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.

 

*Sin* The Moon God

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
also, heres another fact for Christians

Yes, God is norse. But even the earlier latin Deus, is derived from the Greek 'zeus' , which is derived from the PIE Dyeus. Hence the romans after destroying the 2nd temple built a temple to Iupitar - 'father god/sky'.... The typical pagan attitude that the g-d of israel is some 'demented archon', delusional who believe he controls the world. Whateverrr.

Latin is laden with pagan qualities, as is Greek, obviously, and all other languages besides Hebrew, and a notable exception to Aramaic.

Im not saying other languages are 'evil' - well, maybe Greek, since ive studied a bit myself, but... Its a confusion of the tongues - of their way of relating with reality. Its wrong, spurious, only Hebrew can bring people back - the one 'pure' language, lashon hakodesh, who as gematria shows is 'sefat achat' - one with g-d, which connects reality back to G-d.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Though I love personal opinions and theories within the firsld of etymology, I would indeed beg to differ in oposition to you theorising on how Deus is related to Zeus. Instead, take a look at the word Devil. The English word Devil was invented in the Dark Ages, and in my opinion, in direct relation with the Romani (Gypsy) word for god -- devel. To call the Dragon for the Devil (with a capital D), is in other words the same as calling him "the God". In Sanskrit another Indo-European language gods are called deva and goddesses devi, same word, and it means originally deity, the English word with the closest relation semantically. Similarily, Christians often call the Fallen One Lucifer (with a capital L), though it means that Christians call Satan "The Clear Morning Star", a title given to Yeshua in the NT. Beloved child carries many names I guess. Also the word/name Lucifer first surfaced with the advent of the Roman Empire, as the "god of the morning star" ("he who makes planet Venus rise in the East just before Sunrise baptising kings in splendour and might"). The Hebrew Ha-Shatan was never called Lucifer, other than in the relatively modern, Christian lore, and fiction books like Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. In Kabalah, and the Book of Enoch, the "Enemy" has a name before the Fall, and that is Samael, and personally I refer to him in my prayers as Samael, since he hasn't really done me harm enough to carry the title Satan. I honestly feel sorry for the guy. Children are indoctrinated into hating him, but still, I have yet to see any biblical proofs that Samael/Ha-Shatan/Satan has ever done anything beyond his mandate. I can find multiple examples of sin in all the stories of the patriarchs. Yeshua sinned in many occations, Abraham too, Mosjeh and Adam, they have all had their sins spread out along the pages of the Bible. But Satan isn't mentioned with one single sin. As far as I know, he is the most kosher perfectionist and God's very right arm (Draco), by which the Son of Man (Ursa Major) stands in the Northern Sky. When Satan tempts Yeshuah to worship him, Yeshua says to Satan: "Step aside and stay behind me" or even "follow me", "Satan".



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Well, that argument holds no water whatsoever, considering that Judaism existed long before the Norse pantheons were even thought of. The "Hebrew God" is dated much further back. In fact, if you look into the make up of the Chinese language characters, you'll find that they more than likely came from the Tower of Babel after the flood and they were originally worshipers of the same God as the Hebrews.

Whatever the case, it's obvious that the Christians do not worship Norse gods.


Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by Messenger74
 


Using the kind of logics that have been expressed here, Christians worship Norse gods. The word God comes from Norse and was a title given to all deities, among them Odin and Thor. Just as little as Christians don't worship Odin and Thor when they use the word God to express the power and might the Christian God represents, and just as little as Christians worship Ba'al or Bel, which both means Lord, when they call upon their God, calling him Lord, just that little does a Muslim worship all allahs or eloahs or gods in this world, but Allah himself. Arb. Allah is the same word as Heb. Eloah, so get over it. It may be translated God, and like I said, the word God is of Norse origin and means deity. Allah is not a name. Elohim is not a name, they are proper words discribing the different aspects of the One God. Elohim means Forces [of the Universe]. Allah is singular as far as I know, skipping the plural intensive form we see in Hebrew, but the etymology of both words end in the same origin. Up through the ages, Eloah and Elohim has been used as general terms to discribe many different deities in Hebrew, just as Allah/allah in Arabic, and exactly like you would call Sin a god. So much for circular logics



