Hebrew Alphabet is based on the Star of David..

reply to post by dontreally


I'm aware of all of this; I simply meant that what we know as the 'Star of David', isn't really just the 'Star of David'. If that makes sense. It has other more....urgent implications and applications.

The name of Solomon may be divided into three syllables. Sol-Om-On. Each of these syllables is the name of a Sun God, or a Divine Principle. Sol means Sun; Om is the sacred syllable of the Vedas, the most magical of all intonations among the Hindus; and On is the name of a Supreme Being in Persia. The building of the Temple was supervised by three men. Solomon of the Sun, the source of all life and power; Hiram of Tyre, the earth, who supplied the materials; and a cunning workman, Hiram Abiff, the energies of space, the ethers, the dancing power of Fohat, the law of the atoms.

Manly P. Hall - How to understand your bible

I thought I would leave this quote to sit and mellow in your minds for a bit.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

reply to post by Americanist


Thank you for this picture; I will save it for my Theosophy folder on my hard drive

Namaste.

reply to post by Americanist


Your remarks never seem to make any sense...

Judaization is not exploitation. Judeo-Christian "ethics" essentially means "judaization"; post modern ethics is a return to pre-Judaization times....and perhaps a little more antipathetic towards traditional values than even the Greeks were.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Spirituality is more than mathematics.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Americanist

 

Your remarks never seem to make any sense...

Judaization is not exploitation. Judeo-Christian "ethics" essentially means "judaization"; post modern ethics is a return to pre-Judaization times....and perhaps a little more antipathetic towards traditional values than even the Greeks were.

I 'dontreally' buy the lesser-of-two-evils bit, however it's presented. How about we just peruse the Torah in our own spare time.

I 'dontreally' buy the lesser-of-two-evils bit, however it's presented.

It's ironic that your praise simplicity yet you deliberately speak elliptically, creating either misunderstanding or gratuitous questions of what the hell are you referring to.

I can only "guess" what you mean by the lesser of two evils. And I guess that is how you like conducting conversations....I "guess" you mean to say morality is relative, and therefore the Jewish approach which favors one thing over another is not something you 'buy' into??

I don't know. Someone who quotes himself is not someone who I can expect much simplicity from.

How about we just peruse the Torah in our own spare time.

If you can read Hebrew, Sure. Unless you think the torah is anywhere as interesting in translation as it is in it's original language.

You know, one who knows and studies the Hebrew language - as myself - cannot help coming away with only one interpretation of Hebraic thinking. Gematria - numerical correspondences - analysis of word roots, and a simple reading of the text makes it incontrovertibly clear that Torah reading really only allows one type of interpretation: the moralistic-ethical one. Abraham J Heschel saw the Torah as God's perspective of man, as opposed to mans perspective of God, and I tend to agree with that interpretation. After all, everywhere else throughout the world, from Taoism in China to Egypt, man seems to universally concur in a moral relativism: in deity being completely 'unknown' (a convenient prejudice) and incapable of conveying to man any particular standard; therefore, religion as practiced was really just an impersonalization of reality, brought down to the level of human worship. The priests rejected the idea that personhood too had metaphysical significance - to them, like to so many today, the person is an 'illusion' which needs to be overcome. His emotions cloud his reason (as if emotions didn't determine all our thinking to begin with) etc etc..Reality - objective living - is "conventional" - totally unrelated and ineluctably divorced from metaphysical patterns. This seems to be more in vogue today than in ancient times, but even in ancient times there was an indolence or cynicism towards the actual merit of right living, hence the preponderance of bizarre pagan rites, human sacrifice, self mortification, sacred prostitution etc, predicated either on a flagrant determinism or it's polar opposite, a desire to be 'free' from all external conditions; the middle way between these poles seemed to evade their notice. The point: Judaism in many ways is unnatural - insomuch as it is natural to be self centered; The biblical way accords with Frankl's psychoanalytical method of finding meaning OUTSIDE the self; self transcendence, which he correlated with responsible living, is the path towards human freedom. The bible outlines this attitude. It's never man speaking - but God. It's not man who wants or enjoys subjecting himself to rigorous moral standards - but God. To deny that is to deny the attitude taken worldwide outside the Jewish world (which is to say, outside the influence of jewish thinking). Even the survival of the Jews is a historical anomaly. The recreation of their biblical state in ancient Judea, and even greater anomaly. There's something definitely unusual about the Jewish people; not in virtue of any innate virtue, but in their just-so-happening to be apart of a nation which God apparently invested so much meta-historical significance. Hence, they don't die. This people seems to elude the machinations of it's enemies, and perhaps today we get to see the finale of it all.

Anyways, I'm getting off topic: I know it was a fad in ancient times and perhaps even today to 'read into' the text ones own theological opinions, ignoring the basic sentiment of narratives and ignoring the mainstream interpretation because to be 'iconoclastic' and 'radical' is cool - even when based on nothing but ones own deluded perspective.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

reply to post by dontreally

I don't know. Someone who quotes himself is not someone who I can expect much simplicity from.

Perhaps you should research the basic terms I managed to choose in regards to mathematics and knowledge base. Wouldn't hurt...

After all, everywhere else throughout the world, from Taoism in China to Egypt, man seems to universally concur in a moral relativism: in deity being completely 'unknown' (a convenient prejudice) and incapable of conveying to man any particular standard; therefore, religion as practiced was really just an impersonalization of reality, brought down to the level of human worship.

You 'dontreally' have to worry about this with me in particular.

Originally posted by Hellas
some don't quiet fit.. I think you could do that with the Latin alphabet and the star of david, too and you would have just some slight variations.

So no, not really..

ahhh ffs

im disappointed now
but there may be hope? i hope

reply to post by Americanist


Simply lovely..... This is great. Definitely worth a save too.

reply to post by dontreally


I prefer the Talmud. Besides, if there is any accuracy to this post, anybody can easily learn Hebrew. After all, you already know it subconsciously.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Are you familiar with the Meru Foundation? This guy, Stan Tenen, blows my mind!

www.meru.org...

You beat me to it! Stan Tenen fits the Hebrew letters to the human hand, and the Meru Foundation model makes for a better fit than the Star of "David" model, IMHO.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou

 

Read my custom title. Wisdom and knowledge is my true love in this world.

edit on 10-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Good idea for you to stay away from females.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

What do you think ATS? Anyone noticed this before?

That REALLY interesting. Did you create that image, or did you find it somewhere on the Internet?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Stolen from here?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

Are you meaning to discredit by those links, or add to the discussion and veracity of the OP?

I ask because some would take those links as 'evidence' of a conspiracy or 'hoax'.

No....? I mean to supply people with relavant information.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by dontreally

 

I'm aware of all of this; I simply meant that what we know as the 'Star of David', isn't really just the 'Star of David'. If that makes sense. It has other more....urgent implications and applications.

You've made that abundantly clear. Very intriguing, big time. Thanks.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


However, if the Star of David chart holds true; would that not mean that the Star of David is made in your hands?