It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Hebrew Alphabet is based on the Star of David..

page: 15
32
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I was a recording engineer by profession, but I've kept on listening to APC and Tool.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by dontreally

Well thank you for that advice about the Talmud; I may read it as well before I study the Zohar.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:24 AM
reply to post by Americanist

Good bands and sounds like a decent lemonade stand.

edit on 14-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Americanist

That may hold true for abstract unity, but we live in a world of concrete things.

Traditionally the physical world is symbolized by the cube. The Cubes 12 lines, or dimensions, would correlate with space, while the hidden unifying the 12 dimensions is the moment - time. 13 therefore perfectly demonstrates unity at the created level, as opposed to zero, which as said, deals with a completely different conception of the universe.

We're part of a system, but instances of chaos are hardly concrete. Don't confuse vectors with what's going on behind the scenes. Strip a side from the menger sponge (as it overlaps in series) then count how many dimensions these represent - the placeholders. Now dot an inversion point within each of these cubes.

The inversion point is zero on myriad scale. As best explained:

Zero Sum

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

It'll be easy. Just some 60 volumes and 6,200 pages.

I love Judaism, but i'm too occupied with other academic interests to engage such a rigorous and time consuming enterprise.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by Americanist

That's the thing. You have to grant reality to what's before your eyes. What's before our eyes is what I'm referring to and is what the Hebrew language intimates in it's correspondence between Echad/Ahavah with the number 13.

What's 'behind the scenes' is what you're occupied with. It's relevant, scientifically, but spiritually speaking, it speaks to a part of man totally unrelated with the created world.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:07 AM

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Americanist

That's the thing. You have to grant reality to what's before your eyes. What's before our eyes is what I'm referring to and is what the Hebrew language intimates in it's correspondence between Echad/Ahavah with the number 13.

What's 'behind the scenes' is what you're occupied with. It's relevant, scientifically, but spiritually speaking, it speaks to a part of man totally unrelated with the created world.

Before our eyes is a Map of the World. Detailing the vehicle in which morphs - drives unity unlocks mental barriers as well as grants the layman instant connection. I don't know about you, but I'm not a circus animal. I don't jump through hoops (so to speak). Unrelated? Ok, get back to me when April 1st rolls around.

At least we can agree on cyclic progression.
edit on 14-8-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:02 AM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Where did I mention ''stupid'', freudian slip perchance?

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I would like to know how it's really a false claim if I can teach myself Hebrew with it? Pray do tell..

Can you not see the truth before your eyes?

It is a FALSE claim because the Hebrew Alphabet WASN'T based on the Star of David.

Furthermore, suggesting people that are pointing out the truth and don't agree to your preposterous and plagiarized 'theory' might 'get off the thread' really is very conceited.

You asked for ATS opinion, the facts are given, the claim debunked, now at least admit defeat gracefully instead of attacking others for telling the TRUTH.
edit on 14-8-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:35 AM
Lets say for arguments sake there really is something to this.. Makes you ask the next obvious question:

Whats so special about the Star of David that they had to immortalize it in the very language they speak? And the next, If the Star of David pre-dated the very language itself.. just where did it come from? It has to be Really Really ancient.

And the next question.. why do some Jews look like Aliens? LOL

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

I did not tell you to leave simply because you had an alternative viewpoint, which apparently comprehension is something you have a problem with. I said you may leave, because you consider myself and and my thread to be a gargantuan waste of your time, you consider me to be 'inferior' to you, and you demonstrated all symptoms of being generally unhappy with the discussion that has taken place. So yes, I did say that you may leave if you are so unhappy here. Otherwise you are simply coming back to argue and boost your ego, because you feel better about yourself by trying to prove how 'inferior' to yourself, that I am.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Actually I am defending myself against your verbal attacks!

Perhaps if you actually learn to READ things properly and stop denying facts then I wouldn't need to keep reminding you of reality and the TRUTH.

Here's an exercise for you...go back and read my posts, try finding anything of the things you accused me of saying....oh wait you can't because they aren't there and you only like 'metaphorical' 'subjective' truths that are basically lies when for the sake of appeasing your ego.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

With the way you said/typed 'DENY IGNORANCE' didn't quit imply the vibration or intonation of merely meaning true ignorance compared to stupidity. Which I believe, you actually at one point called me an idiot. Would have to go back and check before I blatantly accused you of such a thing though. Your overall demeanor doesn't at all imply that you meant true ignorance.

I am not attacking you at all, in fact I feel the attacking has been put at me...Your 'facts' are not my 'facts'...However I would like to point out one issue with your regards to Madam Blavatsky...I thought you should read this..

en.wikipedia.org...

