The Virgin Mother Goddess is Cybele and her son Dionysus
it goes back to Chaos birthing Phanes or Fortuna Primagenia Birthing Jupiter and Juno
Its convoluted but at the end of the day the premise is simple...a way for people to put divinity in the flesh
this is where "racial" interpretations come from. Most "Kingly" lines all trace to either Cybele or The Two Ladies of Egypt. The Two Ladies are a philosophical construct but not Cybele as she is based on the literal first Queen of Sumer (Imitated later by Kubaba)
edit and no I do not believe man is god. IMO there is a difference between the voracious need for knowledge/wisdom that hermeticists/esoterics seek and the salvation/peace found via Jesus/Buddha/Krishna etc
Its all a perception problem...IE listen to this while meditating and you may see what I mean:
The Virgin Mother Goddess is Cybele and her son Dionysus
it goes back to Chaos birthing Phanes or Fortuna Primagenia Birthing Jupiter and Juno
Its convoluted but at the end of the day the premise is simple...a way for people to put divinity in the flesh
this is where "racial" interpretations come from. Most "Kingly" lines all trace to either Cybele or The Two Ladies of Egypt. The Two Ladies are a philosophical construct but not Cybele as she is based on the literal first Queen of Sumer (Imitated later by Kubaba)
edit and no I do not believe man is god. IMO there is a difference between the voracious need for knowledge/wisdom that hermeticists/esoterics seek and the salvation/peace found via Jesus/Buddha/Krishna etc
Its all a perception problem...IE listen to this while meditating and you may see what I mean:
I believe in the idea of a second life and a second death if that makes sense. Our idea of being conscious is limited
for me to really try to explain what that is subjectively ...I don't think is truly possible but I dont rationalize my basis for faith on afterlife entirely either
I think we are in someones numeric simulation/creation that is for sure.
the thing that boggles my mind though (and disturbs as well) is the difference between Greco-Thracian-Roman-Nordic paganism and Sumerian-Babylonian-Phoenician paganism
its the presence of or lack thereof of a mother goddess
in essence, one was built off of ancient mother goddess and the other is built off what we are all used to of the titanomachy or Odin slaying his adversaries (Jotun and Vanir etc)
basically it alludes to two distinct types of polytheism. It became clear when I was reading about Rome and the punic wars that they went through a religious shift due to the war (which may have in fact really been a civil war/revolution away from Carthage)
I believe in the idea of a second life and a second death if that makes sense. Our idea of being conscious is limited
for me to really try to explain what that is subjectively ...I don't think is truly possible but I dont rationalize my basis for faith on afterlife entirely either
I think we are in someones numeric simulation/creation that is for sure.
You seem to be an “anything is possible in the universe/all paths lead to God” type of thinker
And we can only go off what God (which ever you believe in) says about the afterlife. It’s pretty clear what the Bible teaches vs Hinduism, for example
You seem to be an “anything is possible in the universe/all paths lead to God” type of thinker
And we can only go off what God (which ever you believe in) says about the afterlife. It’s pretty clear what the Bible teaches vs Hinduism, for example
Yeshayohu 19's prophecy describes segments of Egyptian society acknowledging Hashem and coming to serve Him. The majority of classic meforshim refer this prophecy to the aftermath of Sancheiriv's failure to conquer Yerusholoyim due to the miraculous destruction of his army as we see described in Yeshayohu (37:36) and M'lochim B (19:35). Egypt had also been subjugated by the Assyrians, and in fact some Egyptians were taken as hostages and thus were present to witness the event; the display of Hashem's power impressed the people to the point of converting to Judaism and worshiping the G-d of Israel. However, since the description outlined in the latter verses (vv. 18-25) have seemingly yet to come to fruition, it is only logical for one to infer that at least some of this chapter is messianic.
