Originally posted by dontreally
Maybe you should read up on the Bar Khoba fiasco. He was endorsed by the rabbinic leadership - Rabbi Akiba. Additionally, he actually fit the criteria
of a messiah. Not a dionysian creature born of a virgin birth, with supernatural powers. But a great leader, normal like any other human, whose power
lied in his leadership abilities and prowess in Torah.
Thus you see that the ACTUAL conception of Messiah is not so 'mystical' as people think. Yes, this man is to be of great spiritual stature, but he
will be a normal human being.
So the ACTUAL conception of Messiah is "a guy the Rabbis appoint to lead us into a massive asskicking"? I can't imagine the competition was that
Why not call it Iudaism? Also, Hadrian appropriated an unbelievable 40% of Romes Legions to deal with the tiny province of Judea. Pretty
'Cause I happily let the practicioners of a religion name the religion, while I let the rulers of a territory name the territory. Thus "Muslim" rather
than "Mahometan," and "The United States" rather than "Occupied Dakota"
And no. Hadrian actually sent six legions; that's 17% of the total available to him at the time. Know why? Two reasons
First Rome's response to any
rebellion was overwhelming force; If Iudaea managed to successfully break away from the empire, it would have
undoubtedly inspired more rebellions around the empire. Hadrian was also no doubt gunning for an overwhelming victory to restore his dignitas
remember, he had failed to quell the Pictish uprisings in Caledonia a decade before. Sending sixty thousand men to obliterate the nuisance not only
scored Hadrian the victory, but it sent a clear message to everyone
in the empire who wanted to rise in revolt; "We will destroy you."
Second, the province happen to be in the vicinity of the major trade routes crossroads between Africa, southern Asia, and Europe. It was
geographically valuable, for that reason; if the revolt had succeeded, there would have been a hostile kingdom squatting on the land connection
between the northern and southern halves of the empire. Strategically and economically, there's no way Rome could have allowed the revolt to
As for them not being too pagan. Hadrian was referred to as the most "greek" of Roman emperors.
Yep, he was a philhellenist. This doesn't mean that hewas off sacrificing goats to Zeus; it means that he was an admirer of Greek culture, music,a
architecture, and philosophy. He was straight-up part of the Emperor cult.
He actually murdered his lover antiochus in the nile to simulate the murder of osiris; deifying his gay lover and turning him into a god for
Antinous did in fact drown in the Nile, and may have been Hadrian's lover. He was deified by Hadrian, and became associated with both Osiris and
Bacchus. Not sure where you get the notion that he was intentionally murdered by Hadrian, much less for any sort of religious reasons. I suspect
that's likely a bestialization concocted by later Christian writers.
The ancient Egyptians also regarded the Pharoah as god incarnate. Same with the babylonians. Even despite this, local cults and traditions still
abounded in the ancient roman empire up until Christianities great conquests in the 9th -12th centuries.
Yup. 'Course, that was several thousand years before either Rome or Christianity.
It was that size during Solomons reign. From the nile to the river Euphrates, Israel had many vassal states that paid tribute to them. But yes, the
'official' size of Israel was from Goshen - east of the nile, to northern lebanon (also ancient Israel) all of syria, all of Jordan, and the northern
portion of Saudia Arabia.
Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, this is one of the places where the Bible and reality diverge. For starters, there is zero hard evidence
of Solomon's reign. There's some circumstantial evidence of a Hebrew king in the area in the supposed timeframe, but nothing at all even remotely on
scale with what the Bible is talking about, and that circumstantial evidence is strongly debated. Second, there is no historical evidence of the
Hebrew kings having any vassals other than their fellow Hebrews.
You've got to remember that, above all else, the Bible is a book written by the Hebrews about how gosh-darned awesome and magnificent Hebrews are.
It's sort of like how the Han Dynasty of China wrote "historical records" of how they ruled the entirety of the earth, rather than just a substantial
chunk of what is today Northwestern China.
No Jewish state ever touched the Nile, and even at the greatest extent of the Kingdom of Israel, it only just touched the headwaters of the Euphrates
at the far northern end of the kingdom.
I get what youre saying. Have you read 'answer to job' that shoddy attempt by jung to make YHVH to be some pagan dualistic god? Well, no. If you had
read the Torah, you would know that G-d prescribes a human RESPONSE to the nature of life. yes, G-d also creates evil.