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by dontreally
 


Though I love personal opinions and theories within the firsld of etymology, I would indeed beg to differ in oposition to you theorising on how Deus is related to Zeus. Instead, take a look at the word Devil. The English word Devil was invented in the Dark Ages, and in my opinion, in direct relation with the Romani (Gypsy) word for god -- devel. To call the Dragon for the Devil (with a capital D), is in other words the same as calling him "the God". In Sanskrit another Indo-European language gods are called deva and goddesses devi, same word, and it means originally deity, the English word with the closest relation semantically. Similarily, Christians often call the Fallen One Lucifer (with a capital L), though it means that Christians call Satan "The Clear Morning Star", a title given to Yeshua in the NT. Beloved child carries many names I guess. Also the word/name Lucifer first surfaced with the advent of the Roman Empire, as the "god of the morning star" ("he who makes planet Venus rise in the East just before Sunrise baptising kings in splendour and might"). The Hebrew Ha-Shatan was never called Lucifer, other than in the relatively modern, Christian lore, and fiction books like Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. In Kabalah, and the Book of Enoch, the "Enemy" has a name before the Fall, and that is Samael, and personally I refer to him in my prayers as Samael, since he hasn't really done me harm enough to carry the title Satan. I honestly feel sorry for the guy. Children are indoctrinated into hating him, but still, I have yet to see any biblical proofs that Samael/Ha-Shatan/Satan has ever done anything beyond his mandate. I can find multiple examples of sin in all the stories of the patriarchs. Yeshua sinned in many occations, Abraham too, Mosjeh and Adam, they have all had their sins spread out along the pages of the Bible. But Satan isn't mentioned with one single sin. As far as I know, he is the most kosher perfectionist and God's very right arm (Draco), by which the Son of Man (Ursa Major) stands in the Northern Sky. When Satan tempts Yeshuah to worship him, Yeshua says to Satan: "Step aside and stay behind me" or even "follow me", "Satan".


Okay. Yup. I am not a gnostic nor a fan of its twisted ideology.

The "old testament" is not speaking of that philosophy. Christianity sure is, but the kabbalists have never interpreted the Torah or Nach in that manner.

As for Zeus. It wasnt my opinion, read the wikipedia article of Dyeus. There are many citations so its not unsourced, and, therefore a legitimate etymology.

What i dont get is, why would you pray to the principle of evil, Satan (You realize the shin has two separate prononciations right?) when you coul be praying to the source of Satan, Hashem (moshe backwards - who epitomized how man should serve and 'reflect' his creator in microcosm)...

Do you just prefer the dualism of this world to the commandments, specifically the 7 noachide commandments in Talmud G-d gave to the world? I really dont get you people. Dont get your philosophy, dont get why youre so arrogant, dont know why you dont show humility, faith, trust, a loving father/son relationship with our creator.

Instead you look to satan and rever him. You do as the Greeks did, castrate Uranous at the behest of Gaia and from the blood of his severed member comes aphrodite - a symbol for the western infatution with horror and death and gothicism - a mentality taken directly from the babylonians and egyptians and even the hindus with their kali cult and tantra..

I will never understand it. Im not afraid of evil, because i know its the creator working through it, but i dont approve nor 'worship' it, which in my mind is a pathetic option. It cant be the right one - but hey, if you enjoy it good 'luck' with that.


edit on 20-9-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

the law that was put into effect through angels

which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son

The last enemy to be destroyed is death

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps

sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The law is not based on faith; on the contrary



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Okay. Yup. I am not a gnostic nor a fan of its twisted ideology.


Fair enough


The "old testament" is not speaking of that philosophy. Christianity sure is, but the kabbalists have never interpreted the Torah or Nach in that manner.


Then I suggest that you take a look at the Zohar, which is none of the most revered books within Kabalah mystics. It's basically an indept interpretation of the Torah.


As for Zeus. It wasnt my opinion, read the wikipedia article of Dyeus. There are many citations so its not unsourced, and, therefore a legitimate etymology.


