be an informed Jew," he exhorted.

Abby was delighted to find a number of such books in the religion section of her local library. Since most of the titles were unfamiliar, she selected the first ten books from a row on an eye-level shelf. Settling into a comfortable chair in a quiet corner, she laid the books out on a table in front of her. She quickly determined that one of the books must have been misshelved, for it bore the title "New Testament."

The placing of a copy of the New Testament on a shelf full of books on Jewish faith was most likely the ironic oversight of a careless library worker. Yet, in its authorship, content and focus, there is hardly a book more Jewish.

AUTHORSHIP

Most scholars agree that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke). "Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews, and the writings were designed for Jewish readers who had embraced the Christian faith. The authors drew more or less from contemporary Jewish ideas, ethics, legends, parables and sayings."1

The New Testament writers were not rebellious radicals bent on destroying Judaism. They worshiped regularly in the Temple.2 They were well versed in the Jewish Scriptures as demonstrated by their numerous references to the prophecies and practices of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The most prolific New Testament writer, Paul, wrote almost half of the 27 New Testament books. His Jewish background is indisputable. He was a son of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin,3 and a Pharisee.4 The Jewish scholar Professor Samuel Sandmel of Hebrew Union College observes that Paul the Jew "was at home in the Bible and in the practice of expounding it; he shared the group-feeling of Jews, and he was, from his own standpoint, unreservedly loyal to Judaism."5

Paul boasted that prior to becoming a believer in Y'shua (Jesus), he was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of his own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers. His familiarity with Jewish tradition, thought and theology remained an integral part of his preaching. He drew heavily from the Hebrew Bible, and the audiences to whom he preached were well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal admits, "However much I may disagree with Paul, my reading accedes to the authenticity of Paul's conversion experience. Paul considered himself part of a new Jewish sect and hoped to convince both fellow Christians and Jews of his vision of redemption."6

Paul's Jewishness is evident in the focus of his writing as well. This is true of all the New Testament writers. For if the book dealt only with gentile issues, it could hardly be regarded as Jewish.

FOCUS

The pages of the New Testament clearly follow the framework of Judaism. The first four books, the gospels, addressed a Jewish audience. They echoed the pattern of historical narratives interspersed with instruction found in the Torah. "The controversies between Jesus and the Scribes/Pharisees have no referent outside the community of Israel; Jesus' preaching of the coming kingdom could have had meaning only for Jews; the synagogues in which Jesus reads from the prophets, heals the sick, and forgives sins are Jewish houses of worship for believing Jews and not unconverted gentiles.…"7 The Jewish festivals that are celebrated throughout the pages of the New Testament were not feasts of interest to the gentiles but were part of the daily life of the Jewish people.

The four gospel accounts contain numerous references to the Hebrew Scriptures, references that deal with the messianic theme. This is clearly seen in the narration of the birth of Y'shua. His conception was prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 and referred to in Matthew: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means 'God with us' " (1:23).

His birth in Bethlehem was foretold by the prophet Micah in chapter 5, verse 2, "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times," and quoted in Matthew 2:6.

Matthew also relies heavily on Hebrew Scriptures. In the second chapter of his narrative, he relates the flight into Egypt of Joseph and Mary (Miriam) and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. Harking back to the law of the Nazarite in Numbers 6:1-21, Matthew concludes this story with Joseph's return to Israel to settle in Nazareth, "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, 'He will be called a Nazarene' " (Matthew 2:23).

This appeal to fulfilled prophecy continues with Mark, who prefaces his gospel account with, "It is written in Isaiah the Prophet." He cites Isaiah, "A voice of one calling: In the desert prepare the way for the Lord" (40:3), and Malachi, "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me" (3:1).

"It is written" occurs time and again in the pages that follow as the New Testament writers buttress their arguments with the Hebrew Scriptures-the Law, the prophets and the writings. The two testaments fit together; one does not supersede the other. "The New Testament is regarded by Christians as the fulfillment of the prophecies and the teachings contained in the Old."8

In Acts 2:14-28, Peter, known as "the apostle to the Jewish people," began his ministry with a lengthy quotation from the Hebrew prophet Joel. He then affirmed that Y'shua was the Messiah, citing Psalm 16:10, "Because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption" (Acts 2:27). His hearers, with the events of the crucifixion still fresh in their memory, were "cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' "(Acts 2:37).

LANGUAGE

Jewish scholar David Flusser observes how the New Testament records Jewish life in the Hellenistic Diaspora. But the writings not only give us a look into Jewish customs, thinking and beliefs; they also provide us with clues concerning the languages spoken at that time.

"The spoken languages among the Jews of that period were Hebrew, Aramaic, and to an extent Greek. Until recently, it was believed by numerous scholars that the language spoken by Jesus' disciples was Aramaic.…But during that period Hebrew was both the daily language and the language of study.…This question of the spoken language is especially important for understanding the doctrines of Jesus. There are sayings of Jesus which can be rendered both into Hebrew and Aramaic; but there are some which can only be rendered into Hebrew, and none of them can be rendered only into Aramaic. One can thus demonstrate the Hebrew origins of the Gospels by retranslating them into Hebrew."9

The New Testament was written by Jews, focuses on issues of interest to Jews and was strongly influenced by the Hebrew language.

CONTENT

For the most part, the New Testament depicts Jews dealing with other Jews on questions of importance to the Jewish people. Alan Segal says, "Study of the New Testament, undeniably a first-century source, has proven to be quite useful for validating mishnaic recollections of first-century Jewish life, but such comparisons are in their infancy. The New Testament is also better evidence for Hellenistic Judaism than is the Mishnah for first-century rabbinism."10

In the Sermon on the Mount,11 Jesus the Jew tells his followers, "So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles run after all these things." Y'shua goes on to encourage his followers to "seek first [God's] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." The heavenly kingdom and God's righteousness were familiar concepts to Y'shua's Jewish followers.

Likewise, when Jesus sent out his disciples, he told them, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."12

The Book of Acts tells how Stephen, the first Jesus-believing Jewish martyr, stood before his accusers and cited the history of his people. This Jewish man spoke before a Jewish crowd, about their Jewish ancestors. And, not unlike many of the Jewish prophets of old, Stephen was dragged out of the city and stoned.

The book of Hebrews begins with: "In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets.…" The writer then refers to passage upon passage from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hebrews 11 has been called "The Roll Call of Faith." It honors Abel, Enoch and Noah for their faith and goes on to commend the patriarchs, Moses and Joshua, as well as Rahab. It then follows with the heroes Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah and concludes by touching on the many unnamed heroes in Israel's history. Verse 34 and following speak of those who "quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies." The unnamed martyrs, those who were tortured, mocked, scourged and who suffered affliction and torment for the sake of the God in whom they believed are all cited. These men and women gave themselves as a part of Israel's bloody legacy-Jewish martyrs, dying in the name of the God of their Jewish ancestors.

The whole chapter is a summary of Jewish history, not Babylonian, not Egyptian, not Roman history. The book of Hebrews lives up to its name. It was written by a Hebrew to persons of Hebrew descent who were well acquainted with their Scriptures.

Other New Testament writers concern themselves with Israel and with Jewish matters. James addressed "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" (James 1:1). Peter addressed "God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered.…" (1 Peter 1:1).

Jude, in his brief letter, speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, Michael the archangel, Moses, Cain, Balaam and Korah. These references would be baffling to anyone lacking knowledge of the Torah.

In the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, we see God's continual care for his people Israel. It is written that the tribes of Israel will one day be revived and identified (Revelation 7) and that a glorious New Jerusalem will have twelve gates inscribed with the names of the tribes of Israel (21:9-27).

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT ANTI-SEMITIC?

Some attention must be given to what many mistakenly consider anti-Semitic overtones in the New Testament. John's gospel often refers to Jewish opposition to Jesus, but this is mainly conflict between Jews who accept Jesus' claims of messiahship and those who don't. In John 7:12-13, a dispute among the people is described, with some saying, "He is a good man," and others saying, "No, he deceives the people." But "no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews." The term the Jews, in context, is often used to represent the coalition of the Jewish leadership. Not only that, but it becomes obvious that Jesus was so popular with the Jewish people that his opposers had to operate in secret. The term the Jews, therefore, could not refer to the general populace.

John relates the story of a man blind from birth who was healed by Jesus. When Jewish leaders asked the man's parents about their son's healing, the parents feared to give a direct answer because, the story goes, they feared "the Jews" (John 9:22). Again, these were Jewish people who feared the Jewish opposition leadership.

The specific Jews who opposed Y'shua, and later opposed the apostles, were Jewish leaders who feared loss of their power as much as they feared increased oppression at the hands of Rome.

There may also have been among them sincere persons who were zealous for Judaism (Paul was one of them, before he accepted Y'shua) and who wanted to stamp out all that they perceived to be deviation from their faith.

A CHALLENGE

Yet Israel's religious establishment did not understand the meaning of their own Scriptures. Jesus claimed that these leaders had emphasized their own interpretations to the point of obscuring the actual Hebrew Scriptures. His anger was not based on the Jewishness of these leaders but on their failure to be faithful to the Jewish Scriptures and the God of Israel. People who attended synagogue every Sabbath heard but understood little of the Scriptures that were read. The apostles studied for three years with Y'shua. It is said of him that, even at a young age, "everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and at his answers."13

To the Sadducees who had come to him with a foolish question about the resurrection, Jesus said, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."14

Perhaps the Sadducees would have done well to heed the type of advice our modern-day rabbi gave to the inquisitive Abby: "Be informed. Read books by Jewish authors."

In its authorship, content and focus there is hardly a book more Jewish than the New Testament. Would it not be worthy of reading?

Endnotes

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.
Acts 3:1. All Scriptures are quoted from the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
Romans 11:1.
Acts 23:6.
Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (New York: Ktav, 1974), p. 44.
Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale University, 1990), p. xiv.
Sandmel, p. 90.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 174.
David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (Tel Aviv: Mod, 1989), p. 11.
Segal, p. xiv.
Matthew 6:31-33.
Matthew 10:5, 6.
Luke 2:46, 47.
Matthew 22:29.

Jesus spoke Hebrew! sez who!?!
http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/1_2_Bliz_JesusSpokeHebrew.html#101

Evidence of Hebrew as Lingua Franca of Judea
http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/evidenceforhebrew.html#101

Excerpt
.. and particularly on works in Hebrew" (ibid. IV,22,4). However, the most dramatic testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew Gospel is the well-known Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin in Bethlehem circa A.D. 400. In Jerome's extensive writings there are nineteen passages that speak of a "Hebrew Gospel" or a Gospel "according to the Hebrews." On one occasion he speaks of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" which, he says, "I have recently translated into Greek and Latin" (De vir. ill., II). On another occasion he writes, "In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use, which we have translated recently from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many ..." (In Matt., 12,13). His most interesting and telling statement can be found in "Lives of Illustrious Men," 3, in Volume 3 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Father, edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace, page 362.
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but the Hebrew.
Epiphanius (4th century A.D.) Describes the "Nazoraioi" (Jewish believers) as "painstakingly cultivating the Hebrew language in which they read both the Old Testament and the Gospel according to Matthew" (Panarion 1,29,7 and 9). Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandria, relates having found the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as far away as in India (Eusebius, op. cit., V,10,3).

1977

09-11-2008, 07:42 PM

Yes, there was a version of Matthew known as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

The Ebionites, who used this gospel (or one like it, sources differ), considered Paul to be a false prophet and an apostate from the law.

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 08:32 PM

hello; 1977:

Shaul/paul will probably remain the most controversial character, primarily due to his activities prior to the Damsacus Road Incident.

He was probably viewed with suspicion and some trepidation. He was an 'A' type personality. A foremost scholar of the Torah, a student of Gamiliel?

IMO, the assertions that: Shaul/Paul was less then an ardent upholder and teacher of the Laws are meritless. There are many scriptures which refute that. It is the 'Spirit' that Yahshua Lensed the Laws which are unusual. He removed the rabbinical interpretations and delivered the actual intent of Father YHWH. Remember He said, or did nothing except what YHWH told Him to do or say. Likewise, it was both Yahshua and YHWH who converted Shaul. Shaul had been murdering the followers of Yahshua. YHWH does have a sense of Humour. So since Shaul is both Yahshuas and YHWHs 'boy', Shaul was fully with the program. Romans 10, Romans 14

Romans 14

YHWH desires, and will help, those Gentiles who seek the wisdom and understanding of the laws. Acts 10 Cornelus the Roman Centurion and the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch. All the Feasts and Holy Days mentioned are YHWHs Holy Days. Likewise the Sabbaths when they all taught in Synagogues and Temples. All of them upheld and taught the Laws of YHWH.
Scripture validates this position.

The Law; is the 'continuous thread', 'concept', from Genesis to Revelation.

Whenever the words: Righteous, righteousness, sin, iniquity are used, it is in reference to the Law.

Jesus was Jewish? Really?
http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/1_3_BlizBivin_JesusJew.html#101

Jerusalem Perspective
http://jerusalemperspective.com/

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 09:33 PM

phildeeThere is a creator (or creative principle)

Yes, His Name is Yahweh and He has a Holy Spirit that is of assistance to Him.

then there is the creator + the creation (=all that is)

WRONG. YHWH created the Universe and ALL the Heavens

are these not both "gods"?

NO: Yahweh is not a god. Exam the "j" source text. You need to do an Etymological Study of the word: god

'gods' are created beings. lower echelon entities of various qualities.

What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva,
are they not gods?

very important information that reveals YHWHs relationship with other gods

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

Psalm 82:1-7—

1 Yahweh stands in the assembly of the gods (elohim), and He gives judgment among the gods (elohim)!

2 Yahweh says: How long will you defend the unjust, and show partiality to the sinners?

3 You should defend the weak and fatherless! You should maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed!

4 You should rescue the poor and needy, and deliver them from the hands of the wicked.

5 You know nothing, you understand nothing; you walk about in darkness, and all the foundations of the Earth are shaken because of you!

6 I have said: You are gods (elohim), you sons of the Most High;

7 And like Adam you will die. Just like all the other rulers, you will fall.

Notice; in verse 7, Father Yahweh is informing the other gods, they will die.

Please recall the Apostle Shauls citation of YHWHs Prophet Isayah, in Romans 14.
Isayah 45:23

http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qa-tran.htm

1. (Continue chapter 45:21) yes, let them take counsel together: who has announced this from antiquity? who has told it from then? Is it not I YHWH? and there is no other
2. God beside me; a righteous God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

(22.) Turn to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth: because
3. I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn, the word of righteousness is gone out of my mouth, and shall not return [m...+ empty,] That to me shall bow,
4. every knee and every tongue shall swear.

(24.) even by YHWH he shall say to me,
righteousness and strength: and to him shall they come; and they shall be ashamed
5. all who are infuriated against him.

(25.) In YHWH all the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glorify.

(Chapter 46:1) Baal bows down, Nebo stoops,
6. their idols on beasts, and on the cattle: your load was a heavy burden [Q+ according to their report]
(2.) They stoop, they bow down
7. together; they were not able deliver the burden, but their souls are gone into captivity.

Yahweh is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient. He is at least Non-Anthropomorphic and Supra-Anthropomorphic.

Yahshua Messiah 'Transfigured-Morphed' from Anthropomorphic to SupraAnthrpomorphic.

There is a Holy Spirit/Prescence which is also refered to as a 'helper'.

First Positive Commandment which Yahshua knew and believed: Believe in Yahweh as the ONLY SOURCE OF POWER IN THE UNIVERSE.

2: Submit to Yahweh as the Supreme Head, to be in Unity with Yahweh

3: Love Yahweh with all our heart, soul and might

4: Reverence Yahweh by keeping His Laws

Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles, like the Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Prophets before them, upheld and kept and taught the Laws of Yahweh.

phildee3

09-11-2008, 10:50 PM

YHWH created the Universe and ALL the Heavens

Correct, but he didn't create himself, did he?

phildee3

09-11-2008, 10:57 PM

When Yahshua Messiah, and His Apostles taught, they were teaching the Laws and the Prophecies of the Old Testament.

Wrong.
He taught what he knew (gnosis), -
that which had been revealed to him directly from his "father" - the all-mighty, omnipresent ONE.

...they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
(Luke 2:46-47)

This was not from books!

phildee3

09-11-2008, 11:10 PM

...The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such knowledge
without having studied?"

John 7:15

snoopsnuffleopagus

09-11-2008, 11:36 PM

...The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such knowledge
without having studied?"

John 7:15

Hello; phildee3:

Yahchannan 7: 14-19 Very important to keep verses in CONTEXT:

14: Now about the middle of the Feast(YHWHs Feast), Yahshua went up into the sacred precincts of The House of Yahweh, and taught.

15: Now the Yahdaim were amazed, saying: How does this man know His letters; when He has never studied?

16: Yahshua answered them, and said: My doctrine is not Mine, but His Who sent Me.

17: If any man will do His will, he will know about this teaching-whether it comes from Yahweh, or whether I am speaking of My own authority.

18: He who speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but He Who seeks the glory of the One Who sent Him, He is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.

19: Was not the Law given to you through Mosheh/Moses? Why do you seek to kill me.

compare to Yahchannan/John 12:49-50

49: For I have not spoken on My own; but the Father Who sent Me gave me the Laws-what I should say and what I should speak.

50: And I know that His Laws are Life everlasting; so whatever I speak, I am saying exactly what My Father has told Me to say.

phil: You have ASSUMED, like the Pharisees, that since Yahshua Messiah was never seen in the Rabbinical Schools that He was unschooled, with Books.

It is a Law of the Torah that the parents MUST teach their children the laws, the 613 Laws, Judgements and Statutes of Yahweh.

I will safely assume that: Yahshua Messiahs parents Yahseph and Miriam/Joseph & Mary; were expert in the Laws, both academically and in practice. Plus, Yahweh provides His Holy Spirit. Yahshuas understanding of Yahwehs Laws was vastly superior to the Rabbis understandings.

phildee3: it would be helpful to this discussion if you would provide your understanding of the words: Righteous; Sin and Iniquity.

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 12:22 AM

Wrong.
He taught what he knew (gnosis), -
that which had been revealed to him directly from his "father" - the all-mighty, omnipresent ONE.

...they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
(Luke 2:46-47)

This was not from books!

Au Contraire, mon Amie: :) It BEGINS with Books. WORDS have meanings, prepares the being for further learning. Read Proverbs:

Prerequisites: Laws of YHWH that provide for education
18: Acquire the Book of Yahweh/OT
209: Show honour and respect for
Yahwehs appointed Teachers.
210: Show honour and respect to parents
47: Do not follow teachings other than the laws of Yahweh
25: Do not bring godworship into the House of Yahweh
13: Do not worship Ashera, the Queen of Heaven. Deuteronomy 16:21

REMAINING IN CONTEXT: to understand any given Text; it must remain in
context. Often the Text in question will cite Text from another Book

Luk 2:22 When the days of their purification according to the Law of Moshe were fulfilled, they brought him up to Yerushalayim, to present him to the Yahweh

Luk 2:23 (as it is written in the Law of Yahweh, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to Yahweh"),

Luk 2:24 and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the Law of Yahweh, "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Luk 2:25 Behold, there was a man in Yerushalayim whose name was Shim`on; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Yisra'el, and the Ruach HaKodesh was on him.

Luk 2:26 It had been revealed to him by the Ruach HaKodesh that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah.

Luk 2:27 He came in the Spirit into the temple. When the parents brought in the child, Yeshua, that they might do concerning him according to the custom of the Law,

Luk 2:28 then he received him into his arms, and blessed Yahweh, and said,

Luk 2:29 "Now you are releasing your servant, Master, According to your word, in shalom;

Luk 2:30 For my eyes have seen your yeshu`ah,

Luk 2:31 Which you have prepared before the face of all peoples;

Luk 2:32 A light for revelation to the Gentile, And the glory of your people Yisra'el."

Luk 2:33 Yosef and his mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning him,

Luk 2:34 and Shim`on blessed them, and said to Miryam, his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Yisra'el, and for a sign which is spoken against.

Luk 2:35 Yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Luk 2:36 There was one Hanah, a prophetess, the daughter of Penu'el, of the tribe of Asher (she was of a great age, having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity,

Luk 2:37 and she had been a widow for about eighty-four years), who didn't depart from the temple, worshipping with fastings and petitions night and day.

Luk 2:38 Coming up at that very hour, she gave thanks to Yahweh, and spoke of him to all those who were looking for redemption in Yerushalayim.

Luk 2:39 When they had accomplished all things that were according to the Law of Yahweh, they returned into the Galil, to their own city, Natzeret.

Luk 2:40 The child was growing, and was becoming strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

Luk 2:41 His parents went every year to Yerushalayim at the feast of the Pesach.

Luk 2:42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to Yerushalayim according to the custom of the feast,

Luk 2:43 and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Yeshua stayed behind in Yerushalayim. Yosef and his mother didn't know it,

Luk 2:44 but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey, and they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances.

Luk 2:45 When they didn't find him, they returned to Yerushalayim, looking for him.

Luk 2:46 It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions.

Luk 2:47 All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

Luk 2:48 When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you."

Luk 2:49 He said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I must be in my Father's house?" (The House of Yahweh-BYIT YHWH)

Luk 2:50 They didn't understand the saying which he spoke to them.

Luk 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Natzeret. He was subject to them, and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Luk 2:52 And Yeshua increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with Yahweh and men.

Have no doubt phildee3, Yahshua was all about His Fathers Business, Father Yahwehs Business.

Thank you :)

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 01:09 AM

Let us not have a shred of doubt. Yahshua was expert in the 39 Books of the Old Testament; the Tanakh: The Torah, The Prophets and The Writings.

He was certainly schooled in the Book of Proverbs
1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

2 To know wisdom and instruction; to comprehend the words of understanding;

3 To receive the discipline of wisdom, justice, and right, and equity;

4 To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion;

5 That the wise man may hear, and increase in learning, and the man of understanding may attain unto wise counsels;

6 To understand a proverb, and a figure; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

7 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; but the foolish despise wisdom and discipline.

8 Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother;

9 For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.

10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

SIN: Transgression of the Law

Proverbs 2
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and lay up my commandments with thee;

2 So that thou make thine ear attend unto wisdom, and thy heart incline to discernment;

3 Yea, if thou call for understanding, and lift up thy voice for discernment;

4 If thou seek her as silver, and search for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the Reverence of Yahweh, and find the knowledge of our Heavenly Father.

There it is phildee3, Yahshuas knowledge came direct from Father Yahweh.

6 For Yahweh giveth wisdom, out of His mouth cometh knowledge and discernment;

7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the upright, He is a shield to them that walk in integrity;

8 That He may guard the paths of justice, and preserve the way of His godly ones.

9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness and justice, and equity, yea, every good path.

10 For wisdom shall enter into thy heart, and knowledge shall be pleasant unto thy soul;

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 01:56 AM

When Yahshua Messiah spoke to us all, on the Mount, He was speaking from the knowledge He learned from the Tanakh, the Old Testament.

The Torah, The Prophets and The Writings. Books

His understanding of these writings was enhanced by Father Yahwehs Holy Spirit, and Malakhs, because He, Yahshua was fully subject to Yahweh.

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/beatitudes.htm

The beatitudes unlocked by Hebrew parallelism, Matthew 5:3-10
Hebraic poetic parallelism

Much of the Old Testament is poetry. In fact one third of it is written in Hebrew poetic form, equivalent to more than the entire New Testament. Isaiah 40-66, Job and Lamentations are arranged poetically, as are the Psalms and Proverbs. Many of the prophecies are also poetic.

Hebrew poetry does not use rhyming words but rhyming ideas. Complementary or duplicate descriptions are written in parallel, line by line. This adds helpful insights for translation through word equivalence, and interpretation of difficult phrases by comparison with an easier to understand parallel phrase. Additionally, it acts as an aide memoire in that the idea when spoken twice is doubly memorable and like poetry or song is easier to remember than mere prose or narrative. Most believers know more hymns and choruses than Bible verses because more of their senses are involved in singing and dancing than in mere silent reading. At the very least we should get back to reading Scripture aloud so that we hear it twice, once with the mind and once with the external ear.

A good example would be Proverbs 31.20, there is no difference between poor and needy:
"She stretches / out her hand / to the poor;"
"She reaches / forth her arms / to the needy"
Here, each phrase is paralleled by a similar phrase of different wording but of equal meaning in the corresponding second half of the verse.

Thus, "ask, seek and knock", in the gospels, are three ways of saying 'inquire of God' not suggesting that if your prayer was unanswered it was because you asked and sought but forgot to knock.

This phraseology is poetic, which you should read and get the flow and drift, the heart of the message, not be distracted by small print. Alternatively, if you were reading the Ten Commandments, you would read the small print, as they are a legal document. Different styles of writing require different methods of reading.

The beatitudes unlocked by parallelism

The use of Hebraic poetic parallelism can be seen carried into the New Testament in the Sermon on the Mount. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) are arranged in pairs which can help clarify the meaning of their corresponding phrase. Here the transposed order of verses 4 & 5 has been used as in many Greek NT and Latin Vulgate manuscripts , making a more obvious parallelism of the first four blessings:

Blessed [are] the poor in spirit:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed [are] the meek:
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed [are] they that mourn:
for they shall be comforted. Blessed [are] those who hunger and thirst for righteousness:
for they shall be filled.

Blessed [are] the merciful:
for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed [are] the pure in heart:
for they shall see God.

Blessed [are] the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed [are] those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake/pursue righteousness:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Hence, we can immediately see some aids to interpretation from the equivalent phrases outlined below:

v.3 = v.5 (v.4 in some MSS) poor (humble) in spirit = meek
kingdom of heaven = inherit the earth
v.6 = v.4 (v.5 in some MSS) mourn = hunger and thirst for righteousness
comforted = filled/satisfied
v.7 = v.8 merciful = pure in heart
to obtain mercy = to see God
v.9 = v.10 peacemakers = pursue/persecute righteous
children of God = have the kingdom of God
Further justification of this exegesis will be found by an understanding that most of the language used in the Beatitudes is Old Testament references and phraseology.

Poor in spirit = meek
Therefore, using parallelistic equivalence of phrase and Old Testament language context we can see that 'poor in spirit' does not refer to material poverty as Luke 6:20 taken in isolation might suggest. Rather, it refers to being 'meek' or 'humble'. This is relevant because another passage used by Jesus to describe his ministry is Isaiah 61:1ff., this refers to the Spirit's anointing to preach the gospel to the poor, or so it is usually translated. However, the Hebrew word in Isaiah is again 'meek' and not 'poor'. Thus, it is not material poverty but spiritual humility which is most open to hear the gospel. God shows no partiality to rich or poor.

"poor", ptôchos (34x), refers to abject poverty, unable to even scrape a living and therefore reduced to begging, having come to an end in oneself. In Greek, more poor than penês (also, 'poor'). The word is used in Luke 4:16 to translate Isaiah 61:1, 'ânâv 'poor'. Thus "poor in spirit" means having nothing to offer God, and thus meek and humble, the opposite of Pharisaic self-righteousness. It sometimes stand for 'the oppressed' of God's own people. The OT has 179 references to 'poor' and more than 8 words to describe it.

Significantly, Isaiah 61:1 and 66:2 are sometimes mistranslated as 'poor' creating a mandate of exclusivity to the poor, which is just as wrong in God's sight as partiality to the rich - God shows no partiality. The Isaiah references actually use 'ânâv and 'ânîy both from 'ânâh, 'to depress' or 'abase', and really mean humility or meekness. Numbers 12:3 uses the first of these to describe Moses as the meekest man on earth, i.e., there is no insinuation as to Moses' bank balance or state of poverty!

[Jesus nowhere sanctifies a state of poverty or describes it as a 'blessed' position to be in, as anyone who has been poor can agree with. In fact, Scripture's comment on blessed finances is that "the blessing of the Lord brings riches without sorrow [or grief]" (Proverbs 10:22).]

"Blessed are the meek", this by Hebrew parallelism may echo and explain 5:3, "blessed are the poor in the spirit". 'Meek' does not mean 'weak', but humility and gentleness, someone who acknowledges their need. It is taken straight from Psalm 37:11, "the meek shall inherit the earth", here 'meek' is the Hebrew 'ânâv again, from which Isaiah 61:1's "poor/humble/meek" and Matthew's "poor in spirit" are taken.

Isaiah 66:2 and a Dead Sea Scroll passage also pair up these synonymous phrases:
"But on this one will I look:
On the poor and of contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My Word" (Isaiah 66:2)
"to proclaim to the meek the multitude of Your mercies,
and to let them that are of contrite spirit he[ar salvation . . .]"
(DSS, 1QH, Thanksgiving Scroll, 18.14-15)
Hence it is the meek and humble who inherit, who are teachable (Psalm 25), who receive the good news (Isaiah 61:1).

Kingdom of heaven = inherit the earth
'Heaven' is a Jewish synonym for God Himself, hence the 'kingdom of heaven' in Matthew's Jewish language is identical with 'the kingdom of God' in the other gospels.

Furthermore, Jewish kingdom expectation was not of an ethereal heavenly kingdom but of a messianic millennial earth where God dwelt with man. It is not that we ascend to be with God in the long run but that God descends, once sin and evil are banished, to once more dwell with man and walk with him, as He did with Adam in gan eden, the garden of Eden. Compare the picture of the earthly eternal reign of God in Revelation 21-22. One can see, then, that 'to inherit the earth' is the same as inheriting the kingdom of God, or experiencing His eternal rule. His kingdom is "not of this world", means that it is not of this 'worldly order' or of this 'age', but rather it 'of the age to come'.

To mourn = to hunger and thirst for righteousness
Again, another difficult blessing, "Blessed are those that mourn", but how can mourning for the dead be a 'blessed' or 'happy' state? It is a mistake and insensitive in the least to describe 'mourning' or 'bereavement' as such. Mourning in the Psalms (cf. Psalms 119:136; 42:9; 43:2; 38:6) was often associated with grieving over personal or national sin, over the oppression of an enemy, over injustice, or over lack of respect for God's Law. In this context the corresponding parallel in the Beatitudes explains it perfectly, the mourners are 'those who hunger and thirst for righteousness', the coming of the 'reign of God' (the kingdom) will comfort and satisfy ('fill') them.

'Mourn' occurs 10x in the NT. Isaiah 61:2-3 refers to the comforting of the mourners but is not included in Jesus' address to the synagogue in Luke 4:18-21, where he rolls up the scroll halfway through verse 2 indicating that only verses 1-2a were fulfilled in Him, verses 2b onward awaited a later time, that of the day of God's vengeance rather than the present year of acceptance (jubilee period when all debts were cancelled, all slaves set free, cf. Leviticus 25:8ff., Ezekiel 46:17). Isaiah 61:2-3 probably refers to mourning over the state and fate of Israel, i.e., over a nation and over their own sin, they will be 'comforted' or 'encouraged'.

In fact, Isaiah 40:1-2 speaks of true comfort for God's people since "her warfare is done, her iniquity is pardoned".

To "hunger and thirst for righteousness" is more than for personal holiness. As with Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel and Jeremiah, etc., it is those who mourn over a nation's sin and oppression and desire to see righteousness and justice in the land, for "righteousness exalts a nation" (Proverbs 14:34).

Comforted = filled/satisfied
These mourners and 'hungerers' will be 'filled'. Perhaps a better translation of chortazô, 'filled', would be 'satisfied' as when justice is seen to be done, when the wicked no longer prosper and the righteous are not oppressed.

Merciful = pure in heart
"pure in heart" and "peacemakers" are both phrases that occur only here in the NT. The pure in heart according to Psalm 24:4 and Proverbs 20:9 are those without sin, i.e., the righteous. The actual phrase "pure in heart" occurs also in Psalm 73:1, cf. Psalm 34:19, but comes primarily from Psalm 24:3-4.

Peacemakers = persecute/pursue righteousness
The "peacemakers" shall be called "sons of God". Two meanings may, either instead of each other or together, be taken from this. A son of God, according to Romans, is someone who has been adopted by God, note in Jewish families it was the son who inherited, hence to degenderize (out of political correctness) and translate as "child of God" immediately strips the phrase of any connotations of inheritance. A second meaning may be taken from the Hebrew underlying "son of . . .", which may also mean someone who acts according to the character of the attribute or person of which he is a son. Thus, a "son of peace" is a 'peaceful one', and "son of God", may be a 'godly one'. Here God's character is that of a 'peacemaker' and the true disciple acts similarly and is called both a son of God and a son of peace. The only other place in the NT using a similar word to 'peacemaker' is Colossians 1:20 which refers to the making of peace between God and man, the reconciliation affected through God's mercy demonstrated on the cross.

Peacemaking was not only a NT concept, just prior to Jesus' ministry Rabbi Hillel had said, "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace" (Abot., 1:12). Peace makers or peace pursuers would be rodphe shalom in Hebrew. To 'pursue peace' occurs in the NT at Romans 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 3:11.

"Persecuted for righteousness sake" may also be translated from the Hebrew background as "those that pursue righteousness". This comes from nirdephe tsedeq in the Hebrew of similar sound to the rodphe shalom 'peace pursuers' above. To 'pursue righteousness' occurs in the NT at Romans 9:30; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22.

Righteousness and peace are parallel terms in the following verses: Psalms 72:3; 85:10; Isaiah 32:17; 48:18; 60:17; Hebrews 7:2.

Conclusion: "and then there were four . ."
Given the parallelisms outlined above we can see that Jesus was saying not 7, 8 or 9 sayings but 4 principles each expounded in a pair of complementary phrases. Further, whilst Jesus' Beatitudes may appear spontaneous and original they are actually steeped in Old Testament allusions and quotations, and Hebrew poetic parallelism. As Professor David Flusser has written "these are not a spontaneous outbreak of prophecy, but a profound message founded on a complex network of biblical reminiscences and midrashic exegesis."

Yahshua Messiah was, from a very young age, THE Penultimate Master of Scripture, the Old Testament. To suggest otherwise is to be uncorrectly informed.

I stand by, ready to assist you. :)

kasalt

10-11-2008, 02:07 AM

some bad people preach religion, does that mean what they preach is wrong?
...
the fact is truth is truth, no matter how dishonest/bad the person saying it is.

Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) is information, but it is not truth per se. It is information designed to subvert truth. HOY's material is the propaganda of a cult and of a cult leader.

Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 02:32 AM

The Beatitudes are pure Old Testament, reinforcing YHWHs Laws as viewed from the heart, for all the world and its peoples.

THE BEATITUDES
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Beatitudes.html
Matthew 5:1-20

By Stephen Green. (First published in Christian Voice August 2003)

Possibly the greatest teaching sermon of the Lord Jesus is found in the 5th, 6th and 7th chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. The Sermon on the Mount, as it is known, was given, as it appears, to a large multitude of followers, during a time when the Lord was in the middle of choosing the Twelve (and subsequently the Seventy).

There are parallels with the shorter Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6, not the least of which is the similarity of the opening remarks.

Matthew has: "When he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth and taught them," and Luke says: "He lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said," both implying that the Lord had sat down and that the others were standing.

NOT A NEW LAW
There have been attempts to show that the Sermon on the Mount is a statement of a new law, one of a different kind to the law given by Moses and the Prophets. Something is made of the mountain location, as if Mount Sinai with its Ten Commandments is abolished in a new Mount with new commandments.

This view firstly runs up against the fact that Jesus sat down. In Jerusalem, Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy, but in Matt 23:2 said that they "sit in Moses' seat: all therefore that they bid you observe, observe and do ...". This very act of sitting denotes the passing of a judgment upon a question of the law. When the Lord sat down, it was to give a ruling on matters of the law of God. That is what the scribes and Pharisees did, in a system which the Lord commended. The difference is that when He did it, it was with greater authority than they (Matt 7:28-29, John 5:27).

Secondly, the Lord Jesus could not change the law because He was under the authority of His father (Luke 2:49; John 5:19,30), and God changeth not (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8). The moral law of God in both its personal and judicial applications is a reflection of the very character of God. It can only change if God changes. The physical laws which hold the universe together have not changed under the New Covenant either, which is useful, to put it mildly. If the law of gravity, for example, had been abolished by the Lord Jesus, our world would literally blow apart.

Thirdly, as Jesus is God incarnate, and remains the same, and since, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He wrote the Law of God in the first place, He will not be about to change it in His incarnation. The ceremonial and sacrificial law is a different matter, of course, being a prophetic picture of the once-for-all perfect sacrifice of Christ Himself (Heb 9:6-15).

MESSIAH BRINGS JUDGMENT
Fourthly, the 'Servant Songs' of the Prophecy of Isaiah do not once have the Messiah changing the Law. (See Isa 42:1-9; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12; 60:2-3 and 61:1-3.) Instead, He brings 'judgment to the Gentiles', 'the isles wait for his law', and He is 'a light of the Gentiles' (Isa 42:1,4,6) His ministry is to suffer in our place and heal us 'with his stripes' (Isa 53:5).

Fifthly, the Lord Jesus said Himself that He had not come "to destroy the law or the prophets", (Matt 5:17) which is Rabbinic code for the Hebrew Bible, which we now know as the Old Testament. The Lord would not change so much as one jot or tittle from the law, but would fulfil it. There is a sense in which He fulfils it by keeping it fully. A lot of publicity has been given recently to the popular "What would Jesus do?" bracelets. What Jesus would do firstly and foremost is to keep the Law of God.

LAW AND THE PROPHETS
He would also fulfil the prophecies of the sacrificial system, according to the law of God, in which there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood (Lev 17:11). But if He was going to abolish the Law and the Prophets, as some say, then it is a deceitful semantic twist to claim to be fulfilling them, and our Lord Jesus would not stoop so low. What He says, He means.

Finally, the Sermon on the Mount is not a new law because everything said in it by the Lord Jesus is either a restatement of or a ruling on an Old Testament scripture. This is most plainly seen in the teachings recorded from Chapter 5 verse 21 to the end of Chapter 7; Jesus expounds the law explaining its heart application and also its practicalities. It is an astonishing setting forth of eternal truth at the personal level, challenging and uplifting.

BEATITUDES
The Old Testament is also the foundation of the Beatitudes which open the Sermon on the Mount. The Beatitudes, nine in number, seem to be so wrapped up in the character of Jesus that the mere suggestion that most of them are Old Testament scriptures at root appears to some as almost an insult to His ministry. Yet that is the truth. Looked at another way of course, His knowledge of the Scriptures is simply phenomenal, as befits the Author of it all.

The Beatitudes are all different, and yet all the same, as each represents a different facet of utter dependence upon God. They lead up to the encouragement of verse 12, and even that verse has a root in God's promise to Abraham: "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." (Gen 15:1) Their beauty lies in their simplicity, their grouping together and their culmination. It is worth looking at each of the beatitudes and their Old Testament sources in turn:

POOR IN SPIRIT
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:3

The Psalmist writes:

The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalm 34:18; cf Ps. 51:17) and from Proverbs:

There is that maketh himself rich that hath nothing; there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches. (Prov 13:7 cf 19:1, 22:2-3, 28:6)

In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus opens by looking up at His disciples and saying, literally: "Blessed poor." The same Greek word ptochos (Strong 4434) is used. There is an other Greek word for 'poor' which is penes, but although the penes is poor, he earns his bread by daily labour. The ptochos by contrast is entirely dependent on the grace and mercy of others. Penes has nothing superfluous. Ptochos has nothing at all. The word expresses our complete dependence on the grace of God for all our needs.

BEAUTY FOR ASHES
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Matt. 5:4)

Compare these verse from the prophet Isaiah: ... to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; ... (Isa. 61:2-3) And from Jeremiah: I will turn their mourning into joy and will comfort them (Jer 31:13)

BLESSED ARE THE MEEK
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

That Beatitude is a quotation of Psalm 37: But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. (Ps. 37:11) Indeed, an earlier verse in the same psalm says: For evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait upon the Lord. they shall inherit the earth. (vs 9) Isaiah prophesies the Lord Jesus doing exactly what He did in that very word: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; (Isa. 61:1) Meekness does not mean weakness, of course. Moses was the meekest man on all the earth, (Numb 12:3) but he had the strength of character to withstand his brother Aaron many times.

RIGHTEOUSNESS
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Matt. 5:6

This verse is a great comfort too, when all about seems unrighteous. That those of us who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled has been a constant theme of scripture: The Lord will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish: (Prov 10:3); the desire of the righteous shall be granted (Prov 10:24); in the way of righteousness is life (Prov 12:28).

And:

Ho, every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters (Isa 55:1)

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: (Isa. 65:13) ).

At the same time, we need to remember at this point that the beatitudes are not to be taken in isolation. If we hunger and thirst after righteousness, it does not mean we are excused being meek, or don’t need to mourn. The Lord Jesus is setting out a way of approach to God, in which we acknowledge our utter dependence upon Him and bring our whole character before Him to be broken and restored in His image.

MERCY
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7) Compare with:

Have mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak (Psalm 6:2) He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he. Pro. 14:21 Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard (Prov 21:13) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6; cf Micah 6:8)

The necessity of being merciful in order to gain the mercy of God is one which Jesus develops in the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:12,14) and the parable of the debtors (Matt 18:23-35). Only in the Gospels do we read in the Bible of such an itinerant teaching ministry as that of our Lord. The ordinary Pharisees were also travelling around and teaching, but the value of Jesus Christ Himself teaching the people for their benefit and that of succeeding generations is a great treasure which must never be underestimated. That God Himself would spend time in His creation, taking pity on those He has created and then to die for them is grace beyond measure.

PURE IN HEART
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matt. 5:8)

See the Psalms: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. (Ps. 15:1-2) Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart. (Psalm 24:3-4a)

It is a sobering thought that worship of God is not to be undertaken lightly; the Lord God requires us to have clean hands and a pure heart. The pure in heart have also a need for God and His Holy Spirit to keep them close to His own heart.

CHILDREN OF GOD
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt. 5:9) Again, peace is not a New Testament invention:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it (Deut 20:10). Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. (Ps. 34:14) For he will speak peace unto His people (Psalm 85:8). The way of peace they know not, and no judgment in their goings; they have made them crooked paths; whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. (Isa 59:8)

The peacemaker is not simply someone who stops feuding, but a believer who has experienced the peace of God and seeks to bring that peace to others. The concept of God as 'our father' is not entirely alien to the Old Testament, as Malachi asks, "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" (Mal 2:10) but the Lord Jesus, as the only begotten Son of the Father, lays much more emphasis on God as Father than do the Prophets.

PERSECUTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matt. 5:10-12)

These three verses are the culmination of the Beatitudes. In a sense, all that went before was relatively passive and private. To be poor, mourning, meek, merciful, seeking righteousness and peace, and purity of heart, are still difficult enough virtues and possible only with God's gracious help. But to stand up actively and prophecy righteousness in a hostile world is to invite persecution for the sake of Christ. It is at that point that we can take heart from the promise of the Lord Jesus: "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven" and "Great is your reward in heaven." Once more, it was ever thus:

But they mocked the messengers of God and despised his words and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people (2 Chr 36:16) O LORD my God, in thee do I trust, save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me. (Ps. 7:1)

May God give us of His grace and His Holy Spirit to follow all the Beatitudes in our lives, but especially give us the courage to be prepared to be persecuted for righteousness' sake. In these days, those who stand against the values of the world will face affliction more and more. Thank God that Jesus promises to be ever with us: "Persecuted, but not forsaken" (2 Cor 4:9)

1977

10-11-2008, 03:55 AM

So did anyone do anything fun this weekend? :)

kasalt

10-11-2008, 07:55 AM

a Prohibitory Law is: Do not kindle a fire on the Sabbath.
This means simply, one day a week, on YHWHs weekly Sabbath, let nothing anger you for 24 hours. That may spread out through the week. The Talmudists make rules about minutia concerning 3D fires. Clue: YHWH doesn't want you or your family cold. YHWHs Laws are your ultimate friend

Tell that to the guy who was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath:

Numbers 15:32-36
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

kasalt

10-11-2008, 08:27 AM

The primary characters in the NT are Yahdaim=People of Yahweh/Hebrews. They thought, spoke, taught and SCRIBED in Hebrew. The ORIGINAL NT was scribed in Hebrew. So it is not 'the original greek'...
I dare you to compare your watered-down greek based drivel to authentic scholarship,

Most of the New Testament was addressed specifically to Greek-speaking gentiles who resided in Greek-speaking areas of the world. The idea that the authors of the New Testament would have first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek is unnecessary and ludicrous. Furthermore, if the authors of the New Testament had originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, then their translations of Old Testament quotations would match the Hebrew texts and disagree with the Greek Septuagint. Instead, we find that their quotations agree with the Greek Septuagint and contradict the Hebrew texts. This proves that the authors of the New Testament originally wrote in Greek, and when they quoted from the Old Testament, they quoted from the Greek Septuagint.

I give specific examples of where the New Testament quotes the Old by providing direct quotes in this thread:

The Septuagint v. the Masoretic Text
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32990

You can perform this acid test yourself Snoops, with your own Book of Yahweh. Compare NT quotes with their source text in the OT of your BOY and see if they match.

Of course, I've already extended this invitation to you a month or two ago on your BOY thread, and when you didn't reply there, I pm'd you about it. You didn't reply to the pm either. I suspect I know why: Because you did the comparisons, and the results didn't agree with your belief system (Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda)), therefore you chose to ignore it (Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)).

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 01:24 PM

kasalt, now you are resorting to outright falsehoods. You have never PMed me. I would have noticed and would have replied.

We had this debate before, and I so overwhelmed you with evidence you withdrew.

if you haven't noticed, I have been providing a Link to a Hebrew-English Bible based upon the Masoretic Text.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Since neither the Septuagint or the Masoretic are Source Texts, why bother.

I have compared to the Inter-Linears based upon the "J" Text.

You just seek to waste time and prevent peeps from having a more accurate understanding of the Bible then the Cosmopolitan Cosmologists and Ideologists.

This is a Fruit of Yisrayls Tree: A scholarly look at Yahshua/Jesus
http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW12-04/search.htm

This is a Fruit of Kasalts Tree: A Channeled Demon Spirit Impersonating Yahshua/Jesus

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450529&postcount=12

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32537

Now; using your self-exalted Power of Discernment; inform us which Fruit is Righteous Fruit and which Tree has brought forth evil Fruit.

I/We are still awaiting your definitions of the words: Righteous/ness; Sin and Iniquity.

Get informed, and stop pestering people who are trying to have an intelligent and informed discussion. Study this materiel then return.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

It is also quite telling Kasalt, that you have not shared your opinion of xtian gnosticism:

Is it your learned and discerning opinion that the dogma and doctrine of xtian gnosticism accurately represents the message proclaimed by the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles?

phildee3

10-11-2008, 01:45 PM

It is also quite telling Kasalt, that you have not shared your opinion of xtian gnosticism:

"Christian gnosticism" is false gnosticism.
"Hermetic gnosticism" is false gnosticism.

True gnosticism is a methodology not a belief system.
Therefore:
Gnostic Christianity, gnostic Hermeticism, etc.

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 02:35 PM

phildee3; I can easily make the case that you, yourself have been informed by numerous books, and teachers who have been informed by books, and a wee bit of osmosis, an untested spirit/force. This combination of Data-Input is what comprises your Dogmas and Doctrines of your brand of gosticism.

besides the gospel of thomas and the nag hamadi texts, what else do you like? The aquarian gospel of jesus? I'll wager you like neal walsh: 'conversations with god'.

It's time to support your assertions.

here is actual Academic Scholarship that provides some very profound insights into many aspects of scripture. what do you dis-agree with?

I disagree with a coupla of his conclusions, but overall, he provides very deep insights into what scripture says on many interesting topics.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40255

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

I think it would be nice if you actually supported some of your assertions with tangible evidence.

and since you won't provide us with a definiton of Righteous/ness. Sin and Iniquity. How do Yahshua Messiah and the Apostle define these words. We can tell by their usage and the CONTEXT these words are used in. can you?

snoopsnuffleopagus

10-11-2008, 03:50 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=607318&postcount=28
Originally Posted by snoopsnuffleopagus

The Patriarchs and the Prophets have told us to 'Test the Spirits': that if the spirit/force contacting you DOES NOT SPEAK to the LAWS and the PROPHECIES; there is NO LIGHT IN THEM'. This is for our protection that we are not deceived.

phildee3:

They we're Yahwists, -
themselves deceived.

I do declare!!

Phildee3; I am a 54 yo NY male, who has had a very, very broad range of life experience, subject to many 'forces'. I have never, nor do I expect to ever; witness such audacity from a mortal.

You Declare: ALL the Patriarchs and ALL the Prophets were deceived, and what they taught was erroneous. Due to their own ignorance. You are speaking of Abel, Yahwehs First Righteous Priest; You speak of Mosheh/Moses, King Melchizedek, Abraham, Isayah. Yechtzqyah/Ezekiel; Daniyl, Ezra as all deceived.

Yet Yahshua Messiah and All the Apostles cite these men and tell us to heed their words. Why?

Do you have a shred of Tangible Evidence to support what I perceive to be a truly audacious statement, declaration?

You say ALL the Prophets and Patriarchs were deceived. Show us your evidence.

Thank You. :)

eternal_spirit

10-11-2008, 06:57 PM

kasalt, now you are resorting to outright falsehoods. You have never PMed me. I would have noticed and would have replied.

We had this debate before, and I so overwhelmed you with evidence you withdrew.

Since neither the Septuagint or the Masoretic are Source Texts, why bother.

This is a Fruit of Kasalts Tree: A Channeled Demon Spirit Impersonating Yahshua/Jesus

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450529&postcount=12

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32537

Now; using your self-exalted Power of Discernment; inform us which Fruit is Righteous Fruit and which Tree has brought forth evil Fruit.

I/We are still awaiting your definitions of the words: Righteous/ness; Sin and Iniquity.

Kasalt offers some good proof, read the link. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32990
It was all Greek Buddie until the Talmudic rabbis got to deceiving.
One of the least known but very persistent Jewish occult beliefs is that of “changelings,” that there are human-appearing demoniods, offspring of human-demon couplings, that move among us.

This belief has its roots in a rabbinic tradition that believes demons (sheidim, creatures more akin to the Islam djinn than earth-trembling spirits) are unable to procreate without human “seed.” Thus Judaism has a robust tradition of succubae, seductive female demons who are the cause of male erotic dreams and nocturnal emissions. Adam was the first progenitor of demons:

When Adam, doing penance for his sin, separated from Eve for 130 years, he, by impure desire, caused the earth to be filled with shedim, lilin, and evil spirits (Gen. R. 20; Er. 18b).

Since, like humans, sheidim are subject to death (Chagigah 16a), these “semen demons,” such as Lilith, Naamah, and Igrat, periodically re-populate the demonic realm through these sexual-spiritual assaults.

The flip side of this coin is a parallel tradition that mortal women are occasionally impregnated by incubae:

The “sons of divinity” (Gen. 6:2-4) were the sons of Cain. For when Samael mounted Eve (Shabbat 146a), he injected [semen of] filth into her, and she conceived and bore Cain. And his aspect was unlike that of the other humans and all those who came from his side were called “sons of divinity” (Zohar I:137a).

According to this, Cain was literally a “bad seed,” as are his descendants. The female descendants of Eve similarly can find themselves periodic victims of a kind of “Rosemary’s Baby Syndrome,” usually unknowingly. The changelings that result from such "spirit rapes" move among us largely undetected, until their evil nature is revealed through gross crimes or other evil enterprises.

Given the spiritual source of their malevolence, it was sometimes thought necessary to combat them by spiritual means alongside the usual police and judicial methods. Thus we see in some Hebrew amulets of protection that the person seeking angelic protection against evil spirits will identify him- or herself as “So-and-So, son/daughter of So-and-So, from among the children of Adam and Eve…” (Sefer ha-Razim). The implication being the amulet is directed against beings not from among the children of both

This belief in demon progeny persisted from Talmudic times right up to the start of the modern era, no doubt because this legend offers a ready explanation for why certain people are “bad to the bone,” much in the way we still today declare heinous serial killers “monsters” (and therefore not fully human).
primoridal ancestors.

Jewish vampires? Sure. The existence of blood lusting monsters is yet another folkloric belief that exists across cultures. Like zombies, Americans today have totally internalized the "vampire rules" of Hollywood - rules like: vampires are the undead; they have no reflection; they shapechange into bats; garlic and crosses repel them; and they can only be destroyed via sunlight or a stake through the heart.

Not surprisingly, Jewish vampire traditions do not adhere to these assumptions. The earliest reference to a vampiric creature occurs in a text of Late Antiquity, the "Testament of Solomon" (this is also one of the paradigmatic texts for Jewish sorcerers, because it portrays Solomon as a kind of wizard).