According to Blavatsky, Theosophy is neither revelation nor speculation.[38] It is portrayed as an attempt at gradual, faithful reintroduction of a hitherto hidden science, which is called in Theosophical literature The Occult Science. According to Blavatsky, this postulated science provides a description of Reality not only at a physical level, but also on a metaphysical one. The Occult Science is said to have been preserved (and practiced) throughout history by carefully selected and trained individuals.[39] Theosophists further assert that Theosophy's precepts and their axiomatic foundation may be verified by following certain prescribed disciplines that develop in the practitioner metaphysical means of knowledge, which transcend the limitations of the senses. It is commonly held by Theosophists that many of the basic Theosophical tenets may in the future be empirically and objectively verified by science, as it develops further. In this sense, the Theosophical literature has predicted some findings which were later corroborated by modern science. For example, the accepted model of the atom in the 19th century resembled that of a billiard ball - a small, solid sphere. It was only in 1897 that J. J. Thomson discovered the electron suggesting that the atom was not an "indivisible" particle, as John Dalton had suggested, but a jigsaw puzzle made of smaller pieces. Nine years before, in 1888, Blavatsky had written: The atom is elastic, ergo, the atom is divisible, and must consist of particles, or of sub-atoms. And these sub-atoms? They are either non-elastic, and in such case they represent no dynamic importance, or, they are elastic also; and in that case, they, too, are subject to divisibility. And thus ad infinitum. But infinite divisibility of atoms resolves matter into simple centers of force, i.e., precludes the possibility of conceiving matter as an objective substance. —Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine Volume I, p. 519

This she determined by using the axiom of 'As below, so above', or how the microcosm reflects the macrocosm.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Please point out what you consider to be verbal attacks? Have I disrespected you in any way? No, I said that I did not agree with your viewpoints. Excuse me for having a different opinion just as you boasted a moment ago, that you were entitled to your own. When I said you could leave, was directly attributed to your increasingly aggressive and arrogant replies.. Which reflected that you were unhappy with this thread and my lack of intellect and knowledge, or 'ignorance'. I'm not twisting you arm. If you are unhappy, you don't have to keep replying to the thread and frustrating yourself further. Easier to tell yourself, "Nothing to see here", and move on. The only reason that you would not is if you have some kind of vested interest in forcing me to acquiesce, more than likely to drive your own ego in doing so.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by Americanist

Unrelated? Ok, get back to me when April 1st rolls around.

Unrelated to our experience. One has to abstract from the world to recognize the "zeroness" of things.

But open before us is a world of concrete things - which despite your reductionist approach, demands equal or even majority of the attention. Simple numbers express this simple approach. Because 12 is basic to the 3 dimensionality of space i.e. up/down,left/right,forward/back, and time is the element which unites reality, it is remarkably intuitive of Hebrew for the word for one and love to be the same value - and not some arbitrary value - but a number which alludes to this unity in space and time.

You can talk about math all you like; the fact is, the sciences are independent of philosophy. Philosophy deals with values. And ultimately, reveals one's emotional leanings. You can relativize such a fact by saying it ultimately doesn't matter, or, since we can never be certain about the consequences of our actions - inasmuch as consequences, if they exist, exist outside our perception, and thus could be reserved for an afterlife condition - it's equally plausible that there are right and wrong actions, right and wrong interpretations of things.

I think the moral is and remains the golden rule: "do to others what you would want them to do unto you", and the inverse, 'dont do to others what you wouldn't want them to do unto you'. If we live in accord with our conscience - with what is right and just - were good. If we allow relativism to thwart our pre-conscious knowledge, we will pay the price.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:19 PM
Very nice, does seem to match up quite well. I would question whether you should title piece "Hebrew alphabet based on the sacred geometry of a six pointed star" instead. I ask as this star and its components have sacred meanings in many ancient religions, not just Judaism.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Unrelated to our experience. One has to abstract from the world to recognize the "zeroness" of things.

You reinforce my point... In essence to find where we came from. There's no loftier mission to live or experience.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by ShwaggyD

Only reason I said Star of David, is because it would have been easier to associate with the masses.

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by Americanist

You reinforce my point... In essence to find where we came from. There's no loftier mission to live or experience

Your point is different from mine - and this difference is exactly the same difference which distinguishes Judaism from the vast majority of other religions.

In Judaism meaning is sought in the world; it's this world which inclines the mind; it is in this world that man pursues meaning, because it is this world - not the mind, or the void, but the final stage of metaphysical evolution, where physical reality, personal existence, unfolds, and enchants the 'Jewish' mind.

What's enchanted the Hebrew prophets millenia ago has affected (or in the haters minds, infected) the majority of the western world thanks to the spread of Christianity. The essential construct of which is mankind's relationship to a loving, caring and fatherly Creator, who is also a judge, though his mercy outweighs his justice; when man veers from the good path, he accepts their return, regardless of merit. Life is thus a dynamic of going and returning, departing from proximity to God to returning to essential closeness; each step away from deity seems to bring you closer the next time you return. It's like the in breath and out breath. What's emphasized is not metahysical perception of transcendent states of being - although that too has it's relevance - but developing a personal connection between God and man. And unlike assuming, as the ancient Greeks did, that man's particular customs are conventional, and not archetypal, Judaism assumes the reverse: the father - son relationship as being symbolic of the Creator - Created relationship. This world, this existence, is meant to emphasize this unique circumstance; where a medley of individual beings each grow and relate to their source, but particularly in the mode of prayer, words spoken from your heart to your very essence - God.

Interestingly, it's worth knowing that G-O-D has the same numerical value as "jehova" or YHVH = 26.. Indicating I think a special connection between our modern conception of God and the Hebraic conception.

Your point, conversely, can be found in a plethora of different religions; in Orphism, in Gnosticism, in Taoism, Tantra (shaivism), Buddhism (particularly Mahayana and Tibetan), and Islam especially. No religion is as preoccupied with the essence of things like Sufism is. Everything is reduced. However, there probably the issue of 'revelation' which irks some people, but to Muslims revelation merely implies that man's personhood too is circumscribed by Allah.

So you're in the majority, granted. And many people would agree with your approach of reducing everything to the ultimate cause, which depending on emphasis, could mean either fatalism, nihilism, or freedom, or perhaps all of them at once.

This has been my own personal struggle as well. I'm well read in the earlier religions, and I am fascinated by their thinking, and perhaps I'm inclined towards relativizing worship, allowing both the existence of the Jewish approach, which seeks deity within the world, and the transcendentalist approach, which seeks to reduce things to their ultimate source. The problem obviously isn't in the spiritual; but in the practical. How to live? What kind of ethics will we live by??? The latter spirituality allows everything. Hinduism is a perfect example. You have the silent piety of worshipers of Vishnu, the lechery of followers of Shiva, the voyeurism of followers of Shakti, etc; every station in life 'has it's own stop' so to speak. To the Hindu this appears perfectly valid. And too many other's it seems fine.

In my opinion, the only thing that should be regulated is physical action. I'm an idealist, I truly do believe in a certain way of living, but I'm also a pragmatist, and I can't see people adhering to a law without first feeling to adhere to it. Therefore, there should be laws against murder, stealing, abusing animals, but as to the three subjects of idolatry (that is, attributing absolute significance to some contingent reality, and thus treating it in itself unrelated to the primal cause), blasphemy (to speak lowly of God) and sexual immorality, are areas that I am resistant to encroach upon. Maybe it's my schooling, I don't know, but I am hesitant to allow the state to control these areas of life. Issues are governmental abuse and rejection of the laws by the citizenry.

In anycase, I'm a conservative of the moderate type. I'm for freedoms common to American values, but personally, I try to live in accord with my own spiritual values and encourage them amongst my peers. But I will not force anyone to act in a way I think they should act. I cannot wield that power; I think it's dangerous for human beings to have such authority.

However, once we grow spiritually, which I truly believe will happen someday soon, and mankind at large has grown more tame, loving and considerate of spiritual things, than it would be purposeful to create laws to protect that condition, to prevent man from relapsing into depravity. And to anticipate your response: the law will cause them to react? Not true. A mature kid who was raised properly has no problem abiding by the minutest laws of society. When his consciousness is glued on spiritually relevant things, he has a force impelling him to commit such actions. When all of society exists in this condition, the spiritual reality, or the ontological force towards depravity present within the collective unconsciousness of mankind, is diminished; the less people giving it reality, the less the individual feels to act that way. We our very much influenced in a tabula rasa type sense, just not totally. Half of it is from environmental circumstances and the other half from the self. If you purify the environment, which draws the human being - in it's collectivity - towards it's Creator, you establish a situation that is tough as nails. You give the self wings to fly.
edit on 15-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by dontreally

Well said... Although, I find no comfort in colorfully verbose details. I invite you to read my blogs. I didn't stop with the reduction method. To identify the root system flushes out the reasoning behind our return - over and over again. The plan is creating an anthem... Once we've heard the hum we're more inclined to jump on board together.

top topics

32