According to many meforshim, Rav Yitzchok ben Yehuda (Avravanel) in particular, the events described in Yeshayohu 19 will precede Moshiach's coming. Per the literal translation, the verse explains that once this happens, Egypt and Assyria will merit the exalted titles of עמי "My people" and מעשה ידי "the work of My hands"; nonetheless, Israel will retain their unique status as having been נחלתי "My inheritance" all along (Rada"k, Metzudos Dovid). With respect to Egypt and Assyria, Ibn Ezra explains that Egypt merits the 'greater' title ("My people") as they will erect an altar to Hashem publicly, and Assyria the 'lesser' title ("the work of My hands") as only few will come to know Hashem. Israel remains Hashem's very own inheritance forever, whereas the titles for Egypt and Assyria are only temporary.
An alternative understanding of Yeshayohu 19:25 (Targum, Rash"i, Malbi"m) is that Egypt and Assyria will express that they now realize the uniqueness of Israel and their special relationship with Hashem. Targum Yonoson, an ancient Aramaic translation/interpretation of Tenach, takes the view that the entire verse refers to Israel. As maintained by Rash"i and the Malbi"m, the Hebrew should be understood as follows: "Hashem Tzvokos blessed them [Israel], saying, Egypt [will proclaim] 'Blessed be My people', Assyria [will recognize Israel as] 'the work of My hands', and Israel [will be, as it has always been] My very own inheritance" אשר ברכו ה' צבקות לאמר ברוך עמי מצרים ומעשה ידי אשור ונחלתי ישראל. Targum Yonoson, on the other hand, takes a slightly different approach than Rash"i and the Malbi"m.
Targum Yonoson renders the Hebrew into Aramaic thusly:
[Israel] Whom Hashem Tzvokos blessed, saying, Blessed be My people, whom I brought forth from Egypt; but because they went astray before Me, I carried them off into Assyria; yet once they return, they are called My people, and Israel My allotted portion.
The Targum here seems to be referring not to Am Yisroel as a whole, but specifically to the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who were ultimately conquered and carried away by the Assyrians (M'lochim B 17:6). In such a case, the neviyim in Yeshayohu 19:25 needn't be messianic. There's a common misconception that the Jewish People today are descended only from Yehudah or Binyomin, when in truth, all 10 are among us. During the reign of Yoshiyohu Hamelech, the sixteenth king of Yehudah, Yirmiyohu brought back a large portion of the 10 tribes from their dwelling places of Choloch and Chovor. They were then intermingled with the remaining tribes of Yehudah and Binyomin and are included with them. (Hence the reason they are not mentioned in Seifer Ezra in the list of returnees.)
The Assyrian exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel preceded the Babylonian exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah by 133 years. When the 10 Northern tribes of Israel were captured by the Assyrians and taken into exile, one-tenth of the population remained (Amos 5:3; "כי כה אמר אדני ה' העיר היצאת אלף תשאיר מאה והיוצאת מאה תשאיר עשרה לבית ישראל"). After Nevuchadnezzer and his Babylonian hordes conquered Judah and took the captives into servitude to commence their 70-year Babylonian exile, the remaining 10 tribes from the Northern Kingdom of Israel were eventually subsumed back into the general population of exiles in Babylon already there from the Southern Kingdom of Judah when Babylon overtook Assyria (i.e., exiles of Yehudah and Binyomin including the Leviyim of Yerusholoyim).
In turn, this name יהודים or 'Yehudah' (Judah) becomes the all-encompassing moniker regardless of tribal affiliation. The Babylonian exile forged the constituent tribes of Judah and Israel into one klal, one whole, absent of previous tribal rivalry and separation. From then on the people are known as יהודים or 'Yehudim' (Jews), after the leading tribe of יהודה or 'Yehudah' (Judah) and after ממלכת יהודה or 'Momleches Yehudah' (the Kingdom of Judah), on account of the merit of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob and Leah, who merited a unique blessing in Torah in view of his confession. Thus, within the Jewish People exist all 12 tribes; though collectively, we are one—Judah. Every Jew today (whose father is also Jewish) shtoms ben-ocher-ben in the direct male line either from one of the tribes, or from a gair.