Behold, when the Temple of the city of Jerusalem was being built, and the artificers were working thereat, Ornias the demon came among them toward sunset; and he took away half of the pay of the chief-deviser's little boy, as well as half his food. He also continued to suck the thumb of his right hand every day. And the child grew thin, although he was very much loved by the king. So King Solomon called the boy one day, and questioned him, saying: "Do I not love thee more than all the artisans who are working in the Temple of God? Do I not give thee double wages and a double supply of food? How is it that day by day and hour by hour thou growest thinner?"
4. But the child said to the king: "I pray thee, O king. Listen to what has befallen all that thy child hath. After we are all released from our work on the Temple of God, after sunset, when I lie down to rest, one of the evil demons comes and takes away from me one half of my pay and one half of my food. Then he also takes hold of my right hand and sucks my thumb. And lo, my soul is oppressed, and so my body waxes thinner every day."
Solomon responds to this threat by constructing a magic ring with which he enslaves this demon and, subsequently, higher orders of demons. In the end, the king uses these demon-slaves to help him construct the Temple!
Later vampire traditions appear among the Jews of medieval Rhineland, not far from the areas where flourishing Christian beliefs in blood-sucking creatures would become the basis for Bram Stoker's story. But here again, Jews have their own ideas about the nature of vampires and how to combat them. These passages come from Sefer Hasidim ("The Book of the Pious"), a wide-ranging tract on Jewish piety that includes stories about ghosts, liliths, and other paranormal things that go bump in the night:

1465: There are women that are called estrie... They were created at sunset [before the first Sabbath before creation]. As a result of this, they are able to change form. There was one woman who was a estrie and she was very sick and there were two women with her at night; one was sleeping and one was awake. And the sick woman stood up and loosened her hair and she was about to fly and suck the blood of the sleeping woman. And the woman who was awake screamed and woke her friend and they grabbed the sick estrie, and after this she slept. And moreover, if she had been able to grab the other woman, then she, the estrie, would have lived. Since she was not able to hurt the other woman, the estrie died, because she needs to drink the blood of living flesh. The same is true of the werewolf. And since....the estrie need to loosen their hair before they fly, one must adjure her to come with her hair bound so that she cannot go anywhere without permission. And if a estrie is injured or seen by someone, she cannot live unless she eats of the bread and salt of the one who struck her. Then her soul will return to the way it was before.

1466 There was a woman who was suspected of being a estrie, and she was injured when she appeared to a Jew as a cat and he hit her. The next day she asked him to give her some of his bread and salt, and he wanted to give it to her. An old man said to him (Ecc. 7:16) “Be not overly righteous.” When others have sinned one must not show kindness, for if she lives, she will harm people. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He created her for you [as a test]. This is similar to Amalek and Saul. Saul was punished for saving Amalek’s life. (see First Samuel 15).

As we can see, the nature of these vampires is strangely indeterminate. In the beginning of the passage, they seem to be regarded as demons, as in the Testament of Solomon. On the other hand, the end of the passage suggests that this is an ordinary woman (apparently, she has a soul) living within her community. Other passages in Sefer Chasidim convey that same idea. Perhaps the resolution of this puzzle is that vampirism was understood to be a kind of demonic possession.
There is also one example of a judicial proceeding being conducted against a suspected estrie. Not surprisingly, conviction results in a death sentence. Apparently killing an estrie presents no particular challenge, but there is a potential post-mortem complication:

Toldot Adam v’Havah, 28

When a estrie that has eaten children is being buried one should observe whether her mouth is open, if it is, she will persist in her vampirish pursuits for another year unless it is stopped up with earth.
This measure strikes me as stereotypically Jewish - The way to destroy a Christian vampire is through the heart; for a Jew, you just have to preventing him from talking and it kills him.
To learn more, look up the Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism

eternal_spirit

10-11-2008, 07:17 PM

That's what you say. The Jews have a different story to tell. I culled the following from a Hasidic Jewish website:

"The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

"To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). This is the reason that verse 1 commands us not to add or subtract any details from the Law, and verse 5 warns us to remain steadfast with all the traditions of the Law.

"In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

"Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":

Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to G-d's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (This is recorded in many places throughout the New Testament, but look especially at Matthew 23:13-39 and John 8:44-45)."

Read more at the source: http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

interesting
What is the true key to salvation? Those who return to the Law (the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah, according to the eternal covenant made with Noah in Genesis 9) and who assist the Jewish people (Isaiah 60, 61, 66) will be saved and will participate in the miracles and revelations, including worshipping in the Third Temple, under the kingship of the Messiah.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: As described in many places, including Jeremiah 16:19-21 and Zechariah 8:20-23, all the old gentile religions of the world will disappear, and their followers will turn to the Jews for spiritual leadership. Until then, Christians are spiritually blinded, and cannot yet understand G-d's wisdom in the Bible.

Ours is the last generation of the era of sin and evil and the first of the Messianic Era. Indeed, for the first time in history, there is a growing consensus of leading rabbis willing to name the man most suited to be the Messiah, and they are agreeing that he is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is the spiritual leader of our generation, having boldly stirred up controversy over vital issues in which other leaders have remained tragically silent or have even caved in to the growing forces of darkness. He has upheld the Law perfectly and has worked mightily to strengthen the observance of the Law by Jews, as well as the observance of the Noachide Law by gentiles. Through his teaching of chasidus (Jewish mystical teachings, preserved from Moses and Mount Sinai), he has taught the world that G-d is One, the Infinite Who renews creation at every moment. The Rebbe is a direct descendant of King David and has received a true prophecy from G-d :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that we who are alive in this generation shall be the first in history to see the coming of the true messiah. Many Jews are eagerly anticipating the Rebbe's resurrection from the grave, ready to re-establish the Sanhedrin and anoint the king.

kasalt

11-11-2008, 03:22 AM

kasalt, now you are resorting to outright falsehoods. You have never PMed me. I would have noticed and would have replied.

That's strange. I distinctly remember PM'ing you about the thread. Nevertheless, I'll take your word for it that you did not receive the pm. However, I can prove that I posted a message to you about it on your BoY thread three months ago. Here is the link:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=462225&highlight=Masoretic#post462225

We had this debate before, and I so overwhelmed you with evidence you withdrew.

Making assumptions are we? Why, yes indeed!

As I said in my last post on this thread, we can end this debate right now. All you have to do is to compare the verses I listed in my "Septuagint vs. Masoretic Text" thread in your Book of Yahweh and see if they match. Do they match, Snoops, or don't they? If they don't match, I know why. Do you?

if you haven't noticed, I have been providing a Link to a Hebrew-English Bible based upon the Masoretic Text.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Since neither the Septuagint or the Masoretic are Source Texts, why bother.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying there. First you say it's "based upon the Masoretic Text", then you say, "neither the Septuagint or the Masoretic are Source Texts". Is this a contradiction, or am I missing something?

It is also quite telling Kasalt, that you have not shared your opinion of xtian gnosticism:

That probably has something to do with the fact that I haven't formed one as of yet.

montag

11-11-2008, 05:37 AM

besides the gospel of thomas and the nag hamadi texts, what else do you like? The aquarian gospel of jesus?
Hey I picked this book up recently at a garage sale, haven't read it yet though, is it worth a read, whats the vibe on it? All offers of opinion appreciated..

montag

snoopsnuffleopagus

11-11-2008, 01:50 PM

Hi Montag:

The Aquarian Gospel is for: Entertainment Purposes Only, not one word of accurate representation of Yahshua. Those who believe it has any actual merit, are deceived.

For solid scholarship that is far more interesting, read Michael S Heiser: Biblical, UFOs, Nephalim, Nibiru, the Divine Council, the Sumerian Texts. Much more worthwhile.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

kasalt; es; I have zero time to respond to you, my prior history of exchanges with you have proven to be wasteful of time, hence I shall no longer consider your Postings.

Cordial Felicitations; Phildee3:

My Final Queries and Analysis of: 'Gnosis of Xtianity':

The 'inner revelation/s' you have received have led to your deception. I will take the position that you have had inner revelations and that you honestly believe you have been informed correctly.

This is proven incorrect by your inability to make your case. You will not even provide definitions for three little words. Righteous/ness. Sin, Iniquity. You 'claim' they have different meanings in the NT than the OT, yet you do not provide any supporting evidence.

I, also, have enjoyed many 'inner revelations' throughout my lifetime; 54 years.

These 'inner revelations' have bolstered my convictions, and have illuminated my Path. As apparently yours have served you.

HOWEVER:

When you 'claim' your 'inner revelation' has given you insights 'gnosis' into Yahshua Messiah and His Teachings, They prove to be meritless, as they are wrong.

No surprise since you took on information from an Untested Spirit, like the majority of humans do.

Why gnosis of christianity, as presented by you, is False. You have not provided one shred of evidence for your assertions:

1: The Messianic Yahdaim of the New Testament; Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles, had forsaken Reverence and Service to Father Yahweh and were now teaching other Yahdaim and Gentiles that there is a far greater power in heaven, that you call: allthatis/monad/pleronama/whatever. you provide No Evidence

2: That the Laws of Yahweh are obsolete and done away with. you provide No Evidence

3: That during the Intertestamental Period; the meanings/definitions of words changed: Righteous/ness; Sin, Iniquity; Father; Laws, Commandments. you provide No Evidence

4: You declare ALL the Patriarchs and ALL the Prophets were deceived and that they taught erroneously. you provide No Evidence

5: You cannot/willnot explain: Why Yahshua Messiah and the Apostles constantly Cite, and Recite the words of All the Patriarchs and ALL the Prophets and tell US, to heed their words and learn from them, because they are the Inspired Words of Father Yahweh, throughout the entire New Testament.

6: Rather than the Monotheism that is the core of the Book of Yahweh, you wish to sever the New Testament from the Old Testament and transform the New Testament into Polytheism. Without any supporting evidence except: your untested 'inner revelation'.

This is contrary to the Teachings of both Testaments.

7: You have 'claimed' that the New Testament is of Roman origin. I counter-pointed that claim with Scientific and Historical Evidence. Post 3:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

Luke 24:25 this is soon after Yahshua was ressurected by Father Yahweh, Yahshua Messiah is speaking. He had been dead for three nights and days.

25: Then He said to them: O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the Prophets have spoken!

It is at this time, Yahshua, by the Agency and Assistance of Father Yahweh and His Holy Spirit, that Yahshua Messiah 'changed from Anthropomorphic to SupraAnthropomorphic. He meets with the Apostles and eats some fish!

Yahshua Messiah speaks again.

Luke 24:44- And He spoke to them: These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you: All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law given through Mosheh, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me.

45: Then He opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.

46: And said to them: This is what is written: The Messiah must suffer, and be raised up from the dead the third day;

47: And that repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning in Yerusalem.

48: You are witnesses of these things!

49: Now behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you; but remain in the city of Yerusalem until you have been invested with power from on high.

50: And He led them out as far as Bethany, then He lifted up His hands and blessed them.

51: Now as He was blessing them, He parted from them and was taken up to heaven.

52: Then they worshipped Him, and returned to Yerusalem with great joy.

53: And they were continually in the sacred precincts, praising and blessing Yahweh.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are those who keep His Laws, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

snoopsnuffleopagus

11-11-2008, 05:18 PM

Romans 14 presents a perspective of The Law which is not common, that is, it is Enlightened.

Few peeps realise the Book of Yahweh, both OT and NT provide us, everyone, a Blue-Print of Father Yahwehs plan for humankind.

This is a Multi-Phase Plan, and each Phase has Sub-Sets. The Plan may be considered Evolutionary since '''in the beginning"; Father Yahweh 'worked' with Individuals; Abel; Yahwehs First Righteous Priest; Enoch; Abraham; King Melcezidek; Mosheh/Moses and numerous other Individuals.

Then, with The National Revelation; Yahweh 'worked' with a 'people', the 12 Hebrew Tribes. They were 'Chosen' to be 'examples', for 'Better or for Worse, so as to serve as an example to all humankind.

The National Revelation: The Most Unique Event in Human History
http://www.aish.com/holidays/shavuot/last/know-f.htm

Then, in Acts 10: Yahweh embraces all humans/the Gentiles, with Kephas/Peters visit to the Roman Centurion Cornelus, who had a 'righteous report amongst the Yahdaim/Hebrews. Which is utterly astounding as that means: Cornelus, the Roman Centurion was upholding and observing the Laws of Yahweh.

Yahshua Messiah brought The Laws and Prophecies of Father Yahweh to all Humanknd. And provided a fully human example of living by this knowledge. For this He was murdered. But He 'showed' us the inate wisdom of these Laws for all humankind.

Philadelphia=Brotherly Love.

The result of keeping these Laws is to be Like Yahshua Messiah, the First Human Being Perfected By Yahwehs Plan for Humankind.

The Essence of the Laws: Love and Brotherhood

Love and Brotherhood

Level: Basic

http://www.jewfaq.org/brother.htm

Many people think of Judaism as the religion of cold, harsh laws, to be contrasted with Christianity, the religion of love and brotherhood. This is an unfair characterization of both Judaism and Jewish law. Love and kindness has been a part of Judaism from the very beginning. Pirkei Avot, a book of the Mishnah, teaches that the world is based on three things: on Torah (law), on service to G-d, and on g'milut chasadim (usually translated as "acts of lovingkindness"), perhaps drawing from Psalm 89:3, "the world is built on kindness" (more commonly translated as "forever is mercy built"). The Talmud says that g'milut chasadim is greater than tzedakah (charity), because unlike tzedakah, g'milut chasadim can be done for both poor and rich, both the living and the dead, and can be done with money or with acts. (Talmud Sukkah 49b). The Mishnah describes g'milut chasadim as one of the few things that one can enjoy the fruits in this world and the principal remains intact in the world to come.

A large part of Jewish law is about the relationship between man and his neighbors. The same body of Jewish law that commands us to eat only kosher food, not to turn on lights on Shabbat, and not to wear wool woven with linen, also commands us to love both Jews and strangers, to give tzedakah (charity) to the poor and needy, and not to wrong anyone in speech or in business. In fact, acts of lovingkindness are so much a part of Jewish law that the word "mitzvah" (literally, "commandment") is informally used to mean any good deed.

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." Sounds a lot like Jesus' "Golden Rule"? But this idea was a fundamental part of Judaism long before Hillel or Jesus. It is a common-sense application of the Torah commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18), which Rabbi Akiba described as the essence of the Torah.

The true difference between Judaism and Christianity lies in Hillel's last comment: Go and study it. Judaism is not content to leave love and brotherhood as a general ideal, to be fulfilled as each individual sees fit. Judaism spells out, in intricate detail, how we are meant to show that love.

Jewish law includes within it a blueprint for a just and ethical society, where no one takes from another or harms another or takes advantage of another, but everyone gives to one another and helps one another and protects one another. Again, these are not merely high ideals; the means for fulfilling these ideals are spelled out in the 613 commandments.

Everyone knows that the Ten Commandments command us not to murder. The full scope of Jewish law goes much farther in requiring us to protect our fellow man. We are commanded not to leave a condition that may cause harm, to construct our homes in ways that will prevent people from being harmed, and to help a person whose life is in danger, so long as it does not put our own lives in danger. These commandments regarding the preservation of life are so important in Judaism that they override all of the ritual observances that people think are the most important part of Judaism.

We are commanded to help those in need, both in physical need and financial need. The Torah commands us to help a neighbor with his burden, and help load or unload his beast. See Treatment of Animals. We are required to give money to the poor and needy, and not to turn them away empty handed. See Tzedakah: Charity.

Jewish law forbids us from cheating another or taking advantage of another. Jewish law regarding business ethics and practices is extensive. It regulates conduct between a businessman and his customer (for example, not to use false weights and measures, not to do wrong in buying and selling, not to charge interest) and between a business man and his employee (to pay wages promptly, to allow a worker in the field to eat the produce he is harvesting, and not to take produce other than what you can eat from the employer while harvesting).

Entire books have been written on the subject of Jewish laws against wronging another person in speech. We are commanded not to tell lies about a person, nor even uncomplimentary things that are true. We are commanded to speak the truth, to fulfill our promises, and not to deceive others. See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.

Contrary to what many people think, most of these laws regarding treatment of others apply not only to our treatment of our fellow Jews, but also to our treatment of gentiles, and in many cases even to our treatment of animals. In fact, some of the laws instituted by the sages even extend kind treatment to inanimate objects. The bread on the Shabbat table is covered during the blessing over the wine, so that it's "feelings" are not hurt by having the wine take precedence over it. Of course, we do not believe that bread actually has feelings, but this practice helps to instill an enormous sensitivity to others. If we can show concern for a loaf of bread, how can we fail to show concern for our fellow man?

The World Is Built On Acts Of Loving Kindness

A Torah-The 613 Laws; Judgements and Statutes

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

drael

12-11-2008, 12:47 AM

I take it by now you figured out the mysticism isnt really religion in the traditional meaning of the world, and mystics do not really have "doctrines", because those are the anti-thesis of mystic thought?

(And specifically in gnosticism, gnostics do not beleive in an entity, per-se, that is creator or the demi-urge - these are metaphors)

snoopsnuffleopagus

12-11-2008, 01:21 AM

Hello Drael:

I've been aware since the early 70s that "gnosis' is Mystery School, roots in Babylon, Kabbalah, Alexandria, Athens, Assyrian, the Antithesis of Yahweh and Yahshua.

Yahweh and Yahshua say: 'Ask; and you will receive'. what thwarts most requests is Intent. Yahweh and Yahshua know what is in the requestees deepest desires.

Yahweh and Yahshua provide Specificity, no Mystery.

As for not being a Religion, I would have to disagree.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gnostic+churches&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I got into this because I would Post what I, based upon experience, perceived to be of Merit. For this, another Poster would inform me I was Posting: 'Abominable Lies' and 'did not know what the Book was actually about. That the Gnosis perspective of the New Testament was the 'True' perspective'.

have you seen the Allthatis website? Sisterhood of the Serpent.

http://www.adore.com/
this 'gnosis of xtianity' is a religion, a mystery religion, and it's chockful of doctrines.

Yahweh and Yahshua are very Unique, like the National Revelation when YHWH addressed the 12 Tribes, 3,000,000 humans having an audience with Father Yahweh.
http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp

This is one of the reasons it is such a strong 'School of Thought', which provides Specificity.

The Book is about achieving access to %100 of your Brain/Mind. This is not about Mysticism, it is about Trust. To be Trusted not to mis-use this awesome power.

drael

12-11-2008, 03:58 AM

Hello Drael:

I've been aware since the early 70s that "gnosis' is Mystery School, roots in Babylon, Kabbalah, Alexandria, Athens, Assyrian, the Antithesis of Yahweh and Yahshua.

I really dont know what your talking about here. Mystery schools, as they are dubbed, arent the source of mystic knowledge, nor are books or teachings. You get mystic knowlegde simply from within: Experience is the source.

Were there no mystery schools, there would still be mysticism. Anyone who tells you differently, IMO, doesnt get it at all. (Which is also common with all mystic teachings, hence why the bible is so misunderstood). Its also interesting to note that many christian experiences and visions, communications with angels etc also fall into this same catergory, but are simply not recognised as similar by xtians. See moses for example. Similarly jesus speaks with god. It is this direct connection to divinity that is mysticism, at its true heart.

Yahweh and Yahshua provide Specificity, no Mystery.

??? im confused as to what this has to do with gnosis. i think you misunderstand "mystery" with regard to mysticism.

It is along the lines of not making assumptions, rather than keeping secrets. It is said "god is mysterious" and "there is more in heaven and earth that you or i will know, (whateveryour name is)". This is what the "mystery" part of mysticism is. This sort of thinking is preserved in many parts of the bible. (the tree of knowledge, original sin, the taboo of naming god, arch angel raziel, job, and so forth).

As for not being a Religion, I would have to disagree.

Many mystic groups are classified as religions. At its heart, this is not true, as the mystic experience - direct contact with divinity, is the true source of the spirituality that comes before and is then degraded by lack of comprehension into religion. That said, such degradation does occur, and theres is some dogma in mystic groups. One example is buddhism. Originally buddha said nothing about an afterlife, or veganism etc. Possibly a blurry area from a cultural/social POV, but at the heart mysticism is the anti-thesis of both dogma and religion - it is without doctrine. The only true "doctrine" of mysticism is that there is a trascendant reality that may be reached within. Everything else is just a story related to that point.

Mystic groups of various kinds can be religious, sometimes very. But those are followers not actual mystics.

I got into this because I would Post what I, based upon experience, perceived to be of Merit. For this, another Poster would inform me I was Posting: 'Abominable Lies' and 'did not know what the Book was actually about. That the Gnosis perspective of the New Testament was the 'True' perspective'.

I may not agree with their method of conveyance but i do agree the bible is wildly misunderstood replacing the clearly mystic with the literal. Genesis is a prime example. What do everyday christians make of this? pretty much nothing. Mystics by comparison see deep meaning in the story.

Gnostics having doctrine? Well all i can say is they are getting it wrong. There is no literal "demi-urge" just like there is no literal "sophia". They are handles or placeholders for truth, not descriptions. Same with gnostics reading the bible. Still people have been missing teaching like this for thousands of years, so wouldnt surprise me.

We are entitled to an opinion of the bible IMO.... However, thats not what i get though, when i read it. To me, it is a good mystical analogy for truths unexpressable in literal terms, pure mystic text. The interpretation of it as a literal work leads to obvious glaring contradictions anyway. So im afraid i fall on the other side of the fence on that one. However, i have no real desire to effect other peoples opinions on that matter except for the fun of discussing it.

When i read the bible, certain parts like genesis, revelations, jesus's word (in various parts) and job all stand out, literally jump out, as being very very metaphorical and mystic. I cant read a dictionary or any old story like that. Then shear volume of deep and clear metaphor in the bible cannot IMO be ignored. When u see something this way, in the mystic way, it is so simple to express and so obvious to see, that it is missed by most people, and even harder to convey to them.

heres an example:

One familiar example - the Garden of Eden story of Adam and Eve being cast out in shame - has lost its metaphorical meaning over time; the psychological/metaphysical consequences of shame when the innocent creative ego (feminine aspect) is tempted to reach for power and subsequently enters the belief in duality (eating of the tree of good and evil) because reason (masculine aspect of mind) has yet to waken. In the story, return to the Garden and Tree of Eternal Aliveness (divine reality) is only possible through purification of mind (the gate is protected by the lone innocent cherubim/Self wielding a flaming sword.)

Thats from the wiki page on mysticism (Reasonable info there for a wiki page). It differs very slightly from my own reading of genesis, but the drift is there.

Heres something from the dao de jing:

My words are very easy to know, and very easy to practice;
but there is no one in the world who is able to know and able to practice them.

You see from this (and from the wiki page on mysticism, lol!), that the teaching of mysticim is about metaphor, contradiction, analogy etc. These conveyances are never literal, and thus there is no real room for dogma - which is actually the whole point. Still theres always someone that wants to beleive there was an actual adam and eve..

snoopsnuffleopagus

12-11-2008, 05:05 AM

hello Drael:

don't be so quick to 'write off' Adam & Eve, (IMO; a very fanciful understanding of the story)as the Scriptures encompass simultaneous similitudes of /anthropomorphic, SupraAnthropomorphic and Non 3D Forces, in a Present and Future and Past Tense. Often all at the same time. The Talking Donkey and Baalam.

What I would like to bring attention to is the importance of the Anthropomorphic Aspect.

This is sometimes treated in a cavalier and dismissive manner, claiming this reality is flawed, imperfect, 'not the real deal'.

It is the recognition that at this juncture in time, the bulk of humanity are partially complete beings. The Human Brain/Mind is the most complex object in the known Universe. At this time we are using a fraction of the potential of this amazing 'organ'. This is crucial.

The Bible is a Training Manual for humans to learn how to live in these amazing creations/ our bodies. Without destroying them by engaging in activities that are proven to degrade the body.

The Bible has some interesting information about blood. 'All blood is the same'; 'There is Life in the blood'.

Yahshua Messiah is a Paradigm of behaviour that Yahweh desires humans to emulate. Live in peace with one another. Do not covet. Obedience to that one Law would reap enormous benefits. Yahshua explicitly informs us how to achieve this equilibrium, between the Carnal Flesh and the Spirit.

The Bible informs how humankind is being Trained to inherit and inhabit the Universe. In SupraAnthropomorphic bodies. You can eat a fish.

Your behaviour will reflect the essence of the Torah: Love Yahweh, our Father, with all your heart, all your mind, and all your might.

Love your neighbour as yourself.

Why? According to scripture: Yahweh created this Universe and all the heavens. He wants a Family of beings like His SupreAnthropomorphic Aspect, to inhabit this Universe. What He doesn't want is us humans acting like the dopes we are on earth, out there in the Universe.

From Genesis to Revelation; the Book of Yahweh is about a plan. The Blue Prints are still visible even in poor translations.

The Book of Yahweh is very, very unique. It is not as mystical as you might think.

When the New Jerusalem, Yahweh Shammah, descends. it is 1,500 miles wide and long.

The next big Phase of the plan begins when the big battles destroys most of humankind and the earths environment is totaly destroyed. Then Yahweh and Yahshua take over, the SupraAnthropomorphic Aspect of Humankinds Saga begins, everybody who was really with YHWHs plan has a big meet-up: . . 1,000 years later, really big meetings and conferences with all humans who ever lived. Except for the ones in the first meetings 1,000 years earlier.

Now everybody gets 'clued up', and has full use of their SupraAnthropomorphic Bodies. %100 use of their minds, and off we go into the Universe.

The Body has a very important role in the Yahweh School of Thought. Also the SupraAnthropomorphic and Spirit Aspects.

also there is no reincarnation or karma.

It is a very Unique Book.

YHWH owns all souls. ONLY YHWH can destroy a soul.

drael

12-11-2008, 05:30 AM

I do understand your POV, as we have already discussed these topics. Particularly the "asceticism" aspect regarding desire.

There are ascetics far more extreme that the bible suggests, such as people that sweep bugs from the ground away from their path and eat only fallen fruit or above ground vegetables.

Whats your thoughts on that?

Personally asceticism to me is useful spiritually and morally, but can get carried to far (way further than the bible)...The suffering of attachment is something that really must be felt to want to avoid it. For this reason laws seems a very artifical way to approach the problem....

Its a bit like when god said "dont eat this fruit", or when a parent says "dont touch the stove". You just dont get it, unless you muck up first...

snoopsnuffleopagus

12-11-2008, 06:00 AM

no, The Yahweh School of Thought is not asceticism, rather self discipline and self restraint. yet not as extreme as asceticism. periodic times of fasting. but otherwisw 6 High Feast Days per year/ I may enjoy all varieties of alcohol, yet do not indulge in drunkeness. Enjoy food, meats, vegetables and fruits, do not overeat.

Sexual Activities with wives. Prevent STDs from being created and transmitted.

As wonderful as the human body is, it has innate frailities. These are not imperfections in design. Rather they are user errors. Our bodies are like swiss watches, but we treat them very coarsely. Diseases corrupt the blood, and the blood passes around, and over generations.

We have to learn to enjoy life without destroying our bodies.

Three major issues affecting our Anthropomorphic Aspect at this time are Prions, STDa, and DU/NDU Munitions.

The human introduction of these three 'issues' are having ramifications that are as yet not fully understood.

We must learn not to engage in behaviour that would lead to this situation on other planets.

For us to live in bodies without mental/emotional/physical or spiritual problems, using %100 of your Brain/Mind.

Did you read the National Revelation?

As the Book says, we will all be under our vines and fig trees. We are to enjoy life without harming ourselves or others.

Like eating a perfectly ripe fruit and letting the juice flow down your chin. :)

kasalt

12-11-2008, 06:37 AM

kasalt...I have zero time to respond to you, my prior history of exchanges with you have proven to be wasteful of time, hence I shall no longer consider your Postings.

I can only accept that as a tacit admission on your part that I am right.

C'mon! Don't give up now, we're just getting to the meat of the matter.

I have a simple request for you. I'm going to give you some scripture references. What I'd like you to do is to give me the reading of these verses according to the Book of Yahweh translation:

Matthew 12.21 -

Isaiah 42.4 -

Acts 15.17 -

Amos 9.12 -

drael

12-11-2008, 07:26 AM

So, do you think its possible for a human to come to "100% brain usage", or the laws related to life-style without the bible?

No i havent read the national revelation..(is that a reference to the judiac group vision)?

What so you think would happen if all the bibles were burnt, and all knowledge thereof lost?

I mean to me, if something is so true that we all need to know it, it wouldnt be contained in a book, but in our hearts....(after all, there are places on earth that have no bibles). I know my heart has much to say on such matters as lifestyle.

Also, whats your thoughts on this kinda stuff?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nUO2eXIaFGhMSM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Tree_of_life_kircher_hebrew.png

Or the correspondances in the hebrew alphabet? (a=ox, b=home, etc)

phildee3

12-11-2008, 12:17 PM

whats your thoughts on this kinda stuff?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nUO2eXIaFGhMSM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Tree_of_life_kircher_hebrew.png

Or the correspondances in the hebrew alphabet? (a=ox, b=home, etc)

These are the tools of gnostic Jews.

(since you didn't address your posting I figured it was up for grabs, drael. ;)

drael

12-11-2008, 01:04 PM

Well exactly.

And they form a system which is one of the best correspondance systems in history. I just figured snuff would have an opinion on mystic judaism. (sp?)

snoopsnuffleopagus

12-11-2008, 02:17 PM

he drael, I agree with the learned Elders, that before beginning the study of Kabbalah, one ernestly study the Torah for a minimum of 20 years.

This protects you, the seeker, from being deceived by unsavory forces, like what has happened to phil and kasalt. When one takes short cuts, cuts corners, does not build a solid foundation, the structure they build has no strength or integrity and will not withstand pressure. '

it doesn't pay to cut corners'.

Just in this Thread alone, you can find many evidences of their deceits, which they apparently believe as Truth.

Read the first post of this thread because it delves into the Kabbalistic origins of gnosis, which began in Babylon.

From what phildee and kasalt has shared with us concerning their insights into the Book of Yahweh, I would have to say they are very deceived, as they are wrong. And I have graciously illuminated their errant conclusions. At some point, most of the errant wind up in the service of the Queen of Heaven.

Notice phil nor kasalt will not answer my queries. Because it illuminates their foolishness.

If y'all want to co-opt, usurp, purloin, the Book of Yahweh, go ahead, but there will be no truth in you.

I have provided some very substantial evidence in this Thread which thoroughly refutes all of phils and kasalts 'premises'.

They are Usurpers.

There are no 'short cuts' in this School.

The Book of Yahweh stands alone as a School of Thought, unlike anyother School of Thought on this planet. How interesting how the students from the other Schools wish to destroy it. Never realising the utter vanity and futility of their efforts.

Both phil and kasalt have failed by their own hand. They may now be viewed as: Lessons Learned.

At this time, Yahweh grants us Freewill, to explore whatever it is we wish ti explore. His Prophets and Servants have provided many warnings and cautions to us. For very good reasons. It is all of ours Freedom to heed them or ignore them.

I have chosen to heed them, thus I enjoy a modicum of peace and equilibrium.

phil and kasalt have proven to me they do not understand the Book of Yahweh and what it teaches. They could care less.

They would prefer nobody knows what they, themselves, do not know.

Drael, I would like this to be my last Post in this Thread.

I now declare: Mission Accomplished.

check this cat out.

This is some very substantial materiel, very substantial. Did I mention Substantial?

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

The Book of Yahweh is utterly unique and stands alone. You, kasalt and phildee3 have the entire world and its schools to indulge in. There is no honest reason to usurp The Book of Yahweh and overlay heathen doctrines and dogmas upon it.

A vain and futile pursuit.

Be Unique :)

http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/images/yahweh_edited.jpg

synergy777

12-11-2008, 06:22 PM

maybe i am here because i did bad in the last life, maybe i am here because i got tricked into reincarnating back here, maybe i am here to help.

i know many feel due to the bad state of the people/world, that life here is a curse, that life is bad. the gnostics think that all life, matter/nature/earth is bad.

but thats bullshit in my view to be frank, they only say that to turn people into a nihilstic participant of life eg do what thou shalt will, life doesn't matter, so do whatever you want, only chaos/suffering comes this way.

you notice that the gnostics blame god/creator for the bad things but ignore the devil/peoples role in evil, its not god that makes life bad, but people and the devil/elite. we have free will, we choose to do evil, we are manipulated by the potential to gain from doing evil.

life is only hard due to the influence of the elite. hence life on earth is not a curse, its a blessing in my view. its just that the state of affairs, eg human suffering, poverty, war, hatred etc makes life hard.

but we must always remember that the current state of the planet/life is an artificial one, its bad due to design/enthropic systems eg economic/political/education, its purposely engineered/controlled by the elite to be bad for the masses and good for them.

if we as people lived with compassion and courage, life on earth would be great. life is what we make it, and if we want, we can make life good for everyone on this planet.

after we overcome the future challenges, we will be united and live in compassion/happiness, the future is bright for us the people, and we have the power to do it.

zero1

12-11-2008, 06:29 PM

From what phildee and kasalt has shared with us concerning their insights into the Book of Yahweh, I would have to say they are very deceived, as they are wrong. And I have graciously illuminated their errant conclusions. At some point, most of the errant wind up in the service of the Queen of Heaven.

I have a question for you. Do you think all Catholics are evil fucks destined for Hell and fiery abyss because they allow devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary?

snoopsnuffleopagus

12-11-2008, 07:39 PM

NO-

Read Romans 14 and contemplate. :)

Let us just be clear as to who the Queen of Heaven is.

Romans 14

Precepts of the Law of Liberty

Accept one who is weak in the faith, but not if he wants to argue and dispute. For one believes that he may eat all Lawful things; another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. Do not let him who eats be despiteful of him who does not eat, and do not let him who does not eat condemn him who eats; for YHWH has accepted him into His House.

Who are you to condemn someone elses servant? To his own ruler he stands or falls. And he will stand, for YHWH is able to make him stand.

One person considers one Feast more holy than another; another considers every Feast of the same holiness. Let everyone be fully warned in his own mind.
He who keeps yhe Feast, keeps it to YHWH, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who eats, eats to Yahweh, for he gives thank to Yahweh. And he who does not eat to Yahweh, is not eating to, nor is thanking Yahweh.

For none of us lives of himself, and no man dies of himself.

For if we live, we live in Yahweh forever; but if we die; we will die in Yahweh. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are Yahwehs.

For this very reason Yahshua died and was restored to life again, that He might be the Judge of both the dead and the living.

But why do you pass judgement on your brother? Or why do you look down upon your brother? For we will all stand before the Judgement Seat of Yahshua.

For it is written: As surely as I live, says Yahweh, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will confess to Yahweh.(Isayah 45:23)

So then, each one of us will give an account of himself to Yahweh.

Therefore, let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, set your mind not to put any stumblingblock, or an occasion of falling, in our brothers way.

For I know, and am convinced by Yahshuah Messiah, that nothing is common in itself; except to the one accounting anything to be common-to that man, it is common.

But if your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not destroy him for whom Yahshua died, with your food.

Therefore do not allow your righteousness to be spoken of as evil.

For the Kingdom of Yahweh is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit:

pause

Rather then let others inform us, we must use our own resources to become informed. Just a few Posts back I mentioned the Resurrections, the Second Resurrection is where everybody who wasn't 'clued up', gets 'clued up'.

Because the message has been suppressed and most teachers false, YHWH will not hold accountable one who had not been properly informed.

If you haven't read my Posts you won't know where I am coming from.

zero1

12-11-2008, 08:19 PM

NO-

Read Romans 14 and contemplate. :)

Let us just be clear as to who the Queen of Heaven is.

Rather then let others inform us, we must use our own resources to become informed. Just a few Posts back I mentioned the Resurrections, the Second Resurrection is where everybody who wasn't 'clued up', gets 'clued up'.

Because the message has been suppressed and most teachers false, YHWH will not hold accountable one who had not been properly informed.

If you haven't read my Posts you won't know where I am coming from.

I've read some of your less difficult and long-winded posts, and frankly I see someone who interprets scripture through a lens that obscures the real, essential meanings of things like "Yahweh" and the Queen of Heaven. But do as thou wilt and think more the same, that's the Law.

kasalt

13-11-2008, 01:51 AM

I have a simple request for you. I'm going to give you some scripture references. What I'd like you to do is to give me the reading of these verses according to the Book of Yahweh translation:

Matthew 12.21 -

Isaiah 42.4 -

Acts 15.17 -

Amos 9.12 -

Snoops, that was a simple request I made of you. If you won't do it, I will PM Sparrow7 and see if he can do it. I can't do it, because I don't own a "Book of Yahweh" translation of the Bible as you do.

Edit: Snoops is trying to deceive people here and he knows I can prove it, that's why he won't type in those verses from his Yahwist translation of the Bible.

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 02:12 AM

you're on yet another of your fools mission and I shall not aide or abet you.

1: I have already typed those verse out numerous times, as my archivist you should be well aware of this.

2: Your comparison of these verses to the septuagint or masoretic is futile, as neither the masoretic text or the derivative septuagint inerrant.

Look at the Hebrew verse 6; and compare it to the English. Do you perceive the English to be a correct translation of the Hebrew?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm

This is a Masoretic Text, even the Hebrew is flawed.

The Book of Yahweh is not sourced from either the Masoretic or Septuagint Texts.

The House of Yahweh availed themselves of EVERY possible valid source. This means: The Pentateuch section is based upon the 'J' source.

I have presented you with many complete texts of their work for your critique, which you never provided.

Critique these.

http://www.yahweh.com/gen1.html

http://www.yahweh.com/yahch1.html

listen up kasalt, you've spent over a year being an annoying AH. I'm not inclined to provide you with anything at anytime.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=607296&postcount=162

You just seek to waste time and prevent peeps from having a more accurate understanding of the Bible then the Cosmopolitan Cosmologists and Ideologists.

This is a Fruit of Yisrayls Tree: A scholarly look at Yahshua/Jesus
http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW12-04/search.htm

This is a Fruit of Kasalts Tree: A Channeled Demon Spirit Impersonating Yahshua/Jesus

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133384&postcount=1

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32537

Now; using your self-exalted Power of Discernment; inform us which Fruit is Righteous Fruit and which Tree has brought forth evil Fruit.

Get informed, and stop pestering people who are trying to have an intelligent and informed discussion. Study this materiel then return.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

hey! kasalt! blow it out your.................. lol X infinity

for everybody :) A Blue Letter Bible which provides over a dozen translations of every verse. Type in book and chapter you want, hit search. at the top of the page is a menu box where you can select translations.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

kasalt: define the word: Yahdaim

Edit: Snoops is trying to deceive people here and he knows I can prove it, that's why he won't type in those verses from his Yahwist translation of the Bible.

Are you implying that the Aspect of Yahweh not be considered. That the entire Bible, which is about Yahweh should not be viewed from the perspective of a Yahdai, Yahwist?

Heres a suggestion: You Post the verses you have, and apparently you believe they are inerrant, and provide the source Text that you use.

Then, I will correct you. lol

I/We are still awaiting your definitions of the words: Righteous/ness; Sin and Iniquity.

three little words, before you do anything else, define these words.

phil wouldn't; es can't, so either you can't or you won't.

plus you owe me the quality analysis of your posting compared to yisrayls asto the quality of the information.

kasalt

13-11-2008, 02:58 AM

you're on yet another of your fools mission and I shall not aide or abet you.

1: I have already typed those verse out numerous times, as my archivist you should be well aware of this.

I've tried to run a search of your posts cannot find where you claim to have posted those verses. I shall now pm sparrow7 to see if he can do it for us all to see the results.

2: Your comparison of these verses to the septuagint or masoretic is futile, as neither the masoretic text or the derivative septuagint inerrant.

I don't want to compare them to the septuagint or masoretic texts, I simply want to see how those verses were translated in your Yahwist version, that's all. That's too much for me to ask of you, and yet you still have time to reply with another of your longwinded posts? I see how it is.

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 03:20 AM

listen up clown. you've been hounding me for over a year, so no more mister nice guy. It's time to unpack your baggage and have a very public looksee.

you have informed the Board that you are from a family that suffered under a parent that abused alcohol and family. that you are a disillusioned former fundamentalist evangelical christian that has now embraced the Oriental Centric Cosmopolitan Cosmologies and Ideologies that are so trendy and popular.

you have a very deep rooted desire to 'haunt' me. why? you don't like buffalo bill? so what? who do you think you are? you're a phony.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450529&postcount=12

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32537

look at the crap you post. half the verses you want are right in this thread.

kasalt: I urge you to seek professional help in physchotherapy or something of that sort.

I'm reading you as really tragic, a form of Dementia has you in it's grasp.

help yourself, or others will help you for you.

I've told you to leave me alone. now do so. go away and get help, professional help, now.

and for the record kasalt. YHWH has already won, so you're just pissin in the wind.

very misguided.

kasalt

13-11-2008, 04:04 AM

I've told you to leave me alone. now do so. go away and get help, professional help, now.

Wow! :rolleyes:

I can understand that the facts I present would be disturbing to you. Shaking a belief system can be very hard for some people to do. I can relate. How so? Because I've been there and done that.

If you don't wish to have your beliefs shaken, you should put me on 'ignore', because the facts just keep on coming.

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 04:26 AM

kasalt; you are deluded and suffering from an acute form of Dementia.

My "Faith', 'Belief System' is as solid as Mountain of Solid Granite. You haven't had any effect whatsoever.

It is impregnable, because I have based it upon a solid foundation based on many resources, time and effort.

no cognitive dissonance, no doubts, no worries. I am Pro-Active, Direct-Action.

You; have lost the plot. when you start posting the Talmudic Zionist Hasidic Cults viewpoint, you're done. you're out of ammo.

you are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

I am not kidding when I tell you to get help/ you have very deep rooted issues.

I was just reviewing your 'mullet jesus' post. I have to admit; I laughed. lol

out loud. look!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=450529&postcount=12

In her book, Love Without End, Jesus Speaks, she claims to have had face-to-face conversations with "Jeshua" (i.e., Jesus), which I realize is immediately problematic for those of us who suspect that this individual may never have actually lived in the first place. However, I have read this book (link to Amazon.com), and I did find it to be quite insightful IMO.

She also sells a collection of blended essential oils. I have tried several, and I must say that the one called "Forgiveness" is quite possibly the most wonderful aroma I have ever smelled. It is certainly the most wonderful aroma I have ever smelled from a bottle! Here's a link to it if anyone is interested in trying it:

what a jerk. why don't you splash some of that 'forgiveness' oil all over you. you could probably use a 50 gallon drum of that shit, lol

"..and i must say that the one called 'Forgivness' is quite possibly the most wonderful aroma I have ever smelled".http://lolinter.net/gayspin.gif

do tell. :rolleyes:

kasalt

13-11-2008, 04:32 AM

"..and i must say that the one called 'Forgivness' is quite possibly the most wonderful aroma I have ever smelled".http://lolinter.net/gayspin.gif

do tell. :rolleyes:

I hold no malice against you whatsoever. We are simply discussing the facts of a matter. If we speak of forgiveness, there must have been an offence. What is the offence? Where is the harm? What is there to forgive?

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 04:59 AM

bullshit kasalt; you stopped discussing facts along time ago and have been persistent in your pernicious crusade against YHWH; Yahshua and what they represent.

Do you have any reccollection of reality?

would you ever like to enjoy the qualities of peace, happiness, equilibrium again?

Recalibrate, you really need it.

Message Boards have some inherent flaws for discussion. Peeps labour under the False impression they are anonymous. You're not. not even behind a host of proxies.

So because you think you're anonymous you can pull whatever crap you want outta yer ass and fling it on the table. thus diminishing the Joy of the party.

If you had been sitting at my kitchen table, you would have been alot more selective in what you produce for discussion. but you're not, and you haven't.

of what value was the batshit crazy and stoooopid opinion of Talmudic Zionist Hasidics from Brooklyn who thought in the 1990s their Rabbi was the Messiah, and Yahshua is the fraud. In a Thread about gnosticism, where the authenticity of Yahshua/jesus was not even a factor?

just to start trouble and waste time.

and snoops has never, and will never use the 'Ignore' function. You, and others would prefer I had never brought forth information about YHWH from any source. Too Bad. Father Yahweh scares you, doesn't He kasalt?

He 'Blows Away' your BS, doesn't He?

too bad.

try: 'growing up', you'll 'feel better' :)

I'm not a 'shrink' but I would say you need to speak to qualified people.

If you haven't laid a glove on me in over a year, you should reassess your 'game'.

somebody said: repeating the same technoiques and expecting a different outcome is unrealistic.

I sleep great at night, every night. How's your slumber?

There is no substitute for discussing important issues Face to Face, looking directly into each others eyes.

All you've been to me is a 'Drag'. You've wasted some of my time on your childish nonsense. You'll collapse before me kasalt, keep that in mind.

Check yourself, don't wreck yourself.

kasalt

13-11-2008, 05:06 AM

You'll collapse before me kasalt, keep that in mind.

Check yourself, don't wreck yourself.

Or, to put it another way:

http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/Funny_Pictures_Star-Wars_Lack_of_Faith.jpg

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 01:52 PM

Behold!

http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/images/yahweh_edited.jpg

eternal_spirit

13-11-2008, 02:33 PM

Snoops as usual wallowing in his illusions of what he believes is God's Laws LOL :D Enjoy your life of bondage in chains upholding the 613 rabbinical Laws of Judaism/Yahwehism.

How many have you broke naughty goy? Going against the Priesthood? like Jesus did, think about it, be a wise move.

snoopsnuffleopagus

13-11-2008, 02:45 PM

'Beware of ravening wolves masquerading as sheep'

Please examine this view-point, based upon Historical Research.

'There is nothing new under the sun'

http://watch.pair.com/HRkabbalah.html

THE KABBALAH

Quote:
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord. Deut. 18:10-12

We see over and over in the Old Testament that the Hebrew people fell from obeying the Law and embraced witchcraft and sorcery, Baal worship and all manner of idolatry. Throughout the Old Testament we encounter their obedience, disobedience, repentance and constant struggle to remain faithful to God and His Law. Their tenacity and desire to obey the Law cannot be disputed. The question will be addressed whether the Jew's disobedient practices were, and are still, taught in the oral traditions which evolved into the Talmud and Kabbalah and which are referenced by various Hebrew Roots leaders.

Jewish Mysticism

The Kabbalah itself consists of a large body of speculation on the nature of divinity, the creation, the origin and fate of the soul and also the role of human beings. It generally is subdivided into four sections: meditative, devotional, mystical and magical. It is for this reason that Kabbalah is regarded as an esoteric offshoot of Judaism.

The gnosis of the Kabbalah is well recognized by Jewish scholars. From an article cited in the Jewish Enclyclopœdia, we see the intimate relationship between Gnosticism and the Cabala:

Quote:
"...The Jewish Encyclopœdia quotes the opinion that 'the central doctrine of Gnosticism -a movement closely connected with Jewish mysticism-was nothing else than the attempt to liberate the soul and unite it with God;' but as this was apparently to be effected 'through the employment of mysteries, incantations, names of angels,' etc… it will be seen how widely even this phase of Gnosticism differs from Christianity and identifies itself with the magical Cabala of the Jews. Indeed, the man generally recognised as the founder of Gnosticism, a Jew commonly known as Simon Magus, was not only a Cabalist mystic, but avowedly a magician… instituted a priesthood of the Mysteries and practiced occult arts and exorcisms…"
Quote:

M. Matter states in Histoire du Gnosticisme, that Jewish scholars fully understand that the secret oral traditions of the Cabala were previous to any Christian gnosticism.
"The Cabala is anterior to the Gnosis, an opinion which Christian writers little understand, but which the erudites of Judaism profess with a legitimate assurance."2.
Quote:
In Some Notes on Various Gnostic Sects and their Possible Influence in Freemasonry, D.F. Ranking remarks that the secret oral tradition of the Cabalists confirms them as being Gnostics.

Quote:
"This claim to the possession of a secret oral tradition, whether known under the name of [similar to yvwois only in Greek]…or of Cabala, confirms the conception of the Gnostics as Cabalists and shows how far they had departed from Christian teaching. For if only in this idea of 'one doctrine for the ignorant and another for the initiated,' that Gnostics had restored the very system which Christianity had come to destroy."3.
Author Nesta Webster concurs with M. Matter and other historians that Gnosticism involved an attempt to cabalize Christianity.
Quote:

"... M. Matter is therefore right in saying that Gnosticism was not a defection from Christianity, but a combination of systems into which a few Christian elements were introduced. The result of Gnosticism was thus not to Christianize the Cabala, but to cabalize Christianity by mingling its pure and simple teaching with theosophy and even magic." 4.

Quote:
Jacob Prasch of Moriel, however, does not recognize Jewish mysticism as Gnosticism:
"People began reinterpreting the Bible, not using the Jewish method of midrash, but using Greek methods. Typology and allegory. Midrash uses typology and allegory-symbols-in order to illustrate and illumine doctrine…"

"The symbolism illustrates the doctrine, which is itself stated plainly elsewhere in Scripture…In the Gnostic world of Greek thinking, the opposite happens. Gnostics claim to have received a subjective, mystical insight-called a gnosis-into the symbols. They then reinterpret the plain meaning of the text in light of the gnosis. For Gnostics, symbolism is the basis for their doctrine, contrary to the ancient Jewish methods…" 5.
In The Sacred Books of the Jews, Harry Gersh certifies the early origins of Jewish mysticism:

Quote:
"Jewish mysticism began in Biblical days, long before the term Kabbalah was invented. By the first century it had become a proper subject for scholarly study. Philo Judaeus speculated on the Platonic idea of emanations as intermediaries between God and the physical world. The Roman philosopher Plotinus (205-270) traveled in the East and returned to combine Indian, Persian, Greek, and Jewish mystic theories into a systematic structure of these emanations." 6.

"…H. Loewe, in an article on the Kabbala in Hastings' Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, says: 'This secret mysticism was no late growth. …we can be fairly certain that its roots stretch back very far and that the mediæval and Geonic Kabbala was the culmination and not the inception of Jewish esoteric mysticism. …'" 7.

The Kabbalah derives from ancient wisdom, such as Jacob Prasch mentioned previously.
"As the Kabbalah evolved, it came to share certain ideas with other ancient mystical systems, including those of the Gnostics and Pythagoreans. The Kabbalah did not restrict itself solely to instruction on the apprehension of God but included teachings on cosmology, angelology, and magic." 8

Despite God's many warnings, the Jews incorporated paganism into their traditions.
Quote:
"… In spite of the imprecations against sorcery contained in the law of Moses, the Jews, disregarding these warnings, caught the contagion and mingled the sacred tradition they had inherited with magical ideas partly borrowed from other races and partly of their own devising. At the same time the speculative side of the Jewish Cabala borrowed from the philosophy of the Persian Magi, of the Neo-Platonists, and of the Neo-Pythagorean. There is, then, some justification for the anti-cabalists contention that what we know today as the Cabala is not of purely Jewish origin." 9.

Harry Gersh shows the migration of the Middle Eastern Kabbalists throughout Europe:
"From Babylonia and Palestine, Jewish mysticism moved into the Jewish communities of Europe and blossomed there. Every community produced its own mystic literature, mystic belief, and mystic practices. There were distinctive Spanish, French, Italian, and German Kabbalahs. Some were mainly 'practical', dealing in magic; others were mainly 'speculative', emphasizing philosophical explanations; many combined practical and speculative Kabbalah in equal parts." 10.

History of Kabbalah

Colin Low's Kabbalah FAQ indicates that the origins of Kabbalah date from remote antiquity.

Quote:
"…Kabbalah is a mystical and magical tradition which originated nearly two thousand years ago and has been practiced continuously during that time. It has been practiced by Jew and non- Jew alike for about five hundred years. On the Jewish side it has been an integral and influential part of Judaism. On the Hermetic side it has created a rich mystical and magical tradition with its own validity, a tradition which has survived despite the prejudice generated through existing within a strongly Christian culture." 11.
Michael Sidlofsky of Toronto, writing on "Kabbalah and Jewish Renewal" states that Kabbalah...
"…is the most commonly-used term for the Jewish mystical tradition, especially the kind which originated in twelfth-century France and spread through Europe, the Middle East and eventually world-wide, to this day. The two main varieties of pre-kabbalistic Jewish mysticism are called Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit (more on these below), and the particular variety emerging in eighteenth-century Eastern Europe and continuing among Ashkenazic Jews until today is called Hasidism." 12.

Most scholars concur that these secret oral traditions were first committed to writing around the thirteenth century. Dr. Christian Ginsburg states in "The Kabbalah":
"…The first date at which the Zohar is definitely known to have appeared is the end of the thirteenth century when it was committed to writing by a Spanish Jew, Moses de Leon…." 13.

Renaissance scholar Pico della Mirandola - a Gnostic, Hermeticist and Cabalist - was described by Vicomte Léon de Poncins’ in Judaism and the Vatican as a hebraiser of Christians:

"Pico de Mirandola, who died in Florence, Italy in 1494, was a hebraiser who devoted himself to studying the Cabbala under the direction of Jewish masters such as Jehuda Abravanel:

"It was in the princely house of Pico de Mirandola that the Jewish scholars used to meet….The discovery of the Jewish Cabbala, which he imparted to various enlightened Christians contributed far more than the return to Greek sources to the extraordinary spiritual blossoming which is known as the Renaissance. About half a century later, the rehabilitation of the Talmud was to lead to the Reformation….Pico de Mirandola had understood that the indispensable purification of Christian dogma could only be effected after a profound study of the authentic Jewish Cabbala." 14.

James Webb, author of The Occult Underground, wrote that Pico della Mirandola, a student of Marsillo Ficino, founder of the neo-Platonic Academy of Florence, "...conceived of Hermes and Plato as aids to persuading those to religion who would not accept Scripture alone."