Hm. You just made me realise something, after having looked into it, Zeus=Deus is actually valid. In Revelation Satan's Throne is said to be found in the city of Pergamon. The main temple in that city is dedicated to Zeus, and the floor plan of his sanctuary there is more or less an exact copy of the floor plan of Solomon's Temple. Just a digression.


What i dont get is, why would you pray to the principle of evil, Satan (You realize the shin has two separate prononciations right?) when you coul be praying to the source of Satan, Hashem (moshe backwards - who epitomized how man should serve and 'reflect' his creator in microcosm)...


I am not praying to Satan, but every now and then his name pops up when I have some business to take care of with whoever is answering to the word God. Sorry if my reply was unclear. My bad again.



Instead you look to satan and rever him. You do as the Greeks did


Not quite. Love your enemy, dicipline and correct the ones you love. It's really that simple. I find no dualism in God and reality. The world isn't really black and white. Atleast that's what I tend to believe and base my principles upon.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Then I suggest that you take a look at the Zohar, which is none of the most revered books within Kabalah mystics. It's basically an indept interpretation of the Torah.


I have looked in the Zohar and the Etz Chaim - by the Ari, the man who wrote the explanatory method of understanding Zohar. If you read Pri Etz chaim, you see the practical side of this knowledge, which conforms with the traditional Jewish morality as reflected in the Shulchan Arcuh (also written by a Safed master - Yosef Karo).

I dont know where you learned Zohar, but from what ive learned, and how Orthodox Judaism teaches it, it is not at all referring to the typical dualistic consideration of reality that the perennialist philsophers believe.

In Kabbalah its often emphasized that the realm of holiness, the sefirot, are mirrored by a realm of impurity, kelipot. Therefore, everything, even the Torah, and works of Kabbalah (zohar) is subject to being misinterpreted, and understood in a corrupt gnostic manner. After all, we live ina dualistic world. How one understands this reality, namely, the presence of good and evil, up and down, left/right etc, is how one is able to interpret correctly the words of Torah. Although, when udnerstood in its proper way you can than immideately see how incorrect and inferior the other interpretation is.

In the Ari's commentary on Genesis he explains the esoteric nature of Cain and Abels sacrifice. Cain offered a vegetable sacrifice of Flax, while Abel offered a sheep. The latter offered his very animal soul - symbolized by the Sheep, the head of th Zodiac, to the creator - symbolizing his intention to serve G-d in the mode of self effacmentent. Whereas Cain simply offerred Flax, which grows as one stock with pods growing one opposite the other. This symbolizes his desire to reconcile the opposites in creation in himself. His sacrifice was therefore rejected. The Torah is referring to two archetypal mentalities. One cant possess both. Hes either committed in principle to serving g-d out of humility, an intrinsic awareness of his own futility, or, he chooses to preserve his sense of 'otherness', as Cain did, the forbearer of this mentality, and thus simply made an offering of flax.

Yes, Cain killed abel and im sure to you that implies the vanity in Abels trying to sacrifice his animal - which infact made him susceptible to the cunning of Cain. What he lacked, Jacob made up for. What Esau possessed, Jacob took, with cunning. This symbolizes the inherent transcendence of the divine soul over the animal esau - Edom, progenitor of Rome and therefore your spiritual godfather. Esau is ruddy and low, and only interested in satisfying his animal desires (which can also manifest as a desire for spirituality, when, he deems it 'convenient''), thus, it only took a bowl of lentils for Esau to give up his birthright, and later on he also lost the blessing from Isaac. Esau symbolizes in this context the 'shell -kelipa' of the Quality of Gevurah, Yitchak. whereas Jacob symbolizes the proper mediation between chesed (abraham) and geuvrah (yitchak). The animal soul is born first with a person, and only later on in life, around 13, does the emotional intellect, Jacob, begin influencing the Neshama. He is therefore 'holding on to the heel of esau' - the evil inclintion, undermining and subverting its influence. Always/ Never ending. Just as when one physically grows stronger, so does the weight he needs to lift. Same with Esau/Satan.

Ultimately, the difference between pagandom and Judaism is this. G-d created a defected world for mankind to repair. Its our duty, through REAL moral action to transform the evil and coarseness of this world into good. The dualism is not lost, because ultimately an act of 'restriction' is rooted in the quality of GevuraH. Evil is esau, the husk of Gevurah.

Strange that gnostics always take works of rabbinic judaism and than try to twist them as being compatible with their gnostic anti-hebraic views. Its incredibly disingeuine and reveals the inherent jealousy in Esau for Jacob. This is why the Greeks, Romans, pagan catholic church up to our modern era has persecuted and humiliated the Jew. To debase him and his incorrect mentality.

Did you know only recently, up till the late 1800's, the Roman pontiff and citizens of rome would celebrate christmas in a very saturnalia type fashion? Theres an anecdote about Pope Gregory XIII that goes 'every year the Jews of the ghettos were rounded up and dressed in clown costumes (in an early era they were stripped naked) and forced to run through the streets of Rome to the great amusment of the pope, romes citizens and clergy alike.

This is true. The popes took great enjoyment in humiliating Romes Jews. The Jews would beg and plead the pontiff not to hold this custom, but he didnt care. Its church policy to denigrate the Jew, not because he 'rejected' christ, but more mystically, the jewish mentality rejected the liberal mentality of Esau (the concept of the 'self') and so are punished for it. This is also why Eugene Pacelli, pius XII, played such an integral role in disabling the catholic politicasl presence in Germany - with dissolving the center party, agranzing papal powers with his architectural work, the papal canon of 1917, and his subsequent policy of 'peace' between 1939 and 45. Never said a peep. He approved and even helped the Reich by keeping more than half their population, catholics, from revolting against the Nazis. Church and Rome worked together -sorta like the Midrash says "when the 300 princes of Germania and the 365 princes of rome unite, Chaos ensues". amazingly this occured with Hitler, being i suppose the 666th prince, or conversely, pius XII. Today you could argue that were in that situation again with pope nazi youth benedikt



edit on 20-9-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I learned to draw the Tree of Life quite early, I can also construct a perfect pentagon based on a circle divided in tens. The Septagram is also perfect and can also be constructed with a pair of compasses and a straightedge. When I paint portraits I make use of the pentagram and the Kabalistic Tree of Life together with the golden proportion and the hexagon. Man is contructed, we are not a product of chance. It's damn well impossible that man can have been a result of degeneration (yes, all species degenerate and mutate, and none of the results are favorable generally, but every now and then new species turn up, but they are one in a million). The quantum question is whether you'd like God to be your designer or natural development as your enemy. It's as simple as that really. Go ahead being a subject to the rules of the origin of species, or allow our creator to do his tricks. It's not worse than that.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


The truth in the story of Kain and Abel is that Abel killed first, and the animal he sacrificed was Kain's best friend, his goat. Abel is the villain, while Kain is the son of God, being the firstborn of Adam, and the second Man. What you have to keep in mind is that God diciplines his own for minor errors, and loves his enemies, it's the wisdom of the ages.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by dontreally
 


The truth in the story of Kain and Abel is that Abel killed first, and the animal he sacrificed was Kain's best friend, his goat. Abel is the villain, while Kain is the son of God, being the firstborn of Adam, and the second Man. What you have to keep in mind is that God diciplines his own for minor errors, and loves his enemies, it's the wisdom of the ages.


Where did you get this interpretation from?

G-d accepted Abels sacrifice and thus rejected Cain. That implies a partiality to Abel, not Cain.

True, he does tell cain how he can reform his ways, but he doesnt care. Cain by himself is the evil principle. And the Torah also describes Adam and eves mourning the loss of Abel, The earth crying out for the blood of abel. G-d ousted cain from his presence, - which means from his direct intervetion in his life. He left cain to the nature he so worshipped. How in the hell can you imagine that this narrative is at all favoring Cayin?

This is why learning Torah from a gnostic perspective is so ignorant. Your teachers use kabbalistic writings developed by orthodox Jews but ignore their wisdom in how its properly interpreted. Its ridiculus. you couldnt understand Zohar without the Aris Etz Chaim. Its plain and simple. Kabbalah is Judaism, and kabbalah divorced from Judaism is not kabbalah, but some twisted gnostic perversion.

Also, i dont know what youre trying to prove by mentionig you can draw circles etc. It doesnt matter in this conversation. Stay on topic.





edit on 21-9-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

Where did you get this interpretation from?


It is the result of long studies.


G-d accepted Abels sacrifice and thus rejected Cain. That implies a partiality to Abel, not Cain.


The reason God didn't notice Kain's sacrifices was that the smoke didn't go up, but stayed by the ground.


True, he does tell cain how he can reform his ways, but he doesnt care. Cain by himself is the evil principle. And the Torah also describes Adam and eves mourning the loss of Abel, The earth crying out for the blood of abel. G-d ousted cain from his presence, - which means from his direct intervetion in his life. He left cain to the nature he so worshipped. How in the hell can you imagine that this narrative is at all favoring Cayin?


No. When God realises what Kain had done, and sees how he regrets his misdoing, God forgives him, and he protects him and puts his seal on his forehead so noone should kill him, and God says that whosoever touches Kain shall taste revenge sevenfold. Kain is the Lamb of God, with seven horns, he killed in affect, and actually made God realise his mistakes, which as far as I can see is the only time God has ever regretted anything in the whole book.


This is why learning Torah from a gnostic perspective is so ignorant. Your teachers use kabbalistic writings developed by orthodox Jews but ignore their wisdom in how its properly interpreted. Its ridiculus. you couldnt understand Zohar without the Aris Etz Chaim. Its plain and simple. Kabbalah is Judaism, and kabbalah divorced from Judaism is not kabbalah, but some twisted gnostic perversion.


I see how you reject gnosticism, and I see your sentiment. But I am not talking Kabalah here, though I am slightly familiar with some of the works attributed to Jewish mysticism or Kabalah, as well as Greco-Egyptian mysticism (Alchemy) and Arabic mysticism (Sufiism), I can't say I am an expert in either. But the story of Kain and Abel to me is more about learning to know God and Kain is the first person who is forgiven. He was the firstborn, belonging to God. He was the first man to build a city, which might have been the spark of the Indus civilisation, leaving behind one of the richest literal traditions, the Vedas. It is so easy to open a book reading a story, and then repeat what your teacher tells you to understand from the text. But the fact is that Kain was forgiven and put under God's protection. BTW: The name Abel is also derived from the same word as Bel or Ba'al. So as for the evil principle: Abel slaughtered and killed and was honored by God (at least that is the common conception), so Kain killed Abel in return, and that made God realise he had done Kain wrong. And like we have later learned, God doesnot want blood offerings or burnt sacrifices, he wants a warm heart and a forgiving tongue, a bright mind and hands which hands out good things.


Also, i dont know what youre trying to prove by mentionig you can draw circles etc. It doesnt matter in this conversation. Stay on topic.


Your right. I just wanted to show that there are many approaches to mysticism, and I wanted to show a few of them. The seven pointed star is the seal of God with it's seven horns. The five pointed star is the symbol of the Morning Star or the Mesjiach (and often called the Seal of Solomon), and is derived from the ten pointed star, the seal of the Dragon. The Tree of Life of Kabalah or the Sefiroth Tree is a geometric construction which shows our connection with God through language, the stars, Heaven and Earth, and hides the name of God under it's apocalypse, and like with the other geometric figures I mentioned, you can make it up using only a pencil, a pair of compasses and a straightedge. It might not matter much to you, but it means a whole lot to me. I just wanted to show you part of my lot.

On the other hand, the worship of the Moon was often connected to the female principle (how the menstruation cycle lasts a lunar month for instance) and in most cultures where Moon worship was practised there were matriarchies where females ruled and were high priests and there were female supremes etc, just like later Sun worship was often patriarchies. If we had not had the Moon we would have had a completely different calendar and we might still have been living in the Stone Age. Sun worship was practised in all of our three first civilisations, Egypt, Sumer and Indus.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Where do you get this 'god didnt see his smoke'.

That is not in the text, nor is it implied kabbalisticly.

What, is the some extra-apocrypha written by the gnostics on this verse?

Atleast Jewish Exegesis is based on Torah,and does not depart from the Legalistic spirit of it. For Cains sin, he was ousted from G-ds presence. The 'mark' on his head, isnt a good sign either. Maybe in Hinduism, a mark on teh forehead is regarded as sacred, but than again, hinduism is paganism. Perhaps its this 'mark' on the head, which indicates a desire to 'be other', than G-d, to realize ones own 'essential nature' free from the burden of a commandment; ie to offer the desires of your animal as a sacrifice to G-d(To utilize the animal vital self for the sake of your true self, your soul). The middle of the foreheard, the '3rd' eye, is considered the seat of consciousness and associated with da'at. Im not sure what this specific line in torah is referring to, i havent really asked. I'll ask my rabbi and see what he has to say about it. Da'at, knowledge, is whats offered by the snake to Eve, ie a knowledge of good and evil, and maybe this knowledge, symbolized by the mark on his forehead, indicates where his spiritual offspring will derive their spiritual nourishment - not directly from g-d, but channeled through Da'at, the 'self' which is beneath the level of the truly transcendent and therefore ties you to a spiritual power (whatever that power may be envisaged as. Jung called it 'philimon') rather than to the source of reality, YHVH. Thus, what im arguing is, 'who you really' are, is not YOU, but rathre an expression of the divine. The only way to become an expression of the divine, is to know what the will of the divine is. The torah revealed that will to man, transcending the whole framework of the spiritual worlds. The concept of 'will' keter, is the highest of sefirahs. Its not my OWN will, my 'daat, but G-ds will. G-ds da'at, which allows me to be connected to it, which alows me to express my true self, who i really am, in the context of G-d. To find yourself by your own rules, and 'self' laws, is to find yourself within your own fortuitous paradigm. This makes you at most a deluded self worshipper. Hence, when people are committing idolatry, their idolizing the image of themselves, or some image, some form, which they worship for some self serving purpose. G-d, however, has given man the peremeters of how he can start to learn to know himself. First, however, he must separate the wheat from the chaff....Just like with art, his abstract expression of the spiritual must be condenced and constricted to be made REAL. Likewise, for mankind to truly live, whats morally true must be accepted, and whats wrong - turned away from. He follows g-ds 'da'a't, which manifests in man as his conscience, which conforms with each of the 7 noahide laws. When one lives consciously, he lives freely. Hes no longer a servant to petty little passions, but a servant to the only true reality, to G-d himself. This is how one becomes a reflection of g-d, a bnei Elohim. This process of self restriction is a social manifestation of 'art' - which 'limits' and constricts his raw vital energy, his 'unrealized' potential, and allows him to realize himself in its proper context - as he exists within the divine


edit on 21-9-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic


On the other hand, the worship of the Moon was often connected to the female principle (how the menstruation cycle lasts a lunar month for instance) and in most cultures where Moon worship was practised there were matriarchies where females ruled and were high priests and there were female supremes etc, just like later Sun worship was often patriarchies. If we had not had the Moon we would have had a completely different calendar and we might still have been living in the Stone Age. Sun worship was practised in all of our three first civilisations, Egypt, Sumer and Indus.


The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar, which is than corrected every so often to line up with the seasons of the solar calendar.

I know the moon is very important. In Judaism the moon is shekina, the divine presence. Unlike in other cultures though, where the moon symbolizes the feminine, raw animalistic passions, the animal side, - in Judaism, the feminine, Shekina, symbolizes G-ds divine light exiled in physical reality. The only way for this exiled vitality, source of our existence, to be redeemed, is through teshuva, return, which means performing mitzvot. This redeems the divine presence from the kelipot and thus, reveals YHVH as the source of Elohim, he than becomes Adoniai, lord of the world. Than the world is completed, the divine masculine, YHVH, united with his shekina. Mankind in this position also assumes the role of the feminine. This is what solomons song of songs is about.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Where do you get this 'god didnt see his smoke'.


Sunday School and observation.


That is not in the text, nor is it implied kabbalisticly.


No it's more like reality. Ever burned grass, herbs and crops before? Notice anything special with the smoke's behavior compared to that of burning flesh at a barbeque? Try replacing your leg of lamb with whatever you can find of good-smelling herbs and crops.


What, is the some extra-apocrypha written by the gnostics on this verse?


What's all this with the Gnostics? You ARE aware that we are talking about one of the earliest Christian sects in history, aren't you? I don't belong to any school, my approach to these books and stories are my own studies, and I answer for noone. Atleast not the Gnostics who were completely erased from the face of the Earth by agents from the Sanhedrin and the early Roman Church. The Gnostics were the people whose library was found in Nag Hamadi half a century ago.

Cain's curse was mandatory. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the Earth was cursed in Adam's place. This curse was later transfered from the ground to Kain after he had killed his sweettalking brother. The texts show how God didn't notice Kain's offerings, and the reason for that was that the smoke didn't go up, but stayed down by the ground. Note all the word games: And Kain stared at the ground, for he knew he would receive it's curse. When God realise what Kain has done, he reminds him of the consequences and how he will now be persecuted by his fellow men. But instead of punishing his first firstborn son of Adam, God forgives him by placing his seal on his forehead, which will make sure that whatever would happen to Kain, he would be avenged sevenfold. Kain then moved East and started the Indus civilisation.


We don’t know exactly how it was determined that God had accepted the offering of one of the brothers and not the other. Perhaps the smoke rose to heaven with Abel’s offering as a sweet savor into the nostrils of the Almighty. And perhaps when Cain’s fire was started, the smoke just stayed on the ground, never ascending to God – it seemed to be refused or rejected and never made its way upward in the wind. I don’t know how they knew, but Cain knew that he and his offering were not accepted or respected by God.

Source: www.ethicsdaily.com...

(Scroll down a bit.) The reason I gave for Kain's offeriongs never ascending up, is a common theological understanding of the verse. I have no knowledge of this site whatsoever or who are behind it, I simply found it as one of many results to this topic.


edit on 23/9/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: don't to aren't



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Thanks for clarifying 'the logic' of why G-d didnt see the smoke

Now explain to me how G-d, the creator of the universe is unable to see Cains smoke. Or not everything that happens, both before and after it happens.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Common theological understanding of the verse? lol

You know Genesis is Judaism, right?

Its funny that midrashes talk of the esoteric nature of the snake, amalek, the builders of babel, Cayin.... And theyre all from the same lot, motivated by the same force - the snake, the evil inclination. Midrashes explain the nature of gnosticism in allegorical language.

I already explained what gnostics believe. They believe G-d desired man to sin and to exercise their 'sense of independence - therebye imitating his creator. However, the truth is that G-d didnt have to create the world. He created it so he could share of himself with another - so he hid himself in a world - a void, where man, created his image could learn to be like his creator, his source - so G-ds motivation in creation was Chesed. That being the case, man was put in an arena that would test his very ability to be like his creator. If he too would choose chesed, and reject evil, he would be imitating his creator. The snake offered a convoluted counter intuitive logic - this is what paganism is all about. Screwing with mans natural inclinations - his conscience, eroding it with his speculation and obedience to his lower animal side. G-d wants you to disobey him. If you are to trul be like Elohim, you must know good and evil. thats why he even mentioned the tree of good and evil. it was a duality that was apparent to Adam and Eve. The snake said, G-d WANTS you to sin, to be like G-d you have to act as he does, with independence.

Fortunately, Adam rectified himself after the midrash says, 130 years of wandering in depression, producing Shedim (demons). But, the only good thing Cayin did, the midrash explains, is that he acknowledged his guilt "my sin is too great to bear". By doing this, Adam realized that he too could repent, and he did so, producing Shet - who was born in the likeness of his father, Adam.

If the Torah were honoring Cayin, they would be paying more attention to him and his line. But it focuses itself on Adam, Shet, Enosh etc. Cayins line is secondary, and thus like the evil inclination extraneous, not important enough to be focused on. Its not the purpose, but merely a corollary, an intermediary between A and C. B is simply their to provide the motivation. Thus, evil is simply a force, Satan, that G-d created to motivate man to seek his benificence.