When Eliyohu Hanovi and Moshiach Tzidkainu arrive בב"א they may well inform each of us of our yiches. For those of us who are descended in the direct male line from the original B'nai Yisroel, they may also reveal exactly where our property is in Eretz Yisroel that we inherited from our ancestors (with the exception of the Leviyim who are not counted as a tribe–in monetary matters, at least–as we do not have a nachala in Eretz Yisroel and instead are encamped among the rest of the tribes' domains.) Therefore any community today claiming descent from one of the "10 lost tribes" is arguing against an explicit hilchuso b'sha"s (the "lost tribes" are a myth discussed extensively by our sages millennia ago). They are not of Am Yisroel; they are voday goyim gomirim who require gairus to become Jews.
In short, when speaking of different biblical periods, עברי or 'Ivri' (Hebrew) is often used from the time of Avrohom Ovinu until the time of Yaakov; ישראלי or 'Yisroeli' (Israelite) from the time of the twelve sons/tribes of Yaakov/Israel until the destruction of the First Temple; and from then on the name יהודי or 'Yehudi' (Jew). There exists a single appearance in all of Tenach where we find both עברי (Hebrew) and יהודי (Jew), and they are used synonymously: לשלח איש את עבדו ואיש את שפחתו העברי והעבריה חפשים לבלתי עבד בם ביהודיאחיהו איש. We can clearly see from the above why we as a people refer to ourselves as 'Jews' or 'Judah' and not 'Israelites', as the latter has ultimately been a reference to: 1) the Northern Kingdom of Israel; or 2) to the generations prior to the kingdom's split into Israel and Judah.
while the hebrew bible has it's own explanation of the tetragrammaton YHWH (I am that I am) I thought about the name Yahweh phonetically and discovered something interesting if you separate the words but use Egyptian definitions for each word
How do you know it's pronounced 'Yahweh' and not, say, 'Yehwah', or 'Yohwih', or 'Yuhwah'? On what nikkud are you basing this assumption (considering the fact that the nikkud for אֲדֹנָ-י and אֱלֹקִים were printed under the consonants י-ה-ו-ה to remind the reader to voice אֲדֹנָ-י or אֱלֹקִים and not attempt to pronounce the Essential Divine Name י-ה-ו-ה)? After all, most theophoric names in Tenach (~500 individual theophoric names) that incorporate the first three letters of the Name (י-ה-ו) begin with 'Yeho' (Yehoram, Yehoachaz, Yehoshafat, Yehoshua). Still, in the oldest Masoretic manuscripts, י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as if it would read 'Yehwah' (not 'Yahweh'). Or, since י-ה-ו-ה is sui generis, perhaps one would need to get past the nikkud and look deeper to a rhyme scheme such as what can be found in B'raishis.
אֲדֹנָ-י — יְ-הֹ-וָ-ה (When י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as אדנ-י there is a שווא under the י, a חולם above the ה, and a קמץ under the ו. Note: under the א in אדנ-י is a חטף סגול, but under the י in י-ה-ו-ה is a שווא. This is because a שווא presents itself as a חטף סגול under a guttural (e.g., א)
אֱלֹקִים — יֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה (This usage is found as a result of י-ה-ו-ה appearing before and after אדנ-י, so as not to repeat אדנ-י where it isn't written this way in the text. So, when davening, we pronounce a standalone י-ה-ו-ה as 'Ad-noi'; but "אֲדֹנָ-ייֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה" becomes 'Ad-noiElokim')
Also, 'I am that I am' is not relevant to י-ה-ו-ה; it is a (mis)translation of the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה. The verb 'to be' in the present tense is not attested to within Biblical Hebrew, and it is grammatically incorrect to render it into English this way. There are but two 'tenses' in Biblical Hebrew, 'perfect' (completed action) and 'imperfect' (incomplete action), whereby 'perfect' and 'imperfect' express not point-in-time but rather the state of an action (complete or incomplete). The word אהיה is a first person common singular `imperfect' conjugation of the third person masculine singular`perfect' verb, היה, and should be rendered thusly: I Shall Be. אהיה, "I Shall Be", is working in conjunction with the relative particle אשר, "what/that which/as". אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist as I Shall Exist".