Perusing further we see the presentation of a Trinity, alongside other "Christian" statements but it is clearly not Christian in content. The way to heaven is described through the use of Gematria.

eternal_spirit

14-11-2008, 12:26 AM

Hey Snoops :D

http://cuttingthroughthematrix.net/images/Michael.GIF

Michael fought with his Angels, and the Dragon fought with his.
The compilers of Revelations wove the esoteric with the
exoteric, combining Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian
terminology and symbology together. On one side of the 'battle'
we see the 'good angels,' each angel's name ending with 'el,'
the semitic term for the sun. The 'good guys' were really the
summer signs of the Zodiac, the Hebrew names being Micha-el,
Abdi-el, Azra-el etc.. The' bad guys' bore the Egyptian names
for the winter months, their names ending with -on, the Egyptian
name for the sun; the sun in winter bringing signs of impending
evil. Therefore we have Abadd-on, Apolly-on etc..Taken in context we see a Hebrew interpretation of a 'heavenly'battle between the Egyptian and Hebrew 'gods,' for the exoteric
explanation. The 'Lord' of the Opposite,' was said to be
domiciled in the sign in opposition of where the sun happened
to be. This' contrary' god was called Beli-el. Baalzebub was
domiciled in Scorpio, which gives the 'kiss' of death to god's sun
every autumn, causing his 'fall.' The esoteric meaning is the
battle of winter against summer. The very word Autumn is
comprised of the Egyptian names Atum, old god of the world
and darkness, matter, and Aten, title of the 'beneficent' sun. Hellwas always said to be in the north, the great abyss referring to
the constellation Draco revolves in an endless serpentine loop.
Draco is one of the latin terms for 'snake.' Drag-on is an
Egyptian term for the north 'pole' where eternal winter was said
to hold his carnival or Circus(circuit}. Helping him were his
'Baals' and 'Ons' Of Chaldea and Egypt.

Esoteric Unveiled and Revelations in
High Masonic Tradition

snoopsnuffleopagus

14-11-2008, 12:57 AM

Hello, es:

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/page62alanwatt.html

Hi es; I provided you with a very valuable TOOL: As a Male, you are obliged to utilise TOOLS, this is encoded in our DNA

The TOOLhttp://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=autumn
12 Translations of the OT & NT
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The Result of searching word: EL; in Hebrew Dictionary, which provides Semetic Root Words.http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=El

I have never seen the Semetic word defined as Sun. The Root: yl means strength. Usually the word el, means strength, when capitalised EL it is to designate a Canaanite Diety. EL-soandso.

Likewise do a search of Abaddon(angel of destruction) first in greek dictionary, which leads to Root Hebrew word.#11 abaddown, means destuction, hades, which leads to Root word #3 abad etc. no egyptian months.

Likewise the Malak Gadols name is Micahyah, which means: who is like Yahweh

When Yahchannan scribed Revelation, the Greeks had 13 signs in their Zodiac, so mr. watts' exercising the number 12 is futile.

http://searchwarp.com/swa24826.htm
Another nail in the proverbial coffin is the mysterious omission of the 13th sign of the zodiac: Ophiuchus. This constellation falls along the ecliptic, and houses the sun during one month of the year (December). Yet modern astrologers choose to ignore the “serpent bearer," in favour of the 12 zodiac symbols. The reason, they cite, is the turbid history of the constellation. Ophiuchus lies in a spot in the sky, which once housed multiple constellations. This argument tends to fall apart, though, when one considers that the ancient Greeks, as well as “father of modern astrology," Claudius Ptolemeaus, both considered Ophiuchus to be a valid constellation. The more likely scenario seems to be that 12 zodiac symbols fit rather well with the 12 months in the Gregorian calendar. As such, the reason for the omission seems to be convenience and aesthetics, rather than any real problem with the constellation itself.

The Book of Revelation is one of the most unique Books ever scribed, if not the most unique.

The very first verse provides an interesting perspective: The Revelation of Yahshua Messiah, which Yahweh gave to Him, to show His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it through His malak(messenger) to His servant Yahchanan.

Notice the 'Chain of Custody'. The message/revelation originates with YHWH, who gives it to Yahshua Messiah, who gives it to His malak, who gives it to Yahchanan, who gave it to us.

Another unique aspect of this Book is it is written in a Past, Present and Future Tense. This is why Context is so important. How does the verses relate to surrounding verses, what references to the OT are cited,

mr. wat does not provide sources for his info, why not?

watt: The very word Autumn is
comprised of the Egyptian names Atum, old god of the world
and darkness, matter, and Aten, title of the 'beneficent' sun.

as you can see, it is not from Egyptian
autumn http://www.etymonline.com/index.php
c.1374, from O.Fr. autumpne, from L. autumnus, a word probably of Etruscan origin. Harvest was the Eng. name for the season until autumn began to displace it 16c. In Britain, the season is popularly August through October; in U.S., September through November.

es; I honestly try to make the connections of mr. watt that you present. I have never been able to. The Bible doesn't lend itself to shallow and superficial perusal, it must be studied Pro-Actively, researching the words, researching the history. discerning between the Literal, Allegorical, Metaphorical and the Similitudes, always maintaining Contextual and Textual Integrity.

Like: Genesis does not mean Genes of Isis. There are two researchers/teachers. One is Credentialed in Translating Ancient Languages, the other is not.

One is very popular, the other is not.

One 'Fabricates' the meanings of the words on Sumerian Texts, the other accurately defines them

Which researcher would you prefer? the one who just 'makes it up, or the one who can actually translate the words?

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

Next time you communicate with mr. watt, tell him I would like to be made aware of his sources. Does he use footnotes? Bibliographies?

One of my favourite passages in Revelation, chapter 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that geat city, the holy Yahweh Shammah (YHWH is Here; the New Jerusalem), descending out of heaven from Yahweh.

21:15 And the city lies four square, and the length is as large as the breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: 12 thousand stadia; approx. 1,500 miles. The length, and the breadth, and the height of it are equal

so here is a Crystalline city of gold and silver 1,500 miles wide, long and high coming to land on a mountain on earth.

1,500 miles high. Mont Everest is 6 miles high.

The Book of Revelation is just one of 66 utterly astonishing Books, and some of the Intertestamental Books have some merit also.

I gave you a link to a bible that has 12 translations built in. you should start with Genesis and read right through. don't let the Book of Numbers throw you, it seems dull, but there is phenomanal information in it. The Book of Iyob/Job is beyond mind boggling.

A nice winter project for you. :)

eternal_spirit

14-11-2008, 01:00 AM

Hello, es:

First; the Link you innocently forgot. To Alan What? :)
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/page62alanwatt.html

I'll service this later, right now I am relaxing.

Okies thought you may find it unusual I thought so. There's some more texts there too.

snoopsnuffleopagus

14-11-2008, 05:27 AM

watt;The' bad guys' bore the Egyptian names
for the winter months, their names ending with -on, the Egyptian
name for the sun; the sun

This also is suspect, mr. watt needs to provide his sources,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_calendar
For much of Egyptian history, the months were not referred to by individual names, but were rather numbered within the three seasons. As early as the Middle Kingdom, however, each month had its own name. These finally evolved into the New Kingdom months, which in turn gave rise to the Hellenized names that were used for chronology by Ptolemy in his Almagest, and by others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_calendar
No. Seasonal Names Middle Kingdom New Kingdom Greek Coptic Egyptian Arabic
I First of Akhet Tekh Dhwt Thoth Thout Tout
II Second of Akhet Menhet Pa-n-ip.t Phaophi Paopi Baba
III Third of Akhet Hwt-hwr Hwt-hwr Athyr Hathor Hatour
IV Fourth of Akhet Ka-hr-ka Ka-hr-ka Choiak Koiak Kiahk
V First of Peret Sf-bdt Ta-'b Tybi Tobi Touba
VI Second of Peret Rekh wer M?yr Mechir Meshir Amshir
VII Third of Peret Rekh neds Pa-n-amn-htp.w Phamenoth Paremhat Baramhat
VIII Fourth of Peret Renwet Pa-n-rnn.t Pharmouthi Paremoude Baramouda
IX First of Shemu Hnsw Pa-n-?ns.w Pachon Pashons Bashans
X Second of Shemu Hnt-htj Pa-n-in.t Payni Paoni Ba'ouna
XI Third of Shemu Ipt-hmt Ipip Epiphi Epip Abib
XII Fourth of Shemu Wep-renpet Msw-r' Mesore

the Table is more cogent in linked article

kasalt

15-11-2008, 09:38 AM

This was my request to Snoopsnuffleopagus:

I have a simple request for you. I'm going to give you some scripture references. What I'd like you to do is to give me the reading of these verses according to the Book of Yahweh translation:

Matthew 12.21 -

Isaiah 42.4 -

Acts 15.17 -

Amos 9.12 -

you're on yet another of your fools mission and I shall not aide or abet you.

Snoops, that was a simple request I made of you. If you won't do it, I will PM Sparrow7 and see if he can do it. I can't do it, because I don't own a "Book of Yahweh" translation of the Bible as you do.
I guess he thought I wouldn't do it? :confused:

I PM'd Sparrow7, a member of this forum who is also an ex-member of the HOY cult, who graciously provided me with the information that I requested, and here it is.

Both quotes are from the “Book of Yahweh”, Sixth Edition:
Matthew 12.21 – ...And in His Name will the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42.4 – ...and the isles; (countries), will wait for his Law.
Matthew 12.18-21 is actually a quote from Isaiah 42.1-4. Given that one is a quotation of the other, you would think that they would read the same or nearly the same. But at the end of verse 4, we see a sharp disagreement. As we see in the above quotes from the Book of Yahweh translation, the two verses read very differently from each other. How are we to explain this discrepancy?

The reason why this discrepancy exists is because the Old Testament of the Book of Yahweh is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text rather than the Greek Septuagint. There is nothing unique about this, as most all English translations of the Old Testament are based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This can be confirmed by comparing the above verses in any major translation of the Bible you may own, such as the King James Version, etc.

This difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament becomes obvious when we compare the BoY version of Matthew 12.21 with Isaiah 42:4 from Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint:
Matthew 12.21 (“BoY", Sixth Edition)
…And in His Name will the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:4 (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm) (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
…and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Finally, we have a match. We can plainly see that the New Testament quote diverges from the Hebrew text and matches the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

The same thing applies in this next example. The first two quotes are from the Book of Yahweh translation (6th edition), and the third quote is from Brenton’s Septuagint.
Acts 15.17 (BoY) – So that the rest of mankind may seek Yahweh-all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called, says Yahweh, Who does all these things.

Amos 9.12 (BoY) - That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the heathen who are called with My Name: says Yahweh Who does this.

Amos 9.12 (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Amos/index.htm) (Brenton’s English Translation of the Greek Septuagint)
...that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.
As we can see from the above quotes, the first quote from the Book of Yahweh is in complete agreement (in terms of meaning) with the third quote, which is from Brenton's Septuagint, but the Book of Yahweh disagrees with itself between the first and second quotes. I highlighted the point of disagreement in the second quote by using red font.

The fact that the New Testament agrees with the Greek Septuagint and contradicts the Hebrew texts is but one of the many strong evidences that the New Testament was originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew.

snoopsnuffleopagus

15-11-2008, 02:21 PM

kasalt, you are wrong again.

The 'citation', footnote in Mattithyah 12:21 is for Isayah 42:8 and Malakyah 1:11
examine the Great Isayah Scroll, from the Dead Sea Scrolls.notice 42:8.

Thank you :)10. (Chapter 42:1) Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I put my spirit upon him: and his judgement
11. will go out to the Gentiles. (2.) He shall not cry, nor shout, nor cause his voice to be heard in the outskirts. (3.) A bruised reed
12. he shall not break, and the smoking flax he shall not quench: for truth he shall bring out judgement. (4.) He shall not falter nor be
13. discouraged, until he puts judgement in the earth: and the islands shall inherit his Torah. (PP)

14. (5.). Thus says The God (ha-el) and God (elohiym) [m=YHWH,] the creator of the heavens, (and stretched them out in the firmament) and the earth,
15. and that which comes out of it; the Giver of breath (neshamah) to the people upon it, and spirit to those walking in it: (6.) I [m..+YHWH] have called you. It is well worth inserting here a note referring to the most interesting notations or symbols above the last word in this line. See the notes here.
16. in righteousness, and I will hold your hand, and will keep you, [a nazarene word] and I will give you for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
17. (7.) To open the blind eyes, to bring out from prison the prisoners, and from the house of confinement those who sit in darkness.
18. (8.) I am YHWH that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to idols. (9.) The first things, I told and
19. behold, they have come to pass, and new things I tell: before they spring up I tell you of them.
20. (10.) Sing to YHWH a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, the ones going down to the sea, and the fullness of the islands,
21. and the inhabitants of them

From the Masoretic Text: Notice the Tetragrammaton
8 I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.

ח אֲנִי יְהוָה, הוּא שְׁמִי; וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא-אֶתֵּן, וּתְהִלָּתִי לַפְּסִילִים.

Notice the Tetragrammaton?

From BoY 10th edition circa:2001

Isayah 42:8 I am Yahweh, that is MY NAME; and My Glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to graven images

43:4 He will not fail or nor be discouraged, til He has established judgement in the Earth; and the Isles(countries, nations) will wait for His Laws.

Malakyah 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, My Name will be great among the Gentiles. In every place incense will be offered in My Name, with a pure offering; for My Name will be great among the Gentiles.

BoY
Acts 15:17 So that the rest of mankind may seek Yahweh-all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called, says Yahweh, Who does all these things.

Amosyah 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the heathen
who are called with My Name.

Masoretic Text:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations, upon whom My name is called, saith the LORD that doeth this. {P}

יב לְמַעַן יִירְשׁוּ אֶת-שְׁאֵרִית אֱדוֹם, וְכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר-נִקְרָא שְׁמִי, עֲלֵיהֶם: נְאֻם-יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה זֹּאת.

kasalt, whatever you are trying to prove; you are not succeeding. lol

I have more evidence that the NT was scribed in Hebrew originally. Josephus write of Mattithyahs Hebrew Gospel. I have presented solid, sourced, vetted information that supports th Hebrew NT.

There are many Hebraic thoughts that do not translate into Greek, so they remained in Hebrew. I will present a few of these.

you're inner conflict will take a toll on you that you will not enjoy.

check yourself, don't wreck yourself. :)

as for your slur against Buffalo Bill, as far as I am aware, that is a very old opinion of his, and he has since corrected himself. An attribute of character you may wish to explore yourself

Relevant Links

http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qa-tran.htm

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

snoopsnuffleopagus

15-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Mattithyah 27:45-55

45: Then from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.

46 And about the ninth hour Yahshua cried out with a loud voice, saying: Yli! Yli! lamah ozabatniy?! which means: My Strength! My Strength! Why have you forsaken Me?!

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said; This Man calls for Yliyah(elijah, the prophet) Those who have been following this debate will recall the Root of El is Yl, which means strength, the Prophets name: Yliyah means Strength of Yahweh(what is actually occuring is Yahshua Messiah is beginning to recite Psalm 22)

48 Then immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar *, put it on a reed, and gave it to Him to drink.

49 The rest said: leave Him alone! Let us see if Yliyah will come to save Him.

50 Yahshua, when He had cried out again with a loud voice, yielded up His Spirit.

51 And behold, the veil of the Most Holy Place was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split.

52 And minds were opened, and many congregations of Saints who were called of Yahweh arose.

53 And those whose minds were opened came out after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City, and appeared to many.

54 When the Centurion and those with him who were guarding Yahshua, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying; Truly this was the Son of Yahweh!

*vinegar from Psalm 69:21 (a prophecy about the Messiah to come) They gave Me also gall for My food; and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.

A Psalm of David, a servant of Father Yahweh
Psalm 22 (this Psalm begins as a Lamentation and ends with praising and glorifying Yahweh)

1 My Strength! My Strength! Why have You forsaken Me? O why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?

From the Masoretic
28 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD; {N}
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee.
כח יִזְכְּרוּ, וְיָשֻׁבוּ אֶל-יְהוָה- כָּל-אַפְסֵי-אָרֶץ;
וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְפָנֶיךָ, כָּל-מִשְׁפְּחוֹת גּוֹיִם.

Notice the Tetragrammaton
So we have very compelling evidence Yahshua Messiah was reciting a Psalm of praise to our Heavenly Father, Yahweh. Kasalt, you do notice the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew.

Even the septuagint had the Tetragrammaton until it was redacted by editors.

Is it your contention that the Name Yahweh should not appear in the Bible, in both Testaments?

snoopsnuffleopagus

15-11-2008, 03:00 PM

kasalt: what does the Apostle mean when he declares: First to the Yahdai, then to the Greek.
?

Perhaps someday :rolleyes: you will provide us with the definitions of: Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity.

sparrow7

17-11-2008, 04:36 AM

(and paul "the self-proclaiming" apostle was a deceiver as well!)

http://www.blavatskycardiff.care4free.net/Blavgloss1892.htm (http:///www.blavatskycardiff.care4free.net/Blavgloss1892.htm)

Yah (Heb.). The word, as claimed in the Zohar, through which the Elohim formed the worlds. The syllable is a national adaptation and one of the many forms of the “Mystery name”IAO.

(See “Iaho” and “Yâho ”.)

Yâho (Heb.). Fürst shows this to be the same as the Greek Iao. Yâho is an old Semitic and very mystic name of the supreme deity, while Yah (q.v.) is a later abbreviation which, from containing an abstract ideal, became finally applied to, and connected with, a phallic symbol—the lingham of creation. Both Yah and Yâho were Hebrew “mystery names” derived from Iao, but the Chaldeans had a Yâho before the Jews adopted it, and with them, as explained by some Gnostics and Neo-Platonists, it was the highest conceivable deity enthroned above the seven heavens and representing Spiritual Light (Âtman, the universal), whose ray was Nous, standing both for the intelligent Demiurge of the Universe of Matter and the Divine Manas in man, both being Spirit. The true key of this, communicated to the Initiates only, was that the name of IAO was “triliteral and its nature secret ”, as explained by the Hierophants. The Phœnicians too had a supreme deity whose name was triliteral, and its meanings secret, this was also IAO; and Y-ha-ho was a sacred word in the Egyptian mysteries, which signified “the one eternal and concealed deity” in nature and in man; i.e., the “universal Divine Ideation”, and the human Manas, or the higher Ego.

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 04:45 PM

I know that when I seek Truth I will go to Madame Blavatskys Theospophical Society. NOT!! LOL!!!!!!!

anyways, heres a Link to your presentation that actually works. :rolleyes:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/IAO.html

The Tetragrammaton is derived from the Semetic Trigrammaton, this isn't a BIG SECRET and the Tetragrammaton traces back 6,000 years at least.

PREDATING all the flunkies and chumps Blavatskys boy cites.

you are in need of more Academically Credentialed Sources.

Try Biblical Archaeological Review:

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

excerpt
the J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah. (The name Yahweh begins with a J in Wellhausen's native German.)

http://www.freewebs.com/eliyahuw/

sparrow-vulture: what do you mean by: "Your Gnostics"

The gnosticists did not originate the Tetragrammaton or the Trigrammaton.

I have noticed over the past year and a half the Names: Yahweh and Yahshua create massive disturbance amongst many Cosmopolitan Cosmologists and Ideologistas/Polytheists.

It's like they really can't handle Monotheism, especially when peeps know the Names of their Creator Being. This 'Bugs their minds' :eek: :D

So; Colour me Curious; what would you perceive an agreeable, to you, 'outcome'; as concerns the Names Yahweh and Yahshua?

Do you prefer: God & Jesus? Abba & Jesus/Yehoshua?

As Polytheists, why is this issue so important to you? This issue is so important to several Cosmopolitan Cosmologists and Ideologistas/Polytheists; that they utilise deceit and misrepresentation to bolster their feeble and futile claims?

While you contemplate those queries; I present other of my queries which none of the Cosmopolitan Cosmologistians and Ideologistas? Polytheists have deigned not to answer.

What say you?

what does the Apostle mean when he declares: First to the Yahdai, then to the Greek.?

Perhaps someday you will provide us with the definitions of: Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity.

Why? do Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles; Teach from the Tanakh/Old Testament Exclusively; and Constantly Cite and Quote the Patriarchs and Prophets and Laws of Father Yahweh.

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 05:11 PM

As we have been made aware by our research into "Gnosis of Christianity', they make some very bold claims. Such as; Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles were not informing the public of Yahweh and His Prophets; Patriarchs and Laws.

Rather: Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles are teaching about the Monad, some call the All-That-Is
http://www.adore.com/
That Yahshua and His Apostles taught that Father Yahwehs Laws are obsolete.

That the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh were/are deceived.

Even though none of these assertions are supported by scripture, the Gnosticists claim to have inner revelations from the All-That-Ishttp://www.adore.com/
that refutes and negates the entire body of scripture, and that the unwashed and profane(those who have not had the inner revelation of the All-That-Is), simply cannot understand what the scriptures actually declare.

Yey during this Threads course, though requested numerous times, no supporting Tangible Evidence has been presented.

Let me ask the Gnosticists, explain the Following. The Citations and Quotes of the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh by the Messiah and His Apostles.

And whenever you are ready, the definitions of: Righteous/ness; Sin and Iniquity.

Thank you for your consideration. :)
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=617253&postcount=16

If one were to carefully read, and study the scripture, all your queries would be answered in full.

The Near East & Middle East 2,000 years ago was a fairly literate place. Roman, Greek, Hebrew, Canaanite/Semetic, Aramaic and other languages with their assosciated scribes were prevelent and common. Yahshua would have no reason or desire to command anyone to write down anything as this would occur naturally while speaking. Scribes were everywhere.

Since there was no TV or Radio, people enjoyed oral speakers and the written word. There were already many books, manuscripts and documents in circulation.

Yahshua Messiah and His apostles wwere Yahdaim-People of Yahweh-Hebrews. The apostles and disciples recognised Yahshua as the prophecied Messiah, that more than 100 Prophecies foretold in the Tanakh/OT.

Yahshua and His apostles taught in the Temples and Synagogues on Yahwehs Weekly Sabbath, they also taught outside the Temples amongst the masses; Yahdaim and Gentile.

Yahshua and the Apostles taught from the Tanakh/OT; they constantly cited the Patriarchs and the Prophets of the OT, telling us to heed their words.

The Sermon on the Mount is pure Old Testament, and everybody present, Hebrew and Gentile knew this. When Yahshua and the Apostles spoke of our heavenly Father, they were referring to Yahweh.

NT-Origins
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...25&postcount=3

Historical & Scientific Evidence
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

Yahshua Messiah, a begotten Son of Yahweh, Who was the Savior sent by Yahweh, taught that Yahweh is perfection.

Mattithyah 19:17—
But He said to him: Why do you question Me about righteousness? There is only One who is the standard of perfection, and that is Yahweh; so if you would enter into life, keep the Laws of Yahweh.

Mattithyah 5:48—
Therefore, become perfect, just as your Father Who is in heaven is perfect.

Yahshua Messiah said the following.

Yahchanan 6:44—
No man can come to Me, unless the Father, Who has sent Me, draws him; and I will establish him as a priest at the last day.

Every citation of Yahshua Messiah and the apostles of the word: Father; is in reference to Yahweh.

Yahshua and the Apostles were not the founders of xtianity. It is Messianic Yahwism, or as the Encyclopedia Judaica terms it: A Sect of Non-Normative Judaism.

Also drael; the word logos should be read as 'Plan'; the Hellenistic 'Logos'; a pre-existent spirit/force is errant. It is a Hellenization of what was intended to be Hebraic Thought, which shuns Hellenism.

The whole Book of Yahweh, both the Old Testament and the New Testament is about Father Yahwehs plan for Humans.

Hebrews 5:5-10—
5 So the Messiah also did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a High Priest, but Yahweh said to Him: You are My Son; today I have begotten You.
6 As He also says in another Scripture: you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
7 Who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the One Who could save Him from death, was heard because of His holy reverence.
8 Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience from the things which He suffered;
9 Then being perfected, He became the Causer of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.
10 Called by Yahweh a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek,

Psalm 110:4—
Yahweh has vowed an oath, and will not relent nor change His mind: you are a priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Genesis 14:18-20—
18 Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. He was the priest of Yahweh Most High.
19 And he blessed him, and said; Blessed be Abram by Yahweh Most High, Creator of heaven and Earth;
20 And blessed be Yahweh Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he; Abram, gave him tithes of all.

Hebrews 7:1-6—
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of Yahweh Most High, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
2 And Abraham also gave him a tenth part of all. First, his name being translated means, King of Righteousness, and then also king of Salem, meaning, King of Peace.
3 Melchizedek's father and mother were not recorded in the genealogies; neither was the beginning of his days, nor the end of his life—but he was a representation of the Son of Yahweh, for the continuance of the priesthood.
4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the plunder.
5 And truly, those who are of the sons of Levi, who received the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the Law, which means: from their brothers, even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.
6 But this man whose genealogy is not traced from Levi, received tithes from Abraham, and blessed him who had the promises.

The 613 righteous Laws of Yahweh, taught to Abraham by the righteous Priest Melchizedek, was the power or strength that turned Abraham to righteousness.

Yahweh had recorded that Abraham kept and upheld, not just the Ten Commandments, but all of Yahweh's 613 Laws, statutes and judgments.

Genesis 26:5—
Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, my statutes, and My Laws.

Abraham kept Yahweh's 613 Laws; therefore, Yahweh promised Abraham that He would use his descendants for a Work in a planned time period.

Yahchanan said it best when he said nothing was done outside the Plan of Yahweh.

Yahchanan 1:1,3—
1 In the beginning was the plan of Yahweh, and the plan was with Yahweh, and the plan was Yahweh's.
3 All things were done according to it, and without it nothing was done, that was done.

the scribes were present, they were the 'News Reporters' of the day, and Yahshua was 'News Worthy'.

Yahchanan Mark 12:28-30—
28 Then one of the scribes came, and listened to all their discussion, and had noted how well He answered. So he asked Him; What is the first commandment of all?
29 And Yahshua answered Him: The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israyl, Yahweh is our Father. Yahweh is one.
30 And you must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your might.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5—
4 Hear, O Israyl, Yahweh is our Father. Yahweh is one.
5 And you must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

Mattithyah 4:10—
Then Yahshua said to her; You get away, Satan! For it is written: Yahweh your Father you must reverence, and Him only you must serve!

Deuteronomy 6:13—
Yahweh your Father you must reverence, and Him you must serve, and by His Name you must take your oaths.

Mattithyah 23:9—
And you must not pray to or worship any man on earth as a "Father," for you have only One Father, Who is in heaven.

Yahchanan 14:28—
You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Yahchanan 12:49-50—
49 For I have not spoken on My own; but the Father Who sent Me gave Me the Laws—what I should say and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His Laws are life everlasting; so whatever I speak, I am saying exactly what My Father has told Me to say.

Mattithyah 24:36—
But no man knows that day nor hour. No, not even the malakim in heaven, but My Father only.

Mattithyah 19:16-17—
16 And behold, one came to Him, and said; Teacher, what righteous thing may I do, so that I may have eternal life?
17 But He said to him: Why do you question Me about righteousness? There is only One Who is the standard of perfection, and that is Yahweh; so if you would enter into life, keep the Laws of Yahweh .

As you see; Yahshua Messiah and His Apostles constantly cite the Patriarchs and the Prophets of Yahweh, Yahshua tells us to heed Yahweh and His servants.

The Sermon on the Mount is based upon the Torah, the multitude of Yahdaim and Gentiles that were present were all very well aware of this.

Even the Gentiles knew Yahshua was dicussing Yahweh, He was reknowned for that. We may be sure scribes were present. Mattithyah for one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uAi0otWAKw

sparrow7

17-11-2008, 07:48 PM

apparently you agree with the catholic church's pronunciation of the name yahweh....people find "truth" in the oddest placest..

phildee3

17-11-2008, 09:36 PM

apparently you agree with the catholic church's pronunciation of the name yahweh....people find "truth" in the oddest placest..

Not really.
The Roman Catholics are Yahwists
(most of the Independent Catholics are not, - that's one of the main reasons they are independent).

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 09:43 PM

apparently you agree with the catholic church's pronunciation of the name yahweh....people find "truth" in the oddest placest..

Boyeee! :rolleyes: that isn't much of an answer for my queries; is it?

Actually; I'm going with the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Brittanica and many other sources.

This Thread is about Gnosticism and its many facets and facades. You should read the OP; just a suggestion.

I say: the 'Ass' of the Xtian Gnosticists; can't 'cash' the cheque their colective dogmas and doctrines have writ. Nothing Personal.

What say you?

Other than your erstwhile Crusade, hows everything? :)

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 09:48 PM

Not really.
The Roman Catholics are Yahwists
(most of the Independent Catholics are not, - that's one of the main reasons they are independent).

phil, you're 'Trippin'; they are 'Marianists'; 'Queen of Heaven' groupies.; they do not teach ONE-1-Doctrine of Yahweh, nor do they Honour Yahweh in any shape or form. For you to say the Roman Catholic Church are Yahwists is an indication of how far you are disconnected from Reality.

Name one doctrine or teaching of Yahweh that they actually observe.

Answer the Queries that have been put to you.

phildee3

17-11-2008, 10:20 PM

they [the RCs] are 'Marianists'; 'Queen of Heaven' groupies.

Only on the surface.

Their real agenda is to preach Yahwism - that the "father" of Jesus/Yeshua is the creator-god of the Jews.

This Thread is about Gnosticism

Another front.
You started this thread to preach neo-Yahwism
and anti-gnosticism.

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 10:45 PM

Only on the surface.

Their real agenda is to preach Yahwism - that the "father" of Jesus/Yeshua is the creator-god of the Jews.

I was just thinking how you may be the FIRST HUMAN in History to 'claim' the Roman Catholic Church/Vatican teaches or promotes Yahwism. That is how absurd your claim is. The first human in more than 1,700 years. one among many billions. Incredible! :eek:

I take it you don't know what Yahwism is?

Another front.
You started this thread to preach neo-Yahwism
and anti-gnosticism.

No; I started this Thread to shove your xtian gnosticism up your derrier. Nothing personal. After all it is you who drew First Blood.

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/576/medium/Movie-Poster-Rambo-First-Blood-Part-2.jpg

You've 'talked' alot of 'smack' to me, so I have 'called you on it'. you know; 'Put Up or Shut Up'. Nothing Personal.

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity.

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

phildee3

17-11-2008, 10:59 PM

I started this Thread to shove your xtian gnosticism up your derrier.

That's better.
A little bit of honesty is refreshing, coming from you.

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 11:14 PM

So now you're gonna show us where Yahshua and His Apostles were talking about the Monad, the All-That-Is http://www.adore.com/ .

Why at the Sermon on the Mount He was praising Yahweh? Yahwehs Laws?

What are the Monads Laws?

I'm curious, as I am sure others are,

snoopsnuffleopagus

17-11-2008, 11:36 PM

What is Yahwism?

The 'Every Word of Yahweh'; the Creator Being of the Book of Yahweh/Bible.

Both the Old and New Testaments.

The differences between the Vatican/Phildee3 Position and the Yahweh/Yahshua Messiah Position is:

In Yahwism; Father Yahweh is the Creator Being. Yahshua Messiah is Yahwehs Unique Son, who was 'Born in the Flesh' Both live by Every Word of Yahwehs Laws.

Vatican/Phildee3=God?/Jesus; very plastique and conforming to you entities.

Yahwehs Weekly Sabbath-Friday sundown until Saturday sundown, 24 hours.

Vatican/phildee3 weekly sabbath, a few minutes sunday morning.

Yahwehs, the Patriarchs; the Prophets, Yahshua Messiah, and the Apostles all lived by Every Word of Yahweh=the Laws and the Prophecies.

Vatican/Phildee3-'The Laws are done away with, they are obsolete.

Yahwehs High Holy Days- The Passover; Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Day of Atonement etc.

Vatican/Phildee3-High Holt Days Xmas; Easter, etc.

All in all phildee3, it looks like you are more in alignment with the Vatican than YHWH and His People.

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 12:04 AM

Snoops difference is your lot are into genital mutialtion (ancient blood rites from previous religions which brings you into the Covenant of Israel)

Give me Catholics anyday thanks. priest splashes a bit of water onto babies head 10 commandments
verse Yawehisms 613 laws.

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 12:12 AM

Okay enough I did say I wouldn't bother debating religion many times this year (being none religious myself) Yes can you believe it:rolleyes: So, I'll leave it to you guys.

adios

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 12:16 AM

Actually, if you would actually read The Book, you would read that the Circumcision is a 'sign' between Yahweh and 'His'.

yo! es!! none of my Cosmopolitan Cosmology & Ideologista 'Pals' will answer these few queries, wanna 'take a swing' at em'? I would very grateful. :)

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity.

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

1977

18-11-2008, 01:15 AM

So now you're gonna show us where Yahshua and His Apostles were talking about the Monad, the All-That-Is http://www.adore.com/ .
Why do you keep linking to somebody's terrible poetry site :confused:

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 01:29 AM

It is a Portal of the BORG-Hive Mind that phildee3 prefers. First 'the Monad 'tickles your ears', and then...... :eek:.

THE MONAD

THE HORROR!
http://www.riverofdarkness.com/images/kurtz_profile1.jpg

If phildee3 would deign to answer my modest queries, we could 'move forward'.

kasalt

18-11-2008, 01:54 AM

Another front.
You started this thread to preach neo-Yahwism
and anti-gnosticism.

Indeed. Judging by Snoops' behaviour on this forum, the following information from Wikipedia seems quite accurate:
The House of Yahweh is a religious organization based in Abilene, Texas. Its Pastor and Overseer is Yisrayl Hawkins (formerly "Buffalo" Bill Hawkins). Hawkens uses isolation, manipulation, and mind control as a means to keep most of his religious secrets...

The House of Yahweh (HoY) believes it is the one true faith, as revealed by the Creator from the beginning, and reestablished again in what they believe are the prophesied end times.
More at the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yahweh

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 02:16 AM

Yes; snoops is an Independent, and I am not 'Preachin', 'Prosyletizing', 'Evangelizing', ' simonizing',

I've been sharing Sourced, Vetted, Peer-Reviewed Information from Public Sources. Availiable to everyone, all the time. What have you been doing?

All you do is 'Character Assaination'. You think you stand 2 inches Taller on the back of Buffalo Bill. o well.

Answer the Queries.

checkout these Lads & Lasses,
http://www.byt-yhwh.org/

http://www.icyahweh.org/

http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/

http://www.yaim.org/

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml

http://www.aish.com/torahportion/shalomweekly/Shavuot_5762.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

http://blog.bibleplaces.com/

http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/

http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2007/06/asher-kaufman-lecture-on-temple.html

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28141

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/http://webbpage.bravehost.com/

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://gath.wordpress.com/

http://www.ao.net/%7Efmoeller/qa-tran.htm

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/

Don't peeps have a right to understand this most impressive Book?

When we reject what you, and phildee3 like, you attack us. When you are unsuccessful in your transformation of the Book, you attack.

I'm here to say: Your attacks are Futile & Vain, your deceptions and diversions are apparent and obvious.

kasalt, provides answers for the queries or go away. you are both Banal & Tedious.

Thank You :)

kasalt

18-11-2008, 06:08 AM

The Roman Catholics are Yahwists

phil, you're 'Trippin'; they are 'Marianists'; 'Queen of Heaven' groupies.; they do not teach ONE-1-Doctrine of Yahweh, nor do they Honour Yahweh in any shape or form.

Only on the surface.

Their real agenda is to preach Yahwism - that the "father" of Jesus/Yeshua is the creator-god of the Jews.

Phil, I think you may find this a bit amusing...

Snoops has repeatedly posted a "YHWH" image to some of these threads, like this post for example:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=612138#post612138

The funny thing is that I traced the url of that image and discovered that its source page is a website belonging not only to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Jesuits! :eek:

This is the source url of the image: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/yahweh.html

And this is its website of origin: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/

If you take that link and scroll down, you will see that the YHWH image posted by Snoops was created by a Fr. William McNichols, who is a Roman Catholic, Jesuit priest!

LOL! :D

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 01:28 PM

so what kasalt? is this all you got?

You and/or phildee3 cannot/willnot answer a few queries.

You must of missed this Post :rolleyes:

care to answer these?

What is Yahwism?

The 'Every Word of Yahweh'; the Creator Being of the Book of Yahweh/Bible.

Both the Old and New Testaments.

The differences between the Vatican/Phildee3 Position and the Yahweh/Yahshua Messiah Position is:

In Yahwism; Father Yahweh is the Creator Being. Yahshua Messiah is Yahwehs Unique Son, who was 'Born in the Flesh' Both live by Every Word of Yahwehs Laws.

Vatican/Phildee3=God?/Jesus; very plastique and conforming to you entities.

Yahwehs Weekly Sabbath-Friday sundown until Saturday sundown, 24 hours.

Vatican/phildee3 weekly sabbath, a few minutes sunday morning.

Yahwehs, the Patriarchs; the Prophets, Yahshua Messiah, and the Apostles all lived by Every Word of Yahweh=the Laws and the Prophecies.

Vatican/Phildee3-'The Laws are done away with, they are obsolete.

Yahwehs High Holy Days- The Passover; Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Day of Atonement etc.

Vatican/Phildee3-High Holt Days Xmas; Easter, etc.

All in all phildee3, it looks like you are more in alignment with the Vatican than YHWH and His People.

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity.

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

kasalt, phil- Answers Please :)

Looks to me like phildee3 is much more aligned with the Vatican than I, wouldn't you say kasalt?

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Phil, I think you may find this a bit amusing...

Snoops has repeatedly posted a "YHWH" image to some of these threads, like this post for example:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=612138#post612138

The funny thing is that I traced the url of that image and discovered that its source page is a website belonging not only to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Jesuits! :eek:

This is the source url of the image: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/yahweh.html

And this is its website of origin: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/

If you take that link and scroll down, you will see that the YHWH image posted by Snoops was created by a Fr. William McNichols, who is a Roman Catholic, Jesuit priest!

LOL! :D
:D classic :D
So the Queen of heaven is a hottie after all eh Snoops. She's so hot she's on fire.

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 01:52 PM

:D classic :D
So the Queen of heaven is a hottie after all eh Snoops. She's so hot she's on fire.

First; es; you would have to tell us how your fevered imagination 'Twists'-'Distorts' the Tetragrammaton into the Queen of Heaven.

Two, separate and very distinct beings.

Posted by dankai:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=602104&postcount=2
Interesting to note is this regarding HWHY (in Hebrew characters)...
If you take each Hebrew character and place one on top of the other (beginning from right and going left, of course) you end up with the image of a human being. So, I guess you would have man made in the "image" of God.

Feedback?

kasalt, do you see this? I accomodated a request of a fellow Forum Member. I suggest you concentrate on the Queries. Time to answer them.

es= Queen of Heaven

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW3_4-05/Easter.htm
http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW3_4-05/asherah.htm

Reading on page 103 of The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, we find that Easter and Ishtar are the same.

Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than "Astarte", one of the titles of Beltis, "The Queen of Heaven..."

Watson's Biblical and Archaeological Dictionary, 1833, tells us more about this mother Goddess, Ashtaroth.

ASHTAROTH, or ASTARTE, a goddess of the Zidonians. She was also called the queen of heaven; and sometimes her worship is said to be that of "the host of heaven."

The Interpreter's Dictionary, Volume 3, page 975, tells us of Ishtar's role as The Queen of Heaven:

Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility, who was identified with the Venus Star and is actually entitled "Mistress of Heaven" in the Amarna tablets. The title "Queen of Heaven" is applied in an Egyptian inscription from the Nineteenth Dynasty at Beth-shan to "Antit," the Canaanite fertility-goddess Anat, who is termed "Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Gods."

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

Pretty funny how these queries discombobulate you all so much. lol

kasalt, phil- Answers Please
________

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 03:13 PM

Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility, who was identified with the Venus Star and is actually entitled "Mistress of Heaven" in the Amarna tablets. The title "Queen of Heaven" is applied in an Egyptian inscription from the Nineteenth Dynasty at Beth-shan to "Antit," the Canaanite fertility-goddess Anat, who is termed "Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Gods."

________

Nock it off too many Drama Queens as it is

a rite of obligation amongst Jews. However the practice has a long history in the middle east and was closely related to rituals dedicated to ancient gods and goddesses of fertility. Ancient Mesopotamian had festivals where the actual organ of a young boy was cut off and dedicated to the fertility goddess. The action was later reduced to inducing an incision instead. The blood was offered to the goddess and the occasion was celebrated publicly. In the old kingdom of Egypt myth contended that blood from circumcision to guarantee the fertility realted to the river Nile, and early Egpytian myth contended that blood from circumcision of another god fell down and created the universe. In one document from Egypt a man is stating that he was circumcised with 120 males and 120 females.

In Jewish traditions reasons are stated for it in the Jewish holy book, Torah. A covenant is made between God and Abraham a rich and powerful man and the father of a great nation, and in return, Abraham's people would adhere to a certain way of life ( described in the Torah )God commanded Abraham to "circumcise the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of th covenant between me and you." At the age of 8 days, you shall circumcise every male child born to you throughout the generations. To this day the Jewish people renew the covenant each time a baby boy is circumcised. The eigth day is chosen becasue the first 7 days represent the creation of the world. On the eigth day the baby is said to have transcended the physical world and is ready to enter the covenant made between man and god. But where Judaism is very clear about the religious imperative, Judaism can point to the chapter and verses in Genesis (17:1-14) T

http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/a...rcumcision.php (http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/rituals_of_circumcision.php)

Like I keep saying your Yahweh and texts are bits from previous older religions.

:D

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 03:26 PM

es; when Father Yahweh declared that Abel was His First Righteous Priest; Yahwism was off and running. This Pre-Dates Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome.

Yahwism is Mono-Theistic, all the others are Poly-Theistic.

Yahweh 'smacked down' ALL the Egyptian gods at once, by Himself.

Read about it. :D

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 03:45 PM

Yes I'm aware about the monotheistic and how a certain people invaded and took over Egypt and banned all other deities. Just like Alan Watt said and you poo poohed the link.

See the Jews where not held in captivity in Babylon/Egypt, they invaded and took over but they were not called Jews at the time. They where known as Haribu which many historians now think is where the term Hebrew originated.

The Egyptians had enough of the invading Haribus and their priesthood and iron fist rules and there was an uprising and they booted them out. It's been the same story ever since in different countries.

They are parasites who feed off other people, with their usury and their Masonic Illuminati brotherhoods and religions, and when other peoples wise up to their secret games (which benefit the Jews and not the host nations they infiltrate) Well they boot them out just like they did in Egypt.

Snoops face facts most of freemasonry's passwords/rituals etc come straight from Judaism aka Yahwehism. Judasim was just the next main vehicle for the Mystery schools religions to be passed on.

BTW did you read all of the Watt transcript? I've posted it more than once in other threads. I think you may have considered it Blasphemy:D

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote Hoffman (one of your favourite goys)

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

eternal_spirit

18-11-2008, 03:57 PM

More from Hoffman

The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against (7 out of 10 billionaires are Jewish yet Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries on Earth) and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the rabbi's authority:
"Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars...Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud...He came to Yeshiva University's Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud...He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud...sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an open volume of the Talmud." (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).
Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchik's knowledge of the Bible as the basis for being one of the leading authorities on Jewish law.
The rabbi's credentials are all predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. Other studies are clearly secondary. Britain's Jewish Chronicle of March 26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are "devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else."
The Talmud Nullifies the Bible
The Jewish Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus' time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible.
Shmuel Safrai in The Literature of the Sages Part One (p.164), points out that in chapters 4 and 5 of the Talmud's Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world. The prozbul is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money."
The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.
Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread "Judeo-Christian" notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God.
The Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As students of the Talmud, we know this to be true.
Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."
There is a tiny Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a group which, historically, has been most hated and severely persecuted by orthodox Jewish rabbinate.
To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud.
The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p. 40).
This study is based on the Jewish-authorized Babylonian Talmud. We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud. Look them up for yourself.
We publish the following irrefutable documentation in the hope of liberating all people, including Jewish people, from the corrosive delusions and racism of this Talmudic hate literature, which is the manual of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews the world over.
The implementation by Jewish supremacists of Talmudic hate literature has caused untold suffering throughout history and now, in occupied Palestine, it is used as a justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians. The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals.

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 04:27 PM

es; the word: Blasphemt is not a part of my vocabulary. neither is Heretic or whatever.

Watt, has proven to me on numerous occassions he is not well informed and passes on fantasies as 'Truth', which you believe.

Yahwism is not Judaism so your 'Hate the Jews' screed is inappropriate. The Talmud IS NOT the Holiest Book in Judaism, the Torah, and in total the Tanakh.

Why do you feel it is necessary to Post this filth over here?

This Thread is about 'Gnosis of Xtianity'. What do you say about that?
This Thread is not about Judaism or the Talmud.

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

phildee3

18-11-2008, 05:55 PM

"the roman catholics are yahwists"

you will see that the yhwh image posted by snoops was created by a fr. William mcnichols, who is a roman catholic, jesuit priest!

qed

snoopsnuffleopagus

18-11-2008, 06:04 PM

while you're here........:rolleyes:

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

kasalt

19-11-2008, 07:13 AM

es...your 'Hate the Jews' screed is inappropriate.

Look who's talking:

of what value was the batshit crazy and stoooopid opinion of Talmudic Zionist Hasidics
when you start posting the Talmudic Zionist Hasidic Cults viewpoint, you're done.

What was that you said about pointing fingers? Oh yes, here it is:

you got three of your fingers pointing right back at you! lol

lol indeed.

snoopsnuffleopagus

19-11-2008, 01:59 PM

Thank You for providing a brilliant example of your lack of Discernment.

One Line doth not make a screed. :rolleyes:

Are you saying: one line I Posted = the pages of Ethnic Bigotry es Posts?
That one line is a 'Screed'. if so, you need to use a Dictionary.

And why no answers to my queries?

Friday sundown I shall present my Closing Argument.

I shall expect your and phildee3s Answers to my Queries on my Desk by Friday Noon.

So answer these queries: How do you define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

It's time to answer. :)

snoopsnuffleopagus

19-11-2008, 02:08 PM

One of the Great Ironies of our age is: Many Christians do not realise Yahshua Messiah ia a Jew/Hebrew.

The Correct term is Yahdai, a 'Person of Yahweh'.

Commonly known as Hebrews or Jews.

He was a very devout Yahdai, and wore the Shawl with TzitTzit(Fringed Epaulets). Like a Rabbi. Trained in the Tanakh/OT since birth by His Parents and Teachers.

http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/1_3_BlizBivin_JesusJew.html#101

Jesus a Jew? Says Who?
Dr. Roy Blizzard and David Bivin

As surprising as it may seem, many Christians are not aware that Jesus was a Jew. As a matter of fact, when some hear it said that he was, they get indignant and even mad. This has happened to both authors many times.
"How can you say Jesus was a Jew? Everybody knows he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and is therefore God and not a Jew. He just happened to live among the Jews."

This is a verbatim response to a statement made by Dr. Roy Blizzard during an appearance on Trinity Broadcasting Network on February 21, 1985. The above was not an isolated response to Dr. Blizzard's statement. A number of other viewers reacted in a similar vein. For instance: "What is all this stuff about Jesus being a Jew? He wasn't a Jew; he was the first Christian and the founder of the Christian Church."

It is most unfortunate that this type of thinking is prevalent in Christian circles today. Actually, it is an expression of a subtle, often subconscious, attitude on the part of many Christians that is quite serious and most dangerous. We might even go so far as to define it as "hellish." It is a "hellish," ingrained antisemitism that expresses itself in an unwillingness to accept Jesus as a Jew. The perverted logic is, "How could anyone so dear and precious to me, someone I love so much and to whom I have surrendered my life, be a Jew?"

The authors believe that this type of thinking expresses the conviction of many Christians today. It is usually buried deep within the subconscious mind, or repressed, and only manifests itself overtly when one's spiritual guard is down. It is the result of the spiritual ship of the Word of God being torn loose from the moorings of the historical foundations of biblical faith moorings that were secured firmly in the foundations of historic Judaism. As a result, the spiritual ship has, for centuries, been awash in a sea of pagan theology that has led to the gentilization, i.e., paganization, of the Church. We have forgotten that we were wild olive branches grafted into the natural olive tree.

We have forgotten from whence it is that the branch receives the nourishing sap. We have forgotten that we no longer have pagan ancestors, but our ancestors are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and that we too passed through the sea with Moses. We have lost our affinity to things Jewish and, if you will, to a Jewish Jesus.

The church has failed to recognize for the last 1800 years that the movement to which Jesus gave birth was a Jewish one, totally within the historic Judaism of his day. Further, Jesus himself was a Jew, a rabbi, spoke Hebrew, used well-known rabbinic methods of teaching, and perhaps most importantly, drew largely on the Scriptures and oral traditions of his day in his teaching. It is often overlooked that much of what Jesus said was not new or original but was based on what the rabbis had said and were saying. Jesus was constantly referring back to the Scriptures and to the oral traditions of rabbis who had preceded him or who were his contemporaries.

Unless this fact is clearly understood, one will be greatly confused when an attempt is made to understand the magnificent sayings of our Lord. The above television viewers are obviously unacquainted with the real Jesus. It is the purpose of this article to address the question--Was Jesus a Jew?
It is very difficult for us, almost 2000 years removed from Jesus' day, to project ourselves back across the centuries of time to a culture and language so totally foreign to the western mind of today. And yet, before we can even begin to understand the magnificent and thrilling words of Jesus, that is exactly what we must do.

And again, the first thing that one must realize is that Jesus was a Jew. This fact should be obvious; however, as we have mentioned, it is surprising how many Christians are shocked to learn that Jesus was a Jew. And not just any ordinary Jew. He was a rabbi, a teacher, one learned in the Scriptures and the religious literature of his day, which was considerable.

Let us analyze the logic of the argument that Jesus was not a Jew. The fact that multitudes of Christians believe this is astonishing. Even the skeptics and the agnostics throughout the ages never advanced this argument. To begin with, Jesus' genealogy is Jewish. In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, his lineage is traced back to David and the patriarchs in typical Jewish fashion. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that the child, Jesus, that would be conceived by the Holy Spirit within her womb, would be given "the throne of his ancestor, David" (Luke 1:32). His family was Jewish: his earthly father's name, Joseph, was the second most common Jewish name of the period, exceeded only by the name Simeon. His mother's name, Mary, was the most common Jewish feminine name of the period.

Jesus himself had a common Jewish name(Yahshua). We learn from the inscriptions dating from the first century that the name Jesus was the third most common man's name, tied with the names Judah and Zachariah. He had Jewish relatives: Elizabeth, Zachariah the priest, and their son, John the Baptist, as well as his own brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judah, and his sisters, who are unnamed (Matthew 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3). Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), and since his parents were not from the tribe of Levi, after Mary's purification, "according to the Law of Moses" (Luke 3:21), when Jesus was one month old, he was taken by his parents to Jerusalem for the ceremony known as pidyon ha-ben, or Redemption of the First Born (See Numbers (3:14, 16, 18; 18:15-16). Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem every year to observe the Feast of Passover (Luke 2:41).

Jesus too was an observant Jew. It was his custom to attend the synagogue services on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). According to the Gospels, on at least one occasion (Luke 4:17-20), he was called upon to publicly read from the scriptures in the synagogue, something a non-Jew would never have been asked to do.
Like all observant Jews of the first century, Jesus wore tzitziyot, ("tassels" or "fringes") on the four corners of his robe as commanded in Numbers 15:37-41 (compare Deuteronomy 22:12). We see this dramatically illustrated in the story of the woman who, for twelve years, had suffered from a flow of blood. She was healed when she came up behind him and touched the "fringe of his garment" (Matthew 9:30, parallel to Luke 8:44). References to the fringed garment which Jesus wore can also be found in Mark 5:56 (parallel to Matthew 14:36).

As we have already shown, Jesus himself wore tzitziyot! Furthermore, notice that in the beginning of this passage in Matthew 23, Jesus tells his followers to "practice and observe whatever they [the Pharisees] tell you, but not what they do, because they do not practice what they preach" (Matthew 23:2-3).

Jesus never condemns the custom of wearing phylacteries. Further, had not Jesus worn phylacteries along with fringes, he would surely have been criticized for this by the Pharisees. We can only conclude that in his manner of dress Jesus was just like the other observant Jews of his day.

Those outside the mainstream of Judaism, as well as non-Jews, also testify to his Jewishness. For example, when Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well and asks her for a drink of water, she questions, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (John 4:9). During Jesus' interrogation by Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea (A.D. 26-36), Pilate explodes in frustration, "Am I a Jew?", and then states, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me" (John 18:35).
The skeptics who have tried to discredit Jesus have frequently claimed that Jesus did not believe he was the Messiah, nor claim to be the Messiah: but none have ever accused Jesus of not being a Jew. And it is no wonder. In view of the evidence, if Jesus was not a Jew, who is, or who was?

snoopsnuffleopagus

19-11-2008, 02:22 PM

Yes; Yahshau Messiah is Hebrew/Jewish, so Hebrew is His Native tongue.
A unique thing about Yahshua, amongst many unique characteristics is; By the Time He reached Adulthood, He was utilising %100 Percent of His Brain/Mind.

I would think He was quite adept at Linguistics.

One of the Queries my Honourable Opposition are too timid to answer is: 'First to the Yahdai; then to the Greek'. What does that mean?

It means the Teachings of Yahweh and Yahshua FIRST were taught to the Yahdai/Hebrews, then it was taught to the Greek/Gentile.

http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/1_2_Bliz_JesusSpokeHebrew.html#101

Jesus Spoke Hebrew! Says Who?
by Dr. Roy B. Blizzard, Jr.

It has been almost four* years since our book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin and me first appeared. Since that time, it has become a "best seller," is in the process of being translated into Dutch and Spanish, and is about ready for the fourth printing. In addition, the book has been reviewed in several major publications, and all of them have given it a good report. However, in spite of the wide circulation and publicity that it has enjoyed, many people continue to be amazed when they hear me state that Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew. Those who have not read this book or who hear me speak for the first time frequently ask, "How do you know Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew?"

This question was the very reason Mr. Bivin and I wrote the book. And I think that it is important to note that the book was intentionally written in a style that the average reader could understand, and not principally for scholars. Almost every real criticism the book has received (in critical reviews) has been that it was written in a "popular style." Actually, Mr. Bivin and I take that as a compliment rather than a criticism, as it was our design and intent from the start that the book should be written in such a way that the average reader could understand it.

In Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, we present considerable evidence to conclusively establish that:

* Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew;

* Hebrew was the language of the common person in Judea in Jesus' day;

* The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were all based on an original Life Story of Jesus that was written originally in Hebrew and not in Aramaic or in Greek.

These facts have long been known by scholars in Israel, but are only now being introduced into countries outside of Israel. The reasons for this are simply that our research in Israel is years ahead of publication, and second, that scholarship in this country by and large has not kept up with the research and discoveries in Israel. This is one reason I believe that the Yavo Digest can be an important source of information and learning for you, and why I sincerely hope you will subscribe to it for yourself and perhaps for some of your friends as well. There is so much that we have to share and so little of it has yet been presented in written form.

What evidence do we have that established unequivocally that Hebrew was the language Jesus spoke and in which He taught?

The Testimony of Early Christian Writers

Early Christian writers who mention the subject are all in unanimous agreement that the original Gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew. The earliest of these writers was Papias (Fragment 6), dating from about A.D. 167, who records, "Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III,39,1). Irenaeus, one of the earliest of the Church Fathers, confirms Papias' statement a few years later when he writes, "Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue" (ibid, V,8,2). A Jewish believer named Hegesippus is reported to "draw occasionally on the Gospel of the Hebrews ... and particularly on works in Hebrew" (ibid. IV,22,4).

However, the most dramatic testimony to the existence of an original Hebrew Gospel is the well-known Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin in Bethlehem circa A.D. 400. In Jerome's extensive writings there are nineteen passages that speak of a "Hebrew Gospel" or a Gospel "according to the Hebrews." On one occasion he speaks of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" which, he says, "I have recently translated into Greek and Latin" (De vir. ill., II). On another occasion he writes, "In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use, which we have translated recently from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many ..." (In Matt., 12,13). His most interesting and telling statement can be found in "Lives of Illustrious Men," 3, in Volume 3 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Father, edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace, page 362.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint, but the Hebrew.

Epiphanius (4th century A.D.) Describes the "Nazoraioi" (Jewish believers) as "painstakingly cultivating the Hebrew language in which they read both the Old Testament and the Gospel according to Matthew" (Panarion 1,29,7 and 9). Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandria, relates having found the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as far away as in India (Eusebius, op. cit., V,10,3).

Coins and Inscriptions

Although there is a difference of opinion among scholars currently working in the field as to the importance of coins in deciding the language of Israel in the first centuries B.C./A.D., I believe coins and inscriptions are an important tool for determining the principal spoken language of this period. In my view, the evidence of coinage is dramatic. From the fourth century B.C. until the end of the Bar-Cochba Revolt in A.D. 135--the entire history of Jewish coinage--only one coin is inscribed in Aramaic (Alexander Jannaeus, 103-76 B.C.). All the rest are in Hebrew.

In addition, there is considerable epigraphical evidence from the period to establish Hebrew as the principal spoken language. In excavations in occupation levels from the first centuries B.C./A.D. at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, not one Aramaic inscription has been found. However, several exciting and important Hebrew inscriptions have been found (see UDWJ, pgs. 58-59). At Masada, Herod's fortress on the Dead Sea, the epigraphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4000 coins, and more than 700 inscribed pottery fragments. In these, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.

Inscriptions on pottery vessels, burial ossuaries, tombs, walls, mosaic floors, and so on, all attest to Hebrew as the spoken and written language of the common people.

Of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide for us one of the most dramatic and significant of the epigraphical evidences for Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls include nearly 600 partial manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, indicated by some 40,000 fragments. The most telling evidence of the scrolls is found in the sectarian scrolls and the commentaries on the biblical scrolls. In the sectarian scrolls, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic is, again, nine to one, but all of the commentaries are in Hebrew. It is impossible to conclude that a commentary on the Scripture would be written in a language other than the popular language of the people.

Evidence from the New Testament Text

The most conclusive evidence for Hebrew as the principal language behind not just the Synoptic Gospels, but the New Testament in its entirety, is the text itself. The New Testament is literally filled with semitisms: Hebrew vocabulary, Hebrew syntax, Hebrew idioms, Hebrew thought patterns, and Hebrew theology. Moulton and Howard have compiled an impressive 72-page-long list of Hebrew expressions and idioms found in the New Testament in their Grammar, Vol. 2, pgs. 413-485. Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a member of The Jerusalem School for the Study of the Synoptic Gospels, has emphatically stated, "Of the hundreds of Semitic idioms in the Synoptic Gospels, most can be explained on the basis of Hebrew only, while there are no Semitisms which could only be Aramaic without also being good Hebrew." Joining Professor Flusser are such notable scholars as Pinchas Lapide (Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv), Frank Cross (Harvard University), William Sanford LaSor (Fuller Seminary), Harris Birkland, and J.T. Milik. Even Moshe Bar-Asher, the prominent Aramaic scholar at the Hebrew University, has stated that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to an original Hebrew--and not Aramaic--document.

To the New Testament scholar fluent in both Hebrew and Greek, it is immediately apparent that the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels, the first fifteen chapters of the Book of Acts, the Book of Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation, as well as vast portions of the remaining portions of the New Testament text, is not Greek at all, but Hebrew in Greek dress. However, there is an important fact that cannot be over-emphasized: To the scholar fluent in Hebrew, it is additionally apparent that the thought patterns behind the entire New Testament are Hebrew, and not Aramaic or Greek.
If you are interested in further study on the subject of Hebrew as the language of Jesus and the common people of his day, I recommend the following tape series: "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus," "Nuggets from the Sermon on the Mount," "Foundations of Faith," and "Jesus the Rabbi and His Rabbinic Method of Teaching."

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdul-rahman_klimaszewski/language_jesus_spoke.htm

sparrow7

21-11-2008, 03:39 AM

they are changing His words!--

book of yahweh, second edition, but i heard that it is also written in their very first edition:

john (yahchanan) 8:58:
Yahshua said to them: Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham has risen, I will be.

KJV) The Savior said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(NASB) The Savior said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
(ESV) The Savior said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am

http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/main.do?mainContent=true

εἰμί (eimi 1510)
1. is (forasmuch as-, he-, seeing that-, she-, it-, that-, there-, when-, which-, while-, who-)
I am, the ordinary state of existence, * with pronoun ἔγω (egō 1473), I.
(a) ἐστί (esti) or ἐστίν (estin) (3rd person singular present) he, she, or it is.
(b) ἐστέ (este) ye...are, * with pronoun ὑμεῖς (humeis 5210) you or ye.
(c) subjunctive, may be.
(d) εἶναι (einai) to be, Infinitive with Accusative, that...is.
* with "that" understood.
† with δία τό (dia 1223 to 3588), because of being...
(e) ὤν, οὖσα, ὄν (ōn, ousa, on) being (participle)
* with Accusative of noun preceding, that...is; † with article preceding, who is, the one who is.
(f) Imperfect, he, she, it was.
Reference(s)

2. were
I am (the ordinary state of existence).
(a) ἐστί (esti) he, she, it, is (3rd person, singular present indicative).
(b) εἰσί (eisi) they are (3rd person plural present indicative).
(c) subjunctive, may be.
(d) optative, might be.
(e) infinitive, εἶναι (einai) to be.
* with Accusative, that... is, etc.
† with ἐν τῳ (en 1722 tōi) in the... being, etc.
‡ with διὰ τὸ (dia to) on account of the... being, etc.
(f) ὤν, οὖσα, ὄν (ōn, ousa, on) being (participle).
(g) imperfect, ἦσαν (ēsan), etc., they were, etc.
Reference(s)

3. was (he, she, it, there)
I am (the ordinary state of existence).
* with pronoun ἔγω (egō 1473) I.
(a) ἐστί (esti) he, she, or it is (3rd person singular present indicative).
(b) Optative, εἴη (eiē), etc., might be.
(c) εἰναι (einai) to be (infinitive).
* with Accusative of noun, that is, etc. (“that” being sometimes understood).
† with διὰ τὸ (dia to) on account of, for the sake of, because of... being.
‡ with ἐν τῷ (en 1722 tōi) in the being, etc.
(d) ὤν οὖσα, ὄν (ōn ousa, on) being (participle).
* with Accusative, before it, that... is, etc.
(e) ἦν (ēn) or ἤμην (ēmēn) he, she, or it was.
Reference(s)

4. are (we, ye, they, seeing, inasmuch, that, who)
I am, the ordinary state of existence (for the difference between this and γίνομαι (ginomai 1096),. See Heb 11:6, etc.)
(a) ἐστί (esti) or ἐστίν (estin) (3 person singular present) he, she, or it is. When used with plural noun marked with (*) as 1a*.
(b) ἐσμέν (esmen) we...are; are we. When the personal pronoun ἡμεῖς (hēmeis 2249) we is prefixed, marked with (*) as 1b*.
(c) ἐστέ (este) ye...are, are ye. When the person pronoun ὑμεῖς (humeis 5210), you or ye, is prefixed, marked *.
(d) εἰσί (eisi) or εἰσίν (eisin) they are; are they.
(e) εἶναι (einai) inf., to be. * with the Accusative preceding — that... is, are, etc. † with εἰς τὸ (eis 1519 to) the... being, to the end... might be.
(f) ὢν, οὖσα, ὂν (ōn, ousa, on) participle, being; with article, he who is, they who are, etc.
Reference(s)

5. have -ing, -had, -hast, -hath
to be, to exist, to have existence.
(a) εἰσί (eisi) (3rd person singular present tense) it is.
* with Dative is to me, is to him, or for him.
† with Genitive of this... is, etc.
‡ with ἐν (en 1722) in; is in [that is to say, if there is in you any, etc.]
(b) εἰσί (eisi) (3rd person plural present tense) with Dative there are to us, that is to say, we have.
(c) ἦν (ēn) (3rd person singular Imperfect tense) he, she, or it was.
* with Dative there was, or were to us, or them, that is to say, they had.
† with ἔχων (echōn) having (participle of ἔχω (echō 2192)), was having.
(d) ἔσται (estai) etc. (Future) he, she, or it shall be, shall there be, or there shall be to him, or us, etc.
* with Genitive, shall be theirs.
† with Dative, shall be to him, her, or them.
(e) οὖσα (ousa) (present participle feminine) with ἐν (en 1722) in, being in, that is to say, having.
Reference(s)

6. am (I) and I am
I am. When this is rendered by the personal pronoun (ἐγώ (egō 1473) I), an asterisk is affixed.
Reference(s)

7. come -est, -eth, -ing, came
to be (of ordinary existence) to exist, to have existence, Php 2:6 (whereas γίνομαι (ginomai 1096) means to become, Jas. 1:22).
(a) ἐστί (esti) (present) he, she, or it is.
(b) ἕσται (hestai) (future) he, she, or it shall be.
(c) εἶναι (einai) (infinitive present) to be.
d) ἔσεσθαι (esesthai) (infinitive future) to be about to be; here (Act 24:15), with μέλλω (mellō 3195) preceding, see μέλλω (mellō 3195)).
Reference(s)

8. been (had, hath, hast, hadst, have (should), have (to), had (that), hast (that), have been, with, having)
I am (the ordinary state of existence).
(a) ἐστί (esti) he, she, it is (3 person singular present indicative).
(b) ἐστέ (este) ye... are (2 person plural present indicative).
(c) εἶναι (einai) to be (infinitive) *with the Accusative of the noun, that... been.
(d) ὤν, οὖσα, ὄν (ōn, ousa, on) being (participle).
(e) ἦν (ēn) etc., he, she, it, was, etc. (imperfect).
Reference(s)

9. agree -d
to be, with.
Reference(s)

10. consist -eth
to be, the ordinary verb of existence.
Reference(s)

11. begin to be
I am, the verb of ordinary existence.
12. make -est, -eth, -ing
to be; here, 3rd person present singular, ἐστί (esti) is.
In phrases:
1. ἀλλὰ προσκαιροί εἰσιν (alla proskairoi eisin) time (endure but for a); are but for a season.
ἀλλὰ (alla) but.
προσκαιροί (proskairoi) for a season.
εἰσιν (eisin) are.
Reference(s)

2. ἀνάγκη ἔστιν (anankē 318 estin) needs be (it must)
ἀνάγκη (anankē 318), necessity, need, arising from constraint
ἔστιν (estin), it is, there is
3. αναντίρρητος εἰμί (anantirrētos 368 eimi 1510) spoken against (cannot be); are not to be contradicted.
αναντίρρητος (anantirrētos 368) not to be contradicted.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
4. γεγραμέμνον ἦν (gegramemnon ēn) writing was (the); it had been written.
ἦν (ēn) it was.
γεγραμέμνον (gegramemnon) written.
5. γνωστόν ἐστίν ἡμῖν (gnōston estin hēmin) know -est,-eth,-ing; knew, -est; it is know to us.
γνωστόν (gnōston) known.
ἐστίν (estin) it is.
ἡμῖν (hēmin) to us.
6. δέον ἐστί (deon esti) ought [verb] -est; it is necessary, there is need, must needs.
δέον (deon) necessary, proper (particularly of δεῖ (dei 1163)).
ἐστί (esti) it is, there is.
7. δέον ἐστίν (deon estin) need be; not moral necessity, but logical; from the circumstances or nature of the case
δέον (deon) necessary, proper.
ἐστίν (estin) it is.
8. εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν (eiē eis 1519 apōleian) perish -ed, -eth
εἴη (eiē) might it be.
εἰς (eis 1519) for.
ἀπώλειαν (apōleian) destruction.
Reference(s)

9. εἰμί ἀπείραστος (eimi 1510 apeirastos 551) tempted (cannot be); literally, is not be tempted.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
10. εἰμί ἀρεστός (eimi 1510 arestos 701) please -ed, -ing
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ἀρεστός (arestos 701) pleasing, acceptable, grateful to.
11. εἰμί ἀρκετός (eimi 1510 arketos) suffice -eth
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ἀρκετός (arketos) sufficient.
12. εἰμί ἔντρομος (eimi 1510 entromos 1790) quake;.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) I am.
ἔντρομος (entromos 1790) in trembling, that is to say trembling with fear.
13. εἰμί ἐπί (eimi 1510 epi 1909) charge of (have the)
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ἐπί (epi 1909) over.
κατά (kata 2596) against.
Reference(s)

14. εἰμί θυμομαχῶν (eimi 1510 thumomachōn) hostile mind tending to war with [marginal] (bear a)
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
θυμομαχῶν (thumomachōn) fighting desperately, having a hot quarrel.
15. εἰμί ἴσος (eimi 1510 isos 2470) agree -d; to be equal.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ἴσος (isos 2470) equal ( in quality, quantity or dignity).
16. εἰμί μετά (eimi 1510 meta 3326) follow; literally “which is after”.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
μετά (meta 3326) after.
17. εἰμί πάροικος (eimi 1510 paroikos 3941) sojourn -ed
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
18. εἰμί πρόσκαιρος (eimi 1510 proskairos 4340) while (dure for a)
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
πρόσκαιρος (proskairos 4340) for a season.
19. εἰμί ὑπέρακμος (eimi 1510 huperakmos 5230) flower of one's age (pass the); past or beyond the bloom of youth or flower of life.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ὑπέρακμος (huperakmos 5230) beyond the point.
Reference(s)

20. εἰμί φανερός (eimi 1510 phaneros 5318) appear -ed, -eth; be visible, open to sight, etc.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
φανερός (phaneros 5318) visible, manifest, open to sight.
21. εἰμί ὠφέλιμος (eimi 1510 ōphelimos 5624) profit [verb] -ed, -eth; to be advantageous.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
ὠφέλιμος (ōphelimos 5624) helping, aiding.
Reference(s)

22. εἰς εἶναι (eis 1519 einai) may be, might be (that...); with a view to there being (expressing purpose).
εἰς (eis 1519) unto, with a view to.
εἶναι (einai) to be (infinitive of εἰμί (eimi 1510)).
23. εἰς τὸ εἶναι (eis 1519 to einai) may be; to the end [they] might be.
εἰς (eis 1519) unto, with a view to.
τὸ (to) the.
εἶναι (einai) to be.
Reference(s)

24. ἔκφοβος εἰμί (ekphobos 1630 eimi 1510) fear exceedingly; literally “frightened, out right am I”.
ἔκφοβος (ekphobos 1630) frightened outright or out of one's senses.
εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be.
25. ἐν βάρει εἶναι (en 1722 barei einai) authority (use) [marginal]
ἐν (en 1722), in.
βάρει (barei), the pressure of a weight.
εἶναι (einai), to be.
26. ἐπιβουλή μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι (epiboulē 1917 mellein esesthai) lay wait
ἐπιβουλή (epiboulē 1917) counsel upon or against, plot.
μέλλειν (mellein) to be on the point to.
ἔσεσθαι (esesthai) to be about to be.
27. ἐσμέν ἡλπικότες (esmen hēlpikotes) hope (we have); we have been hoping (implying the endurance of the hope through our lives).
ἐσμέν (esmen) we are.
ἡλπικότες (hēlpikotes) who have been hoping.
28. ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν (estai ho 3588 sulagōgōn) spoil [verb] -ed; [Here, literally, “lest some one there shall be who is, etc.” The “you” is emphatic, and the verb in the future implies present danger more than mere possibility.]
ἔσται (estai) there shall be.
ὁ (ho 3588) who, [is].
συλαγωγῶν (sulagōgōn) leading [you] off as a prey.
Reference(s)

29. ἐστέ γινώσοντες (este ginōsontes) ye know
ἐστέ (este) ye are [ἴστε (iste) ye know (of internal conscious knowledge) G L T Tr A א].
γινώσοντες (ginōsontes) knowing (implying objective acquaintance) taking note.
30. ἐστί ἀπόθεσις (esti apothesis 595) put off (must)
ἐστί (esti) is.
ἀπόθεσις (apothesis 595) the putting off.
31. ἦν διανυκτερεύω (ēn dianuktereuō 1273) continue all night; was passing or spending the night.
ἦν (ēn) was.
διανυκτερεύω (dianuktereuō 1273) to bring the night through, pass the night.
Reference(s)

32. ἴσθι ἐν (isthi en 1722) give thyself wholly to
ἴσθι (isthi) be thou (Imperfect of εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be).
ἐν (en 1722) in.
33. καίπερ ὤν (kaiper 2539 ōn) though... were; even though [he was] indeed.
καίπερ (kaiper 2539) even indeed.
ὤν (ōn) being.
Reference(s)

34. κατά ἐξοχήν ὤν (kata 2596 exochēn ōn) principal; being of eminence, or distinction.
κατά (kata 2596) according to.
ἐξοχήν (exochēn) eminence.
ὤν (ōn) being.
35. μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι (mellein esesthai) shall be (that there)
μέλλειν (mellein) there is about.
ἔσεσθαι (esesthai) to be.
Reference(s)

36. ὅ ἐστί (ho esti) called
ὅ (ho) which.
ἐστί (esti) is.
37. ὁ ἦν καὶ ὤν καὶ ὀ ἐρχόμενος (ho 3588 ēn kai ōn kai o 3588 erchomenos) which was, and is, and is to come; which was, and art, and art the coming one.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one [who].
ἦν (ēn) was.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὤν (ōn) being.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὀ (o 3588) the.
ἐρχόμενος (erchomenos) coming one.
38. ὀ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἧν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (o 3588 ōn kai ho 3588 hēn kai ho 3588 erchomenos) which art, and wast, and art to come; who art, and who wast, and the coming one.
ὀ (o 3588) the one.
ὢν (ōn) being.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one [who].
ἧν (hēn) wast.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the.
ἐρχόμενος (erchomenos) coming one.
39. ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (ho 3588 ōn kai ho 3588 ēn kai ho 3588 erchomenos) which is, and which was, and which is to come; who art, and who wast, and the coming one.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one.
ὤν (ōn) being.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one [who].
ἦν (ēn) was.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the.
ἐρχόμενος (erchomenos) coming one.
40. ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος (ho 3588 ōn kai ho 3588 ēn kai ho 3588 hosios 3741) which art, and wast, and shalt be; who art, and who wast, and the holy one.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one.
ὢν (ōn) being.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the one [who].
ἦν (ēn) wast.
καὶ (kai) and.
ὁ (ho 3588) the.
ὅσιος (hosios 3741) the holy one.
41. ὅστε εἶναι (hoste einai) may be, might be (that...); so as to be (expressing result and consequence).
ὅστε (hoste) so as, so as to.
εἶναι (einai) to be, (infinitive of εἰμί (eimi 1510)).
42. οὐ ὑμεῖς ἐστέ (ou 3756 humeis 5210 este) ye (it is not); ye are not, it is not ye.
οὐ (ou 3756) not
ὑμεῖς (humeis 5210) ye, (emphatic).
ἐστέ (este) ye are.
43. οὐκ ἐστί (ouk esti) we can not; it is not [needful, etc.].
οὐκ (ouk) not.
ἐστί (esti) it is.
44. οὐκ ἔστιν ἔως ἑνός (ouk estin eōs 2193 henos) one (no, not); there is not even one.
οὐκ (ouk) not.
ἔστιν (estin) there is.
ἔως (eōs 2193) even, unto.
ἑνός (henos) one.
45. οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός (ouk estin heōs 2193 henos) no, not one; there is not so much as one.
οὐκ (ouk) not
ἔστιν (estin) there is.
ἕως (heōs 2193) unto, as far as.
ἑνός (henos) one.
οὐ (ou 3756) no, not.
μή (mē 3361) no, not.
Reference(s)

46. οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη (ouk estin hēmin hē palē 3823) wrestle not (we); the wrestling (or struggling) for us is not.
οὐκ (ouk) not
ἔστιν (estin) is.
ἡμῖν (hēmin) to us.
ἡ (hē) the.
πάλη (palē 3823) a wrestling (from πάλλω (pallō) to vibrate) a struggling.
Reference(s)

47. οὐκ ἤμην (ouk ēmēn) should not be (I); I indeed were not, I should not have been (here, with ἄν (an 302) indicating that he did not seek to please men, and therefore he teas the servant of Christ).
οὐκ (ouk) not.
ἤμην (ēmēn) I should have been.
48. οὐκ ὄντος αὐτῷ (ouk ontos autōi) had no (when as yet he); there not being to him, or, he not having.
οὐκ (ouk) not.
ὄντος (ontos) being.
αὐτῷ (autōi) to him.
Reference(s)

49. οὔσης ὀψία (ousēs opsia) evening (at); it being late.
οὔσης (ousēs) being (participle of εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be).
ὀψία (opsia) late.
50. τὸ ἐσόμενον (to esomenon) follow (what should)
τὸ (to) the thing.
ἐσόμενον (esomenon) about to be.
51. τοῦτο ἐστί (touto esti) that is
τοῦτο (touto) this thing (this here).
ἐστί (esti) is.
52. φιλανδρους εἶναι (philandrous einai) husbands (love one's)
φιλανδρους (philandrous) a lover of a husband, husband-lover.
εἶναι (einai) to be.
Reference(s)

53. ὡς ὄντα (hōs 5613 onta) though they were (as)
ὡς (hōs 5613) as.
ὄντα (onta) things that are (neutral plural participle ο (o 3588)f εἰμί (eimi 1510) to be).
Reference(s)

54. ὥστε εἶναι (hōste 5620 einai) that... might be; so that... might be, so that... are [turned], that... should be.
ὥστε (hōste 5620) so that...
εἶναι (einai) to be.

coshh

25-11-2008, 06:21 PM

1. As I asked elsewhere: What is justice in your opinion?

Reading over the thread I am induced to say:
2.I am ordained in the minor orders of the Old Catholic Church (up to, and including, the office of acolyte). ...minor orders are not really ordination in the proper sense.

3.
Only creator-worshippers have a specific "day of rest," in honor of their gods.

No, there is not,
and I never said that he was a "negative" entity.

Creation is a very positive act. The creator, therefore, is a "positive" entity!
In fact, creation is the most positive thing possible!
It's opposite, destruction, is negative.

The "father" of YHVH, the all-that-is, is a perfect balance of positive and negative.
Define "positive" and "negative" in this context.
What you are saying here sounds almost like typical neo-platonic Christianity (similar to the stuff Meister Eckhart taught, although it is notable that he willingly state he renounced any interpretation of his words which was in opposition to the teaching of the RCC). The whole Godhead who is entirely ineffable sort of lingering above/beyond the Trinity. I happen to quite like Eckhart although I agree with the Church that a lot of his stuff is easy to take the wrong way.

I of course would reject any distinction between the Godhead and the Trinity - the Trinity is a form of words to explain how the Godhead has interacted with creation.

4. The all-that-is.
The answers to your questions, snoops, are not to be found in books, belief systems or any external source. They can only be found within yourself.

A lot of error can be found within yourself. On what basis are you so confident that you find the one and not the other? Every madman thinks he holds the truth after all.
What is your take on immanentism?
http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilmodern.htm#intro

5.Yes.
Even more than YHVH.
You think that the Virgin Mary has been around longer than the Father...?
How is that possible when she is human and all the persons of God have always existed?

6.

And as for the Mother of God being created by her own grandson...
I think I'd better meditate on that one!!!

If you meant "son" it makes sense to me... "eternally begotten of the Father" means at the very least Mary could not precede Him. But... grandson... no idea what you are getting at with that.

7.
In the non-physical realms there is no such thing as gender as we know it (ie. beings that have complimentary genitalia for the purpose of reproduction).

Any form of reproduction is asexual and occurs more like cell division (although this analogy is still "wanting.")

Beings eminate from other beings.

The "parent spirit" is then as a mother is to a child (hence Theotokos) -
but still genderless.

"Progenitor" would be a better word than either "Mother" or "Father," though both have been used where "progenitor" would make the matter clearer to our understanding.
RCC doctrine is not wholly dissimilar though there are differences, at least God and the angels do not literally have gender (well, Jesus in the incarnation does...) rather God is referred to as He because whilst a mother and her offspring are (at least for 9 months) of the same body, male reproduction is a distant, outpouring (and again, female reproduction is receptive) - and God is wholly other to creation, His relation is one of independence to us (though we are dependent on Him) and He creates through outpouring.

8.I won't give such strong meat to one who is still learning to digest milk.

You've been eating alot of it lately and it really doesn't agree with you.It was rhetorically ineffective when St. Paul did it, and it's rhetorically ineffective now.
I know that Paul had problems with this one too, but humility is a virtue.:p

10.What about the commandment thou shall not kill.

Yahweh then commands his followers go and kill every man woman and child of gentiles in the local area etc etc.
Technically the commandment is thou shall not murder... which is different to thou shalt not kill. Which is not to say I am particularly at ease with ancient warfare practices.

11. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
now hear the word of YHVH.

Written in books,
dem stuffy, old, decaying books.The Word is a lot more than just the Bible... (or the ECFs! :p)

Where is the life??

It's not in "history" or "law,"
vengeance or retribution,
punishment and fear.Au Contrair, life is in those and much more. It is in anarchy and law both. Vengence and reconcilliation both. Punishment and mercy both. Fear and attraction both. And history is alive in the mind of God and the communion of saints.

It pumps the blood, pulsating through one's veins
and inspires the mind with flashes of vision -
glimpses of eternal truth,How do you know you've not glimpsed delusion instead?
lifting the soul to oneness with the source
which the creator of decaying flesh once fashioned
into fantastic, complex forms - now dead -
but rising, like the phoenix, soul transcends
in freedom from the bonds of law,
- and stuffy books.I don't know why you hate law so much. Law is fun. Law makes things possible. Form makes things possible. The thing that disturbs me about gnosticism is the same as what disturbs me about buddhism - there is an ideal, that is a million times more dead than the books you decry there in it all, an ideal which, however much you deny it, says that existence as anything specific is abominable because the particular means exclusivity, the particular means some squares are white and some squares are black and a rook and a pawn and a queen can't move the same way as each other. It's an ideal that hates all real life because real life involves restrictions in places and liberty in other places instead of a dull gray uniform antinomianism.

The eye of the eternal soul now sees
what analytic brain and pen once sought,
and finding - through the letting go
of concepts lost through clinging to
and passing on as teachings, laws, commandments -
all weighed down by desperate need to hold,
but freeing now the dove of mind
imagination soars into the all-that-is,
and, for the first time, truly knows.I have something better than knowing and that is loving. It sounds horrendously cheesy but I would gladly renounce every kind of knowing for that loving. 2 years ago me would vomit at that thought, but there it is.

12. Neither Plontinus or Celsus were pagans.
Ploninus was of Aleaxandria, Celsus resided in Rome.
Both were very much city folk.The etymology of a word is not always a good indicator of current usage.

John the Baptist, Jesus and the twelve rejected city life and went out into the wilderness to commune with "the father." In the above quote, from Jesus, "the world" refers to the civilised, city world and proves the following statement:

Original Christianity is pagan.See last comment.

It was (and is) totally compatible with true druidism and other nature religions.
Christianity was first assimilated by that Celtic, priestly class in northern Europe as "Celtic Christianity," which was brutally wiped out by Charlemagne.1. What did Charlemagne do with the Celtic Christians? He hardly paid any notice to Britain at all.
St. Thomas Aquinas said Elemental Spirits existed and were neither good nor evil - but that doesn't make it cool to worship them (or manipulate them to get what you want).

My religion is not cosmopolitan, snoops. It is pagan -
Celtic Christianity.
Neither is it gnosicism.
Gnosticism is a methodology, which I apply to my religion.Celtic Christianity is dead. There is no link of continuity to its practices and what we know of it in the present day is basically that it was like Catholicism except with a different calender and tonsure. So you have done one of two things, either made up some new syncretic religion and called it "Celtic Christianity" or used your magic gnosis powers of knowingbetterthaneveryoneelse +5againstbeingrequiredtogiveevidence +7savingthrowagainstevilrationality to discover esoteric truths which you have systemised into a new religion which you have called "Celtic Christianity" - without continuity with the past that's the best you can do.

13.

The reason why Christianity took root in Glastonbury is because it was a major centre of druidism when the first missionaries arrived.
That they were empowered by a supernatural force to overcome the "evil pagans" is a Roman lie. They were given sanctuary by the druids, who recognised their common faith (and gnosis!).

Sheer Counterhistory.

14. If he had have done that they would have crowned him with gold, which is very much what they wanted, instead of a crown of thorns.

Anyway, I am tired of trawling through all this stuff :p I have one more post to make but I will put it in another post because its tone is different.
They tried to crown Jesus as king, but Jesus refused. Only later did they have him killed. They rejected Him because they had rejected God for the most part at this point. But Jesus willed what happened to him, without His sacrifice there would be no resurrection, with it death is conquered.

coshh

25-11-2008, 06:47 PM

I want to discuss my background a bit. If we are going to have a fruitful discussion it will help for you to know where I am coming from. (Feel free to do the same if you wish, although if your claim of "gnosis" is correct I suppose it shouldn't matter in your case).

I have two "pagan" parents, whom I love dearly and grew up surrounded by what could loosely be termed a "magical" world view (although my dad being a scientist tempered that a little bit, though <3 Paul Feyerabend!). Until very recently I was not interested in Christianity except as a sort of curiosity and something to argue with atheists about (because arguing with atheists is fun even if it means defending Christianity). For most of my "conscious" life I have had no religion but been a marxist who tended to indulge in grandiose magical thinking (I was - despite marxisms requirement of materialism - prone to the view that ideas had will and that they sought to make men the instruments of their will and had many interesting interactions, positive and negative, with ideas on this basis).

There was a time when the idea of casting off the body and becoming pure spirit without limitations was ...desperately appealing to me. I got myself into frenzies of "loathing the flesh" and it was an odd time for me. I snapped out of it almost instantaneously after I had a dream. In the dream I was riding in a car with a woman who was god, who wore a lime green/yellow dress. I simply knew she was god at the time (although now I do not believe she was God). She implored to me that I must kill a baby, because the baby was evil, and I could not do otherwise than do what she said. I killed the baby (and though it was a dream, still suffer some guilt for that) and in an instant realised what I had done and felt sick to my stomach. Suddenly the true nature of this woman became known to me, full of the most horrendous rage and hatred toward all life, because life had ruined the perfection of her world of pure spirit. Which had none of the messyness, none of the "grasping", none of the "impurity" of life, which seeks and grows and splits and replicates and imposes itself on anything and everything.
And I felt so sad for her, for this god who hated the world, who was disgusted with us, and being that until that moment in which I killed for her I had agreed with her about life I felt doubly compassionate to her, and I knew her and loved her and she was terrified of US. And at the same time as loving her and understanding her more deeply than I can explain, I knew what a threat she was to life, I knew how deeply her hate had gone, how mad it had made her, how dangerous she was. Yet at this point, I was but a pinprick and she was so much more.

Then I awoke, and stumbled out of bed, only to watch everything disintegrate before my eyes as I collapsed onto the floor. And then true terror hit me as I contemplated the idea I truly had perhaps destroyed it all!
Then I awoke again on the floor, relived that the world, that I never knew I loved, remained intact.

My suspiciousness toward both Buddhism and gnosticism are largely reinforced by that - which for one little dream was a major turning point in my life.

A few years later I became extremely interested in various types of esotericism. It was very easy to bullshit it (although I believed the stuff that came out of my mouth in those days), people would remark how wise I was when in fact I was just stating platitudes in pretty language. I got heavily into Rene Guenon and Radical Traditionalism, and I was a little too interested in both the whole "Germanic" blah blah and Brahminism. I was never quite ruthless enough to be a hitlerist, but I got close, I was determined to be a light in the dark world of fascist esotericism, to prove it was possible to be in that milieu and at the same time retain compassion, mercy and understanding. But it did not work, and I drifted away, though still holding to some basic ideas.

I came to Christianity through the ideas of Vedanta. Weirdly enough... it doesn't really make sense to me now, but its how it happened, and I went with it. I am certain God had far more to do with it than I did. As I mentioned earlier, I enjoyed arguing with atheists, I was typing out for them "I am an atheist but..." for one argument, then suddenly it hit me I was lying. I was not an atheist, I had not been for so long...

After that everything began to move quickly. At first I arrogantly assumed I would join the Catholic Church in order to save it from modernism! HAHA. God indulged my silly fantasies to get me there then I noticed it was not nearly as bad as people say (which is not to say it is perfect).
At first I was ridiculously ultramontane! God sorted that one out too.
I prayed to God to say that since He can do anything, He can make me a saint - all I wanted then was to be a saint! I read Emil Cioran's book tears and saints - Emil Cioran btw is an aphorist (I have no idea his beleifs about anything, he never lets on if he agrees with what he writes, its all artistic outpourings of existential anguish, I adore it, the first book of his I read I screamed and laughed and shouted "He Knows!" "Someone Knows!" - I miss Cioran muchly, though I never knew him).
God informed me that Christianity is not about becoming a saint, some personal project for perfection! It is about a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I assented. I still would like to be a saint (and I was never good at humility!). But I would give it up a thousandfold just to bask in God's love.

snoopsnuffleopagus

04-12-2009, 08:03 PM

Phildee3; Kasalt:

It has been more then one year since I posted my queries.

1: So answer these queries: How do you Biblically define Righteous/ness; Sin; Iniquity?

2: Why does Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles constantly; throughout the entire New Testament: Cite and Quote Directly from the Tanakh/Old Testament, the words of Yahweh, and Yahwehs Patriarchs and Prophets and tell everybody to Heed Them?

2: Do you deny that Yahshua HaMessiah and His Apostles were Torah Conscious and Observant Jews?

3: Do you deny they went to the Synagogues on Yahwehs Sabbath and read from the Tanach?

4: They taught all Humans, Jews and Gentiles about Torah Consciousness and Torah Observation.

Bonus Query: You say the Patriarchs and Prophets of Yahweh are deceived; How So?

The Conclusion I have reached after exercising Due Diligence by surveying Broad Spectrums of Data Relevant to the Topic at Hand, gnosis of christianity is: Ludicrous; Deceitful and Counterproductive.

Ludicrous: It's number one Core Doctrine is: Yahweh is not the'god' of the 'new testament'. I, personally cannot think of anyother premise that is more preposterous. The Subject of every Verse of Scripture from Bereshith/genesis to Revelation is Yahweh. And ALL the Prophets only prophecied of Yahshua Messiah.

The entirety of Scripture was written by men Inspired by Yahweh, thus all Scripture is: D.R.T.R. Data Resistant To Reinterpretation. It is all interlocked and bolsters and supports itself. There is Corporate Solidarity and Univocity.

To say Yahweh is not the 'god of the 'new testament' is a gossamer assertion that does not have one Verse of Yahwehs Scripture to support it.

This is Hubris of unequaled proportions; a pissant mortal human 'thinks' they can remove Yahweh from Scripture He was the Inspiration for.

:rolleyes: X Infinity and then some.

What is sad is, it is a Lie, it is untruthful.

What begins in deceit ends in defeat.

So gnosis of christianity has no Foundation to build upon. Just assertion.

Their Core Message is the Exact Same as the Serpent told Mother Eve, in Yahwehs Garden; Eden:

1:Yahweh is a Liar

2: Yahweh is not a Benevolent and Loving Father to His Creation; Humankind.

http://www.raystedman.org/genesis/0314.html

THE ENTICEMENT OF EVIL
by Ray C. Stedman

http://www.mashiyach.com/hebrew.htm

Which language did Yeshua and his Disciples communicate?

phil; kasalt:

I am starting a 24 hour clock right now. Have your Answers upon my Desk before the Clock runs out, or I will presume you concede.

tick

tick

tick

tick.............................

I'LL BE BACK

Kind Regards

snoopsnuffleopagus

05-12-2009, 07:35 PM

Baruch haShem Yahweh!

Baruch haba baShem Yahweh!

Hallelu Yahweh!!!!!!

"Falsehood is an amorphous monster, conceived in the brain of knaves and brought forth by the breath of fools. It's a mortal pestilence, a miasmic vapor that passes, like a blast from hell, over the face of the world and is gone forever. It may leave death in its wake and disaster dire; it may place on the brow of purity the brand of the courtesan and cover the hero with the stigma of the coward; it may wreck hopes and ruin homes, cause blood to flow and hearts to break; it may pollute the altar and disgrace the throne, corrupt the courts and curse the land, but the lie cannot live forever, and when it's dead and damned there's none so poor as to do it reverence." - William Cowper Brann

And this, my friends, is why Truth must always take precedence over personal preferences and biases.

As John P Meier did before researching the Historical Jesus.

A Roman Catholic Priest set aside personal/professional Theological preferences and went were the Evidence led.

The result is a Stunning Opus of 4 Volumes of a projected 5 Volume effort.

No stone has been left unturned, the most possible pressure has been applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier

Volume 1 (1991) differentiates the historical Jesus from the Biblical Jesus. It analyzes sources, including the New Testament and non-canonical works. The latter include the agrapha, the apocryphal gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas), Josephus, and other Jewish and second-century Roman works. For deciding what comes from Jesus as distinct from early Christian tradition it proposes these primary criteria (pp. 168-77):

1. The criterion of embarrassment: Why invent what would invite difficulty for the early church?

2. The criterion of discontinuity: Why reject as words or deeds of Jesus what cannot be derived from the Judaism of Jesus' time or the early church?

3. The criterion of multiple attestation: Is it more plausible to deny words, sayings, or deeds attributed to Jesus in more than one independent literary source (e.g., Mark, Q, Paul, and John) or literary genre (e.g., parable, miracle story, or prophecy)?

4. The criterion of coherence: Given the claims to historicity from any of the above criteria, are different sayings or deeds evidently inconsistent?

5. The criterion of rejection and execution: If Jesus' ministry came to a violent, public end, what of Jesus' words or deeds could have alienated people, especially powerful people?

The criteria are to be used in concert for mutual correction. Still, any claim is only to the probable, not the certain. The rest of Volume 1 discusses the origins of Jesus as to formative years, "external" influences (language, education, and socioeconomic status), and "internal" influences (family ties and marital and lay status). The volume concludes with a survey of Jesus' life chronology.[1]

In an Age where Illusion and Deceit are rampant, and the ability to disseminate Falsehoods have never been more readily availiable to reach mass audiences, the reader is behooved to perform their own 'Due Diligence'.

Check it out, apply Pressure.

Keep in Mind:

The Laws of Nature

The Law of Inevitable Consequences

The Law of Unforeseen Consequences

http://www.youtube.com/v/5d7h-w3Wivc

Kindest Regards

phildee3

05-12-2009, 08:42 PM

phildee3

05-12-2009, 11:51 PM

Reading over the thread I am induced to say:
....minor orders are not really ordination in the proper sense.

Not now.
They haven't been "proper" in the Roman Church only since 1962 (1972 in the Latin rite).

But they were "proper," before that, for centuries.
They still are in other Catholic churches outside of Vatican jusrisdiction.

While you hold that only the Vatican are "proper," I can address no more of your many items.
What would be the point?
You are in a very narrow and closed box,
that nobody may enter.

snoopsnuffleopagus

07-12-2009, 08:11 PM

Yes, but you are translating from the Greek.
The Book of Yahweh is translated from the earlier, original Hebrew, you see. :cool:

Now, - how they have witnessed that I'd like to know.
Do they have the original scrolls,
or have they read it in the Akashic Records?

So.........can't answer one question or conclusion, all you got is Calumny and Innuendo

You have chosen to be Bitter rather then Better. You should be Thanking me.

I'll tell you what I have told kasalt numerous times.

You ain't gonna' run with the Big Dogs while you still shit like a puppy.

I have proven, with yours and kasalts help that: The Foundation and Core Doctrines of: gnosis of chritianity is a Doctrine of Lying, Cheating and Stealing.

http://www.yahweh.com/bookofyahweh.htm

We decided to go far beyond all other conscientious scholars and produce a completely new and independent translation, restoring Yahweh's Name to the Holy Scriptures.
We were determined to produce a Bible that would remain as faithful to the original writings as humanly possible. Above all else, we wanted a Bible that we would look forward to reading again and again—a book that we could treasure for years to come.
In producing The Book of Yahweh, every known biblical reference source available was used, including many rare and out of print books and facsimile copies of the most ancient manuscripts.
As we labored to produce this groundbreaking and potentially controversial work, new archeological discoveries were made that actually validated what we were doing.
With the accuracy of the original scriptures restored and placed in a well-crafted volume, the richness of The Book of Yahweh is now available to you.
You can now possess the most profoundly accurate translation of The Holy Bible available anywhere. The Newly Restored Original Bible is entirely based on the original sacred Scriptures of old. This truly wonderful new translation of The Holy Bible will restore your faith in the greatest story ever told.

http://www.yahweh.com/boygen1.html

http://www.yahweh.com/boyyahch1.html

Once they had their 5 page Bibliography on-line, must look. nontheless, other documents I provided you cited ancient Hebrew Texts. http://www.mashiyach.com/hebrew.htm
YHWH has shown through time that He protects his Word, when Masoretic Jewish Scribes and Pharisees chose to change and distort Torah, YHWH provided ancient Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran to restore the accuracy of His Word.

When Hellenized Christianity attempted to choke hold the language, culture and values of Yeshua and His Talmidim, YHWH brought forth ancient writings of the Ketuvim Netzarim, the Kaboris Manuscript from the Hakkan Mountains in Assyria http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html. In every case, because change is difficult to make, many deny and argue against what is self evident truth. The Kaboris Manuscript (Kabouris Codex) has come under harsh attack by the Greek primacy religious crowd who are fearful that the authority of the Greek Scriptures may be undermined, and put themselves in a tight spot. But everyone knows that Yeshua and his disciples weren't Greeks, and didn't venerate either the language or the culture of Rome.........

Texts such as Khabouris, Peshitta, Munsters, ShemTob, and DuTillet clearly show that it is impossible that the early followers of Yeshua were Greek thinkers. Scholars and researchers like Howard Gordon, Charles Cutler Torrey, Robert Balgarnie Young Scotts, James Trimm, Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Christopher Lancaster and hundreds of others are providing mountains of evidence and documentation to show the impossibility of a Greek primacy for the Ketuvim Netzarim (writings of the Nazarenes).

Neither can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Apostle Paul wrote anything in the Greek language, it is only one theory. It's also interesting to note that it is NOT Greeks, who are the most adamant about "New Testament" Greek primacy, but it's English speakers. This dialogue would redundant if Christianity even remotely resembled the fundamental Faith of Yeshua and His Talmidim, but it doesn't, this is why it is very important that we look deeper into the life and teachings of Yeshua from his original language.

The language of Yeshua, according to the Ketuvim Netzarim was Hebrew and Aramaic, the terms and definitions of the Kingdom were given according to the King who conveyed his thoughts, ideas and values in Hebrew and Aramaic. Each one of us most certainly receives direction by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) in the language of the Spirit, but we think and understand in words and definitions. Let's not forget that it was the WORD of YHWH that spoke the Universe into Existence, the Word is of supreme importance for us to connect with YHWH. The invention of new Greek terms and definitions for Hebrew words in the Ketuvim Netzarim propagated Hellenistic ideas that existed long before Yeshua came to earth. The Hellenistic pagan world tries to project its ideas upon Mashiyach and His Talmidim as a bid to usurp the authority and purity of truth........ hmmm..there's that word again..usurp=to steal

Now pay attention phil, I will t y p e a s s l o w a s p o s s i b l e.

You just stand there. And drool. all over yourself.

Almost too hideous too watch, but I shall press on.

NEW EVIDENCE FOR SACRED NAMES IN THE GOSPELS

http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Editorials/?page=new_evidence_for_sacred_names_in&type=2

The following comes from Talmud Shabbat 116A. In this discussion several rabbis are discussing when a Torah scroll can be burned if damaged or defiled.The general consensus is that even in scrolls that have damaged or blank spaces must not be burned. Then the topic comes around to the scrolls or the GILYON or blank spaces in the Books (plural) of the Minim or (Nazarene heretics) and how they should be handled. The word GILYON means gospel or good tidings.So the issue here is the places in the gospels (BOOKS OF THE MINIM) that contain the Divine Name. HOW SHOULD THOSE HERETICAL BOOKS BE HANDELED? SHOULD THEY BE BURNED?

Since I am here, let's 'put a fork' into 'The Correct Name'.

Your 'Source' sparrow777 exposed herself as a liar in her last post of the YHWH cult thread. I said nothing, just 'Filed It' until it would be useful. And I do intend to reactivate that Thread, as it does require some remedial 'Action'.

Liars don't prosper, if they do, it is temporary, and never 'Sweet'. ;)

For two years I have provided very Credentialed Scholars that say the Name is Yahweh. Don't bother me about it, go bother them.

http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/articles/?page=the_lame_name_excuse

‘MY SPIRITUAL LEADER SAID’:

“NO REALLY KNOWS HOW TO PRONOUNCE YHWH!

SO THAT’S WHY WE DON’T USE IT!”

Have you ever wondered why people who are believers in the Moshiach Yahshua do not pronounce Abba’s real given Name? Have you ever been mystified as to why there are certain Messianic and Christian sects that will only use the Son’s true Name Yahshua/Yahushua but do not or will not see the restoration of the Father’s Name as equally or even more important? Have you or someone you know ever gone to a recognized leader, rabbi or pastor, earnestly inquiring as to why they do not use Yahweh’s true Name? And have you ever gotten a response similar to this? “Well… we would, if we could but SINCE NO ONE REALLY IS SURE AS TO HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT, WELL….WE JUST DON’T!”

S.a.tan (the one whose rear end will fry in full tan) has the entire believing and unbelieving world jointly held together in dark unity by what I call the LAME “NAME EXCUSE”; “We Don’t Know The Pronunciation For Sure” doctrine of s.a.tan’s Theological Seminary 101. This doctrine, manmade to the core, in most cases is designed to excuse the often willful ignorance of a given spiritual leader, that reveals them to have a complete lack of accurate biblical, historical or ecclesiastical history relating to the one true eternal Name of the Father.

In this day, during the restoration of all things spoken of by the prophets of Israel (Acts 3:21), it is incumbent upon you and I TO NEVER ACCEPT THIS WEAK, TIMID, UNSCHOLASTIC EXPLANATION. YOU AND I MUST START TO DEMAND THAT THE LEADER IN QUESTION PROVIDE US WITH HIS OR HER PROOF, SHOWING THAT ABBA HAS LEFT US WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO KNOW FOR SURE AS TO HOW HIS NAME IS TO BE PRONOUNCED.......

....Now add this to the fact that one of Messiah’s main ministries according to Moshiach Himself was to DECLARE THE FATHER’S NAME ACCORDING TO JOHN/YOCHANAN 17:26, WHERE YAHSHUA STATES THAT HE “HAS MADE YOUR NAME KNOWN AND SHALL MAKE IT KNOWN [in future generations by revelation of the Ruach]”. According to Yahshua, His Father is seeing to it, that His own personal Name is being revealed, and declared to His remnant talmidm in every generation that has, and will yet come to belief in Yah’s Son! Those who justify their lack of knowledge or obedience by telling others that no one knows for sure just how to pronounce Yahweh’s Name are directly attacking the words, calling, and role of Messiah Yahshua in the days of His flesh by insinuating that Messiah found a way to declare Yahweh’s Name, without first teaching His talmidim just how to pronounce it and use it. The truth of the matter is that He had been commissioned by Abba Yahweh Himself to REINTRODUCE IT to the nations through His talmidim, (Acts/Maaseh HaShlichim 18:15, Matt./Matityahu 28:19) due to Jewish Israel’s violation of the first and third commandments through the introduction of the false doctrine of ineffability. Today most likely your leader does not walk in the ministry of declaring Abba's Name that Yahshua Himself came to reestablish. Such a leader has sadly, knowingly or even in ignorance, chosen rather to walk under an unjust and damnable ruling from the apostate seat of Moses (those illegally seated there seated themselves, and who are not sons of Aaron according to Torah. See Part 13 Moses Seat & Messianic Nazarene Yisrael) at www.yourarmstoisrael.org).....

The Encyclopedia Judaica vol.7, pp.679 states; "The true pronunciation of The Name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that The Name was pronounced 'YAHWEH'.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says:

"Yahweh-the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the letters of YHWH with the vowel signs of [for] Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

Interestingly, even the Jehovah's Witnesses [Watchtower] acknowledge that the name Jehovah is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18[9] that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton. This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves equally with other forms, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH."

The Encyclopedia Biblica tells us, “The controversy as to the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, whether as Yahweh, or Yahawe, Yahwa, or Yahawa…has been gradually brought to an end by the general adoption of the view, first propounded by Ewald, that the true form is Yahwe” (Divine Names, p. 3311).[21] The eminent Encyclopedia Judaica confirms this, “The true pronunciation of the name YHWH [Yahweh] was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh,’” Vol. 7, p.680.

This is validated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition: “Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh.” Vol. X, p. 786.

“The saying of God, ‘I am who I am,’ is surely connected with His name that is written in the Hebrew consonantal text as Yhwh, the original pronunciation of which is well attested as Yahweh” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 5, page 743).

“Such a conclusion, giving ‘Yahweh’ as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms IAO, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, and Yahoue appear. Especially important is the statement of Theodoret in relation to Ex. lvi., when he says: ‘the Samaritans call it [the tetragrammaton] ‘Yabe,’ the Jews call it ‘Aia’…” The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, “Yahweh,” page 471.

¨ Writings in Biblical Archaeology Review, Professor Anson F. Rainey, professor of Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University, confirms that “Yahweh” is the correct pronunciation: “I mentioned the evidence from Greek papyri found in Egypt. The best of these is Iaouee (London Papyri, xlvi, 446-483). ........and many, many more.......

http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/articles/?page=True_Language&type=5

The True Language Of The New Covenant Scriptures
By Rabbi/Brother Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky

I got alot more phil.

you got diddly squat

Kind Regards :)

phildee3

07-12-2009, 08:18 PM

So.........can't answer one question

No, I guess you can't.

It was a really easy one too!