the word for "woman" in hebrew is אִשָּׁ֔ה (EE-SHAW?)
its gematria adds up to "306"
happy wife happy life
The Little Known Biblical Curse of Egypt by Isaiah
- Thread starter MMS
- Start date
the word for "woman" in hebrew is אִשָּׁ֔ה (EE-SHAW?)
its gematria adds up to "306"
happy wife happy life
DoubleClutch
Superstar
DoubleClutch
Superstar
I’ll come back to the afterlife concepts but I just discovered a new belief in Judaism I wasn’t aware of
You not view the “devil” or Satan as intrinsically bad or “evil” but rather a “positive” agent of Gods will/plan
And basically Satan is The Accuser or The Adversary. His job is to observe mankind and test human faith, in service to God.
And also:
There is no concept of a Devil in Judaism, nor in Hell, nor in a heavenly being who is able to defy God successfully and live as an eternal antagonist to him
^ quotes from another blog
So if all the above is true, how to Judaism followers view the serpent in the Garden of eden or “fallen angels”?
My answer may help with both quotesMaybe it went over my head but you need to break this down in a YouTube video or something.
I probably already follow your channel
A great deal of christian writings that arent in the bible were meant to create things, rather than relay messages.
If God determined that it was good for man to have an adversary, it means he felt opposing forces were a natural and necessary quality of creation
greek/persian attempts to flesh out "the adversary" or even assign him as God falls into the trap of Jannes and Jambres whom Paul alone seemed to know
the Gospels rely on "The Angel of the LORD" appearing to Joseph and Mary and declaring they should go into Egyptand Joseph in the old testament, also went forth to save his "brothers" from the famine in Canaan. The better question is why does Canaan become subject to a recurring famine
the word for "woman" in hebrew is אִשָּׁ֔ה (EE-SHAW?)
its gematria adds up to "306"
happy wife happy life
Just two away from 304 huh
Last edited:
the two ladies...
maybe Paul misgendered the magicians
DoubleClutch
Superstar
My answer may help with both quotes
A great deal of christian writings that arent in the bible were meant to create things, rather than relay messages.
If God determined that it was good for man to have an adversary, it means he felt opposing forces were a natural and necessary quality of creation
greek/persian attempts to flesh out "the adversary" or even assign him as God falls into the trap of Jannes and Jambres whom Paul alone seemed to know
and Joseph in the old testament, also went forth to save his "brothers" from the famine in Canaan. The better question is why does Canaan become subject to a recurring famine
We all know Satan or the Devil represents an “opposing force” to God because it’s clear in the Bible and Jesus speaks on it. This isnt a narrative or idea that man created.
Maybe YOUR perspective or interpretation might be different.... that’s what I’m asking
And to you is “Sin” an “opposing force”?
Do you believe in the concept of “original sin”
Does Sin = Evil
Or do you even believe in the concept of “evil” being “bad”?
This question can be for @Koichos from a Jewish perspective also
And @MMS you can drop that YouTube link if it answers the questions better
funny you say that "its clear in the bible and Jesus speaks on it" (pbuh)We all know Satan or the Devil represents an “opposing force” to God because it’s clear in the Bible and Jesus speaks on it. This isnt a narrative or idea that man created.
Maybe YOUR perspective or interpretation might be different.... that’s what I’m asking
And to you is “Sin” an “opposing force”?
Do you believe in the concept of “original sin”
Does Sin = Evil
Or do you even believe in the concept of “evil” being “bad”?
This question can be for @Koichos from a Jewish perspective also
And @MMS you can drop that YouTube link if it answers the questions better
actually "Satan" is only mentioned as a descriptor rather than a personal name in the OLD testament. Its only in the New Testament is Satan used as a "name"
whereas in the hebrew texts it just means "adversary". So when Jesus is debating Satan he is really debating the spirit of his own pride.
Which might not make sense the first read through...unless he really meant that Peter is Satan
I do not believe in Original sin, nor do I believe that Sin as we know it is what it originally meant
I think it literally had to do with the old moon deity Sin whom you keep trying to link to Islam
DoubleClutch
Superstar
funny you say that "its clear in the bible and Jesus speaks on it" (pbuh)
actually "Satan" is only mentioned as a descriptor rather than a personal name in the OLD testament. Its only in the New Testament is Satan used as a "name"
whereas in the hebrew texts it just means "adversary". So when Jesus is debating Satan he is really debating the spirit of his own pride.