I'm going to trim the rest of this section down for space. I don't think that YHWH is a dualistic god - though one could easily be constructed from
the thing. No, I regard the god to simply be a muddled and confused mess that ultimately has less reason to be revered than a block of cheddar.
There's far too much internal conflict in the concept to be a stable basis of faith; which is why, I think, agnosticism and atheism are much more
prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths than in, say, the traditional religions of Africa.
He blesses, when you make an effort to do good, sincerely, and honestly, and he condemns, and 'curses' when one does the opposite. Thats pretty just
Again; babies dying of ebola.
The reason why people like you, who completely cast off the impression of G-d, seemingly live lives without much turmoil, is because G-d treats
everyone in accordance, and relative to his situation. If one doesnt believe in G-d, and puts his stock into chance, and randomness, G-d will allow
the world to work in just that way for that person . This doesnt mean that justice doesnt exist. No. The materialist is rewarded for his good
according to material terms, whereas the spiritual person is rewarded in spiritual terms. Each is dealt his reward and punishment according to his own
personal reality. If he denies the fact that evil has consequences, and 'represses' that with a voracious disbelief, than G-d will 'repress' his
response until he dies, loses consciousness, and enters his true world, as he is as a person. This is where G-d deals with that person, again, on his
own terms. This is what is called 'hell'. Conversely, a Good person may lead a difficult life laden with obstacles and suffering. When he dies, all
his effort and grace in overcoming those times and all his patience, trust, and faith in G-d will be rewarded. The true 'pleasure' those actions
brought to G-d, to the affirmation of the unity between one and his source, will be a source of great enjoyment in the next world. Thus, the spiritual
- the bakground, is revealed in his next world. His true self is made known to him and he basks in the light and joy of union with G-d.
All this wall o' text says is that your deity is not worth worshiping; If I help someone out one day, odds are simply that they'll return the favor at
a later date. That's not your god at work, it's cooperative behavior. Similarly, if I hit someone in the face, I can expect them to be against me and
seek to do me harm in some fashion; again, not god at work, just humans responding exactly as you'd expect. If god doesn't care if you believe in him,
and whatever happens is going to happen regardless of god, what's the use of god?
What contradictory baggage? G-d is a paradox.
Answered your own question.
That is the basis of the Kabbalah,
Which is why I pointed out to you that different people get different answers from it.
and indeed of even the Hebrew language. Look at how some letters are pronounced in different ways. a bet can be a vet, a gimel a jimel, a Waw,
a Vav, or a "Oo" sound, a Pey, phey.
A trait shared by all its Afro-Asiatic relatives. Most languages have some variation on this of course.
At the very heart of Judaism is the paradox of G-d. Of YHVH and Elohim. Two different modes of existence which transcend the framework of human
Alternately, two distinct gods who had separate cults in ancient history, which were merged for reasons of political unity with YHWH's cult coming out
Ive studied a bit of hiduism. and excuse me, its irrationality is much more obvious than in Kabbalah or Judaism.
I imagine there's some Hindus who would say the same thing, only in reverse. You really don't see the silliness of arguing that your god is a paradox,
and then calling someone elsee's faith "irrational," do you?
Kabbalah, is not alchemy.
No, but alchemy is in large part kabbalah. My point was that you're simply scraping the surface, and considering yourself learned. You have the
preachiness of a fresh convert, as well as the lack of knowledge that comes with that state.
Kabbalah is not some irrational alchemy. If one doesnt have a full grasp of hebrew, and hasnt explored the remarkable philosophical
relationships between concepts - through numerical correspondences, than one doesnt fully appreciate Kabbalah.
You still don't realize how silly it looks when you say stuff like this, huh?
Yayin - wine, is 70 in Gematria. This is the same as Sod - secret. Wine is the secret in grapes. And likewise, one cannot just make a cursory
study of kabbalah if he seeks to understand it. just as wine takes time to make, so to does the secret wisdom in Torah, and Hebrew, take time to
edit on 27-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)
Sure. Time which I'm almost certain you haven't even come close to devoting yet. Notice that most of the really learned Kabbalists are these gnarly
old dudes with big ol' beards, rather than thirty-somethings arguing on the internet?
By the by, your argument stands against you - you argue that one cannot fully understand or even speak of kabbalah without putting in intensive study.
The same could hold true for all the religions and faith systems you've been crap-talking in all your posts. Unless you speak Sumerian and have deep
and intimate knowledge of the rituals conducted for Marduk, you can't say diddly about what the Sumerians thought, right?
edit on 28-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason