It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sign of the Virgin and Immanuel

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
looking closer at this prefix
im
im means joined with, together
so i'm guessing immanuel means, god joined with man. or god with us.
if the title is applied to jesus, it is because that was his claim - that he was god in a human body.




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
i think they identified gods based on their prefix and then the generic suffix = el / il

so immanuel is the god anu-el joined with man.
there's 2 ways to read that -
1) anu joined god the son (ea-el), with man
2) anu-el is joined with man

when it refers to father, it means the father of mankind, whom man was named after - atum/adam
(remove vowels = tm/dm)

not god the father of the gods, but god the father and creator of adam.

it doesn't mean father of mankind in the sense of adam the man, but in the sense of adam the god who adam the man was named after.

this is why the verses regarding the creation of the adam were so confusing to translators. the assumption was made that adam was not a creator name but a created name. but it is actually both. when you realize this and re-read the creation of man passages in genesis, the whole perspective changes, slightly, not dramatically, and this slight change in perspective, makes the verses take on a slightly different context.

in the king james version of the text, the adam is called man, when in fact, he (and she) should've been called adam, and later, man is called adam, when in fact, he should've been called man. it's flipped.

for example, the creation passages that precede the arrival of eve as a singular female adam, list that "man" was created in the image of elohim, male and female. this part took me a long time to untangle. i went with the idea that moses was trying to reach his audience (egyptified hebrews hehe. yes i just made that word (egyptified) up) with the information he had received from 2 different sources - 1) the scholars of egypt who passed down the information from h-am, 2) and the scholars of mesopotamia, who passed down the information via moses' mom, who was his nanny. when it came time to describe the events in question he had to deal with words like:

atum (egyptian)/adam (mesopotamian)
alulim (sumerian) (and elohim (later hebrew for alulim)

these are actually all the same word. so i think this is where he asked for divine guidance on how to write it down.



addedum; it's possible the im in immanuel should be added to the end of the word, thusly
anu-el-im
more than one, joined together (-im being the suffix that indicates plural)
anu-el joined (which suggests more than one thing). you can't join something with nothing. it has to have another something to join with. so anu-el gods. but that removes the idea of god joined with man.
however, it doesn't remove the idea of anu god + atum/adam god with man. that is father of the gods, and son of god who is father of the adam, with man.

you have to differentiate the first adam males and females, made in the image of elohim, from the adam male and adam female who were changed in the garden tree of knowledge scenario.

what this essentially means is that the adam were created in the image of alulim, who is elohim, who is adam, who is atum. all these words end in plural suffixes and refer to the copying of the elohim, called the adam, who were not human (man) yet, and then the subsequent change to human (man) in the garden tree of knowledge scenario. even the word im = amam (almost sounds like "i am (that) i am," which is hayah (asher) hayah)


edit on 19-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Glance back at the OP, I want to revoke the other part of this prophecy of Isaiah, or rather king Ahaz. "The Virgin shall conceive". This is not a prophecy of some "immaculate conception", but a direct reference to העלמה or "Ha'Alma" -- "The Virgin" -- Constellation Virgo. The text even shows how Isaiah's son will be born when "the land of the two kings" is deserted as to be understood as "end of Gemini" ("The Twins"). From conception to birth we normally count 266 days (38 weeks) or roughly nine months. From Virgo to Gemini there are nine months.

Also Jesus was obviously named after the prophet Isaiah (Jesus and Isaiah are forms of the same name and has the same meaning), he was NOT Immanuel (i.e. the Messiah) as the Church wants it. Immanuel is the name of Isaiah's son and a symbolic name for the promised Messiah. The Messiah will be a descendant of Jesus, John the Scribe's "The Conquerer".
edit on 19-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ...



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Glance back at the OP, I want to revoke the other part of this prophecy of Isaiah, or rather king Ahaz. "The Virgin shall conceive". This is not a prophecy of some "immaculate conception", but a direct reference to העלמה or "Ha'Alma" -- "The Virgin" -- Constellation Virgo. The text even shows how Isaiah's son will be born when "the land of the two kings" is deserted as to be understood as "end of Gemini" ("The Twins"). From conception to birth we normally count 266 days (38 weeks) or roughly nine months. From Virgo to Gemini there are nine months.

Also Jesus was obviously named after the prophet Isaiah (Jesus and Isaiah are forms of the same name and has the same meaning), he was NOT Immanuel (i.e. the Messiah) as the Church wants it. Immanuel is the name of Isaiah's son and a symbolic name for the promised Messiah. The Messiah will be a descendant of Jesus, John the Scribe's "The Conquerer".


all such prophecies are double layered (at the very least). one layer contains historical/political/earthly data, the other contains the signs/constellations in the heavens as metaphorical clocks for the events prophesied. same thing happens in revelation 12, when a woman clothed with the sun (sun is in virgo) crowned with 12 stars (the ecliptic) with the moon under her feet (this information helps to set the timeframe of the events) and when the great red dragon (draco constellation) hurls a third of the stars to the earth (precession of the equinoxes) with his tail (which marks precession)
edit on 19-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
p.s. the sun is midcenter of virgo so that she appears pregnant with the sun. (metaphor for pregnant with the son)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
p.s. the sun is midcenter of virgo so that she appears pregnant with the sun. (metaphor for pregnant with the son)


Also a Jewish leap year is called a pregnant year. We have just recently moved from Anno Mundi (AM) 5774 which was a leap year, and today is 25 Tishri AM 5775 which is not a leap year. Rosh Hashana (New Year, 1 Tishri) AM 5775 was on 24 September 2014.

In Jewish leap years an extra (Adar) month is inserted before Adar which becomes Adar II. Now Adar II is not the extra month, since Purim is celebrated in Adar II during a leap year, in fact making Adar I the extra month, not Adar II, contrary to what is commonly taught.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


...The way I see it Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Millennium King, the Conquering Messiah, ...


 



which would make the expression or term Maranatha " the lord comes/returns" a little bit clearer in-a-sense...




...i think the expression has to link to the way the mysterious image on the turin shroud was created instead of a physical process of hoaxing the image by a later artist...

the (still future) Messiah return is a high tec/upper dimensional portal of transfiguration in which 'the Christ' ministry & crucifixion was all a hologram form that mimics physical nature...
and the return-reappearance of 'the Christ' is given this special word or expression...Maranatha


interesting rabbit hole religion is



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

I'm not so sure the Messiah is future. If my numbers are correct he should be alive, and be an old man already, for I believe he was born in 1940 under the same Greatest Conjunction [1] as Jesus, David, Abraham and Adam and AD 1940 was AM 5700 and also the 300th machzor (Hebrew calendrical cycle of 19 years) making it the mother of leap years. See my thread about the Bethlehem Star for more ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

[1] Note: Between 4th of Av AM 5700 (8 Aug AD 1940) -- and -- 17th Sh'vat AM 5701 (15 Feb AD 1941) there was a continuous Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that happens regularly every 973 years progressing a month forward in the zodiac. Exactly 74 years ago, on 20 Oct 1940 (18th Tishri AM 5701) this rare Jupiter-Saturn conjunction (called the Greatest Conjunction) was in retrograde, this would in theory mark the moment of birth.
edit on 19-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ...



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Kudos to all of you!

Of all the gobbly gook word threads, this one is the bestest and funnest and easiest to understand!

Mind blown!




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
About my last post and the note of Christ being born in 1940, Michael Gambon AKA Gandalf was born on October 19th 1940.

And to Windword: Seriously? You should see my explanation behind the weird Hebrew code in my Avatar (you won't find it in any dictionaries or lexica).



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
About my last post and the note of Christ being born in 1940, Michael Gambon AKA Gandalf was born on October 19th 1940.

And to Windword: Seriously? You should see my explanation behind the weird Hebrew code in my Avatar (you won't find it in any dictionaries or lexica).


Michael Gambon wasn't Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, Ian McKellen was.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinkortwim

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
About my last post and the note of Christ being born in 1940, Michael Gambon AKA Gandalf was born on October 19th 1940.

And to Windword: Seriously? You should see my explanation behind the weird Hebrew code in my Avatar (you won't find it in any dictionaries or lexica).


Michael Gambon wasn't Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, Ian McKellen was.


Ah, but of course. I keep mixing them up for some reason. Great actors both of them.

Thanks for the heads-up, sorry for the mix-up



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
looking closer at this prefix
im
im means joined with, together
so i'm guessing immanuel means, god joined with man. or god with us.
if the title is applied to jesus, it is because that was his claim - that he was god in a human body.


Indeed, the three first syllables, 'im' + 'anu', apparently is a pronoun construct, as in 'with' + 'us' or 'beside' + 'us'. The prefix 'im-' like you point out means 'joined' or 'with', the inserted pronoun suffix '-anu' which means 'us' and finally the suffix '-el' which supposedly means 'God'. That gives the Yodaic translation "With-Us-(is)-God" or "Beside-Us-(is)-God".

Still, often names are cognates of literal remnants spanning thousands of years and a bunch of languages at different stages and dialects. So it's not always enough to use one language. 'Im' is supposedly Hebrew, 'El' is Canaanean, and for all we know 'anu' is Sumerian and ought to be translated 'heaven'. "In Heaven (is) God" or "Similar to Anu (is) El" or "El is like Anu". Guess we'll never really know for sure. But it really doesn't matter. Doesn't change the OP.

ETA: And what if we are to understand the prophet Isaiah's name as "Isa (is) Jah" - and knowing Isa is another name for Jesus, this translation would give: "Jesus is Jahveh".
edit on 20-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: misc + eta



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: undo
looking closer at this prefix
im
im means joined with, together
so i'm guessing immanuel means, god joined with man. or god with us.
if the title is applied to jesus, it is because that was his claim - that he was god in a human body.


Indeed, the three first syllables, 'im' + 'anu', apparently is a pronoun construct, as in 'with' + 'us' or 'beside' + 'us'. The prefix 'im-' like you point out means 'joined' or 'with', the inserted pronoun suffix '-anu' which means 'us' and finally the suffix '-el' which supposedly means 'God'. That gives the Yodaic translation "With-Us-(is)-God" or "Beside-Us-(is)-God".

Still, often names are cognates of literal remnants spanning thousands of years and a bunch of languages at different stages and dialects. So it's not always enough to use one language. 'Im' is supposedly Hebrew, 'El' is Canaanean, and for all we know 'anu' is Sumerian and ought to be translated 'heaven'. "In Heaven (is) God" or "Similar to Anu (is) El" or "El is like Anu". Guess we'll never really know for sure. But it really doesn't matter. Doesn't change the OP.

ETA: And what if we are to understand the prophet Isaiah's name as "Isa (is) Jah" - and knowing Isa is another name for Jesus, this translation would give: "Jesus is Jahveh".



it goes right back to the premise that many old testament figures were named after ayah, who is ea, who is enki. and this spelling derived from egypt via h-am, who brought it from sumer. for example, the pharaoh of the exodus was ah-mose. the ah in ahmose is the same thing as the "iah" in isa-iah, jerem-iah, nehem-iah, obad-iah.
ea ea ea(ayah ayah ayah)

the problem is, someone keeps assuming that every incident of yah is the same as every incident of el and vice-a-versa and that they always indicate the same personage / astronomical body or any variation thereof. for example,
Ahmose I (Egyptian: Jˁḥ ms(j.w), sometimes written Amosis I, "Amenes" and "Aahmes" and meaning Born of Iah [5])

see that IAH ?
Iah ( Egyptian: Jˁḥ, transliterated as Yah, Jah, Jah(w), Joh or Aah [2]) is a god of the moon in ancient Egyptian religion.

BUT iah was not the moon god. the moon god was enlil's faction. so by the time of moses, enki (ea), anu and enlil, had already been melded into one god and their activities attributed to one god, who then was associated in torah as enlil (when it was all three), in new testament as enlil with a heart (when it was actually enki-ea) and in both as anu, who was neither enki-ea or enlil.


edit on 22-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
p.s. i traced anu to the egyptian amen. amen was a later attribution of monthu. you can even see the transition in that example: the god of the sun (anu), was turned into the god of the wind (who is enlil)

and the title that belonged to anu, was attributed to enlil, instead - et.al, king of the gods. this is why sitchin kept harping about the mess made of sumerian history, by the priests of marduk. marduk claimed he did all the deeds of enki, enlil and anu, and no one could prove otherwise, because sumer was buried under 8ft of flood silt, and those who did know they were not all references to marduk, were over-ruled by marduk's priesthood. and THAT is the origin of monotheism in its current form.
edit on 22-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
oh and one more thing:

this is not to say that it's anybody's fault, other than perhaps the priests of marduk (and they are long gone). but rather to bring attention to the actual problem - et.al, that the emphasis in these issues is being put on the wrong places and in ancient stories, particularly complicated ancient stories, it's entirely too easy to generate a view point that isn't actually supported by the evidence in the ancient texts themselves.

for example - the first thing that happens after the initial creation of the adam males and females is they are told to go forth, be fruitful and MULTIPLY. who tells them to do this? enlil? anu? enki-ea? answer: enki-ea, the creator elohim of the adam males and females.

so why then, in the garden, are the adam male and female told not to multiply (forbidden from eating from the tree of knowledge?). knowledge = procreation (sex). "Adam KNEW his wife and she begat" happens after eating from the tree of knowledge. see how it says "knew his wife"? why was it suddenly a "sin" to multiply? it wasn't before that.

obvious answer is, the creator god is not the god who said, don't eat from the tree of knowledge (et. al, don't procreate!)

this is all easily resolved by just reading the sumerian account in which enlil runs out of enki-ea's
adam slaves, as they are all on strike from enlil overworking them. so he calls for enki, the creator of the adam, to solve it. enki's solution is to make the adam procreative so there's an endless supply of slaves for enlil. enlil is not happy with the solution and decrees the adam's dna be changed so they have shortened lifespans. afterall, his planet would be over run and used up by enki's humans in a hurry if they retained their elohim-copied life-spans (eternally regenerating dna).

it's so obvious once you read the account carefully and compare it to the biblical account. you can actually see enlil decreeing the nerfing of our dna. you can see him pronouncing against procreative humans. and you can see how this would be easily confused in the biblical account, via marduk's priests.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, Immanuel is not a term for a Messiah or the son of the (supposed) Messiah:


Not to dilute your discussion but there were many precursors (as acting-as-Christ, given to the world) to Christ (the man, the Christ/Messiah, the prophet) that were a necessary *described clearly and easily here, in this series of videos (not pushing the SDA agenda, but DB describes them all clearly):



also an easy (yet distasteful to most) explanation/description of the TERM 'Immanuel' (again, not a NAME) can also be found in Islam:




posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dianashay

The given quote in Isaiah has been used for nearly 2000 years as "Proof" if the "immaculate conception" the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that his mother was a lit. virgin.

Now I am not of that opinion, infact this whole thread is an attempt at showing Jesus was not the Messiah and that if Mary was a virgin it wasn't prophesied, so I suggest you read through the OP again



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim





The given quote in Isaiah has been used for nearly 2000 years as "Proof" if the "immaculate conception" the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that his mother was a lit. virgin. Now I am not of that opinion, infact this whole thread is an attempt at showing Jesus was not the Messiah and that if Mary was a virgin it wasn't prophesied, so I suggest you read through the OP again
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't need to read the OP again, I am sure that the OP implied that Emmanuel/Immanuel is an actual name of a person.

Immanuel/Emmanuel is a 'name' predicted by Isaiah which means (in Hebrew/Aramaic) "God With Us". *Matthew 23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This name was given to favored (or first) sons thereafter and ever since.

Continued: "Immanuel was only one of many names used in reference to Jesus. In fact, Isaiah 9:6 also taught, "his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Each of these names reveals important information regarding the nature and work of the Messiah. However, Jesus was not called these names during His early life. He was simply known as Jesus. *SEE my above videos on that subject.

and: "Third, the angel who appeared to Mary commanded her to name Him Jesus, not Immanuel: "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (Luke 1:31). An angel also appeared to Joseph, saying, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This dream was noted as a fulfillment of the name Immanuel as predicted by Isaiah (Matthew 1:22-24).


Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Since Immanuel was not the only name predicted by Isaiah, it has to do with the attributes of the Messiah. Literally, Jesus Christ is the meaning of Immanuel, God who dwelled among us, who became human, hence the title "Son of Man".

He never (EVER) proclaimed to be the son of God/Messiah: Matthew 26:63-64 (NIV) But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The OP proves nor disproves nothing except an attempt to make a point via the misuse of unsubstantiated, uninformed and mistranslated text of languages he/she doesn't even speak.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
it's not son of man, it's son of adam. there is a difference.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join