Which might not make sense the first read through...unless he really meant that Peter is Satan
I do not believe in Original sin, nor do I believe that Sin as we know it is what it originally meant
I think it literally had to do with the old moon deity Sin whom you keep trying to link to Islam
It’s clear in the sense that’s what people believed and understood as early Christians (who were basically Jewish btw) historically because that’s what was written.
Kinda off topic, but you don’t think the era post Jesus/the messiah is different than the time of the OT stories regarding God/Israel? You keep comparing old times to modern times.
It’s ok if you believe in evil or the Christian idea of the “devil ” But how do you explain the story of Job
And there’s a whole narrative about Jesus being “tempted” by Satan/the devil, something etc.... and you’re telling me Jesus is just having a conversation with himself?
Or maybe you are saying Jesus had the “devil” in him
You see how ANYTHING can be interpreted from your POV.
So basically the gospels is an allegory and not meant to be taken seriously as a historical account about what actually happened in the life of jesus. That’s how read it?
Are demons when mentioned by Jesus also imaginary and open to interpretation also?
Something has to be taken literally, breh.
You probably don’t even believe Jesus was killed/crucified just like Muslims do you?
New Testament is reality.
At some point you gotta cross the line from Fantasy stories of ancient religions to reality & real history with a real person.
Jesus does that just like Jordan Peterson said (and I think you remember the interview
) and no other religion has a figure to accomplish this. Not before or after.Mini rant while I still wait on @Koichos to answer
there are alot of questions in thisIt’s clear in the sense that’s what people believed and understood as early Christians (who were basically Jewish btw) historically because that’s what was written.
Kinda off topic, but you don’t think the era post Jesus/the messiah is different than the time of the OT stories regarding God/Israel? You keep comparing old times to modern times.
It’s ok if you believe in evil or the Christian idea of the “devil ” But how do you explain the story of Job
And there’s a whole narrative about Jesus being “tempted” by Satan/the devil, something etc.... and you’re telling me Jesus is just having a conversation with himself?
Or maybe you are saying Jesus had the “devil” in him
You see how ANYTHING can be interpreted from your POV.
So basically the gospels is an allegory and not meant to be taken seriously as a historical account about what actually happened in the life of jesus. That’s how read it?
Are demons when mentioned by Jesus also imaginary and open to interpretation also?
Something has to be taken literally, breh.
You probably don’t even believe Jesus was killed/crucified just like Muslims do you?
New Testament is reality.
At some point you gotta cross the line from Fantasy stories of ancient religions to reality & real history with a real person.
Jesus does that just like Jordan Peterson said (and I think you remember the interview
Mini rant while I still wait on @Koichos to answer
firstly "Satan" isnt necessarily evil. Imagine a mirror so complex that it can show you any reflection physical and non-physical @Marks
the old testament times don't completely make sense because you arent reading it properly
the stories coming out of Judah are weapons against other nations. The movie Prometheus touches on it where the "Engineers" (think Egyptians) leave vases filled with strange organisms (Israelite spies) that once you touch them they latch on to you.
What you are not considering is a time where people could make up anything they like about anything at all and use it however they wish. The bronze age cultures were ultimately united not only in their belief in God but also that God actively fought for them through them however he wished (see the title Lord of HOSTS) thats why the Bronze age collapse was so devastating because while they may have been polytheist most of them collectively believed something.
So when you read Judges, Kings, Chronicles they know that the flesh that bears witness to them will pass, but the words themselves will last forever. Consider that in the context of "eternity"
So when you read Job it is doing more than you think its doing or rather you arent taking it serious enough (he could take everything BUT his/your life)
As I said to @JoelB Herods attempts to kill Jesus are throughout the entire Gospels. There is a reason only one Gospel has the "infancy" narrative
You read the bible like a history book, I'm reading it as a living book.
so while this idea is fresh in my head I want to expound on it because I know that the topic has generated both positive and negative feedback
@Marks @Koichos @DoubleClutch @Complexion
and thats the line from David in Psalm 82 saying "Ye are Gods" but will die like mere men
So lets assume, that man is an extraordinarily complex being that is multi-dimensional in nature and capable of almost anything
now lets assume the opposite idea about God in that rather than having infinite qualities he has one singular quality and that is finality. The ability to collapse the objective function, rather than somethingness being in flux it becomes static.