Cain flipped that entirely around. The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus etc have also heavily deluded this.

I can see you and i are light and day on this subject. I think we should just stop
Cool?




edit on 23-9-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You tell me you are the one claiming to know everything using pseudo scientific age old Kabalah referances in a new age way to explain the ten sephifoth as chakra points and so on. You tell me... My explanation has been practised among Christians for nearly 2000 years.


edit on 23/9/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added last sentance and a few typos



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


No, gnosticism explained the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil thus that God's wished Man to eat from the tree and that it was impossible to stop it. The serpent present was Adam's ex Lilith, with the story being mingled with elements from Kabalah about the blind dragon Samael rode from his star in the sky to Earth (perhaps indicating that Samael is infact Adam after his fall by the Tree when he was expelled from Eden, which might be a planet) to help the reptilitans to develop a world where the Elohim could live and breathe, drink and eat. The Earth is basically the work of serpents it seams. A serpent is clever, intelligent, mighty, scary, leathal and so on. The perfect beast made by God to to work like this perhaps? If you wanted to create an ozone layer on a planet, who would you call? The scientifically minded serpent or the gullible monkey? Both?

They also saw all flesh as sinful, thus the creator of the physical world would have to be evil, thus giving Samael the evil bit since he was actually the chief architect of Earth working on God's mandate, and God's right arm (constellation Draco). And even the Tanakh explains how both good and evil is comanded by the One God Jahveh Elohim. Neither did they see Jesjuah ha Mesjiach as being a physically alive and kicking person, but a new force of nature or a source of knowledge. The very reason why they said Jesjuah never lived was to rid him of this evil reality. and as I explained all flesh was evil or subject to evil no matter what, according to the Gnostics. Funny how you refer to this group as being Jewish. They were Copts and Greeks seasoned by Jewish and other Christian cults at the time. As far as I know no Hebrew or Aramaic styled scriptures have been found directly linked to the Gnostics.


edit on 23/9/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added a few sentances and edited some typos.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by dontreally
 


You tell me you are the one claiming to know everything using pseudo scientific age old Kabalah referances in a new age way to explain the ten sephifoth as chakra points and so on. You tell me... My explanation has been practised among Christians for nearly 2000 years.


edit on 23/9/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added last sentance and a few typos



And my explanation, which is the orthodox Jewish explanation goes much much further back, 3500 hundred years to Sinai. Thats how old Judaism is.

Also, i dont think you understand very much about kabbalah which could have to do with confusing yourself in reading hundred things at once. Maybe if you sought an orthodox Jewish source, as opposed to the gnostic, youd better appreciate its methodology.. If you want to be introduced to it, read it Aryeh Kaplans "inner space" or his commentary on Sefer Yetzirah. Your understanding of kabbalah is heavily flawed.

Also, The Chakras dont relate to the sefirot. Maybe in a much less meaningful way, you could say that the 7 lower sefirot correspond to the 7 chakras. But the chakras arent one cohesive unit. From what i understand, the chakras relate to different levels of reality, they dont constitute one homogenous whole or interact with one another, as far as i understand of it; whereas the 7 sefirot are specifically emotional in nature, whereas the 3 upper sefirot are abstract. Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferet, form one triad. They are either absolutely expanding (chesed), Restricting (Gevurah) or find a proper meditation in Tiferet (harmony). This than is channeled lower to the lower triad of Netach, Hod and Yesod. This brings the qualities of the upper triad into the context of an external relationship. Netach desires to dominate, Hod to acquiesce, and Yesod to find a balance betwen the Two. And malkhut is the sphere which recieves the upper energies, through 'yesod' and than has the ability to return what it was given.

The sefirot are profoundly deeper than anything in Eastern thought. It describes the essence of every spiritual process - whether psychologically in man, or physically on earth, or in the heavens. The Sefirot describe it all.

Maybe my understanding of the eastern 'chakra' is flawed. Is this above concept which i related paralled in the East, or in gnosticism?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


My dad is stronger than your dad! Beat it!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join