So basically us multidimensional folk are always in state of movement but "God" is in a state of non-movement such that he cannot be said to be apart of our reality (which assumedly is always moving)
Similarly to God we can alter the flow of reality by decisions, but unlike God we are constantly changing while God is not only not changing but not subject to the physical happenings in our reality. So in essence our ability to "create" is always at the expense of something connected to our persons.
This is just a theory in order to explain why David said what he said here. So I am not necessarily ruling out the possibilities of man but to expose a possible extreme limitation when in consideration of higher ideas.
now I need to say, I do not believe God is actually limited in this way but rather to show the "unstoppable force" and "immovable object" type problems that arises when in consideration of the power of "creation" especially via speech (the burden of Egypt)
@Marks @Koichos @DoubleClutch @Complexion
and thats the line from David in Psalm 82 saying "Ye are Gods" but will die like mere men
So lets assume, that man is an extraordinarily complex being that is multi-dimensional in nature and capable of almost anything
now lets assume the opposite idea about God in that rather than having infinite qualities he has one singular quality and that is finality. The ability to collapse the objective function, rather than somethingness being in flux it becomes static.
So basically us multidimensional folk are always in state of movement but "God" is in a state of non-movement such that he cannot be said to be apart of our reality (which assumedly is always moving)
Similarly to God we can alter the flow of reality by decisions, but unlike God we are constantly changing while God is not only not changing but not subject to the physical happenings in our reality. So in essence our ability to "create" is always at the expense of something connected to our persons.
This is just a theory in order to explain why David said what he said here. So I am not necessarily ruling out the possibilities of man but to expose a possible extreme limitation when in consideration of higher ideas.
now I need to say, I do not believe God is actually limited in this way but rather to show the "unstoppable force" and "immovable object" type problems that arises when in consideration of the power of "creation" especially via speech (the burden of Egypt)
Have a blessed week.
I'm with you. I mentioned in that other thread thats sort of what I consider God to be as well. Like a force that encompasses everything. Not a new thought either, iirc Spinoza thought along these lines as well which why he was telling ppl to just enjoy life and seek understanding. That to make art or study science, to try to understand the world you live and its laws (of nature) is essentially getting to know God. The 17th century Jews ran him out of town and literally cursed him for talking/writing about this.
its a very touchy subject
Have a blessed week.
I'm with you. I mentioned in that other thread thats sort of what I consider God to be as well. Like a force that encompasses everything. Not a new thought either, iirc Spinoza thought along these lines as well which why he was telling ppl to just enjoy life and seek understanding. That to make art or study science, to try to understand the world you live and its laws (of nature) is essentially getting to know God. The 17th century Jews ran him out of town and literally cursed him for talking/writing about this.
but reading the word of God is like wading in wavy water that unless you know how to float you can easily be submerged and taken by undertow (see Job, Jonah etc)
Genesis 49:3-4
Jacob truly is the correct lense
and his arm shall rule for him
Koichos
Pro
'River' is נָהָר nahar, spelled with ה hé; נָחוֹר nahor is spelled with ח hét and derives from a different verb-root.
Also, Nahor is not reckoned among the 'God of Avraham, Yîtzhak and Ya'aḳov (and Ya'aḳov's descendants)', as the patronym 'Ivri was limited to Avra(ha)m, his son Yîtzhak and grandson Ya'aḳov, and Ya'aḳov's descendants.
B'réshît 31:53 should, therefore, read 'the God of Avraham...the god of Nahor...the god of their father [Terah].'
Koichos
Pro
Is that taken from B'réshît 2:23?
The two vertical dots above the middle arm of the letter shin is a ṭa'am (musical cantillation mark) used for printed T'nachim (Bibles), indicating how the word is chanted during public ceremonial Scripture readings.
Yes. But, when written without vowels it should be spelled in full אישה, which adds another 10.
In fact, the vowel-diacritics are normally omitted except in language-teaching books and other children's texts, and in printed T'nachim (Bibles), Siddurim (Daily Prayer Books), Mah'zorim (Holiday Prayer Books) etc., etc.
As to your original point, that is also the value of דְּבַשׁ d'vash ('honey') - which I get to enjoy just once a year in my wife's hallot as she only puts honey in them for Rosh Hashanah, for 'shanah m'tukah' (a 'sweet year').
I am still craving her 'honey hallot' from this past weekend!
Very much so.happy wife happy life