To prove this point, the first appearance of the word אהיה is found in Shmois 3:12, just two verses prior to the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה (ibid. 3:14), where we see a unanimous reading of 'I shall be' (see also ibid. 4:12, 15). Only in its reference to Hashem in Shmois 3:14 do we find—typically in Xtian texts (traduttore, traditore)—the rendering 'I Am' (even though these same texts use 'I shall be' for אהיה everywhere else) despite there being the same Hebrew word with the same nikkud (אֶהְיֶה; a סגול under the אֶ and the יֶ, and a שוא under the הְ). Those who learn Torah in its original Hebrew can see that we are actually introduced to the word אהיה in verse 12. It is then repeated in verse 14 as a phrase: אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be". This connotes Hashem's presence during the Jews' subjugations.
The אהיה in verse 14 is a reassurance of the אהיה seen earlier in verse 12. (And already promised by Yaakov to Yosef in B'raishis 48:21 ("ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת והיהאלקים עמכם—And Yisroel said to Yosef, `Behold, I am going to die, but G-dwill bewith you'"). In other words, the name revealed to Moshe in Shmois 3:14 was not a new name as Yaakov had already been familiar with it. It is one of the attributes of Hashem.) In the Torah, אהיה appears only three times in reference to Hashem (3/43), all three in one verse during Hashem's dialogue with Moshe at the burning bush. Perhaps the reason Xtians accept the erroneous 'I Am' is because it affirms their belief in Yoshke being l'hovdil G-d incarnate. This way the 'I Am' here in Torah would comport with the 'I Am' statements found in John.
ויאמר משה אל האלקים מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים. 12 ויאמר כי אהיהעמך וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה. 13 ויאמר משה אל האלקים הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל ואמרתי להם אלקי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אמר אלהם. 14 ויאמר אלקים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם
"But Moshe said to G-d, `Who am I that I should go to Paroh, and that I should take B'nai Yisroel out of Mitzroyim?' 12 He (G-d) said, `But I shall bewith you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you have brought the people out of Mitzroyim, you shall serve G-d on this mountain.' 13 Moshe said to G-d, `If I come to B'nai Yisroel and say to them, "The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' 14 G-d said to Moshe, `I Will Be [With You] asI Shall Be [With You].' And He said, `Say this to b'nai Yisroel, "I Shall Be[With You] has sent me to you."' (Shmois 3:11-14)
R' Shlomo ben Yitzchok (Rash"i) on Shmois 3:14
.אהיה אשר אהיה: "אהיה" עמם בצרה זו "אשר אהיה" עמם בשעבוד שאר מלכיות
I shall be as I shall be: "I shall be" with them in this predicament, just as "I shall be" with them at the time of future persecutions.
The infinitive form of the verb היה is להיות. The participle form of the verb היה, which is rarely used, is הוה. The causative form of the verb היה is מהוה, meaning 'causes to be' or 'causes to exist'. י-ה-ו-ה is not the third person conjugation of 'being' or 'existing' (הוה), it is the third person conjugation of 'causing to be' or 'causing to exist' (מהוה). It is much more powerful than 'He Is' or 'He Exists'; it means 'He Causes to Be' or 'He Causes to Exist'. The first person אהיה is a common singular imperfect `qal'(simple active verb), "I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist". The third person י-ה-ו-ה is a masculine singular imperfect `hifil' (causative active verb), "He Who Causes Existence to Be" or "He Who Causes Existence to Exist", denoting the repetitive, ongoing context of creation; actions in the process of accomplishment.
On the contrary all the worlds major religions and believe in him to some extent and give him some level of respect or they just hate him in the case of the Jews.
How do you know it's pronounced 'Yahweh' and not, say, 'Yehwah', or 'Yohwih', or 'Yuhwah'? On what nikkud are you basing this assumption (considering the fact that the nikkud for אֲדֹנָ-י and אֱלֹקִים were printed under the consonants י-ה-ו-ה to remind the reader to voice אֲדֹנָ-י or אֱלֹקִים and not attempt to pronounce the Essential Divine Name י-ה-ו-ה)? After all, most theophoric names in Tenach (~500 individual theophoric names) that incorporate the first three letters of the Name (י-ה-ו) begin with 'Yeho' (Yehoram, Yehoachaz, Yehoshafat, Yehoshua). Still, in the oldest Masoretic manuscripts, י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as if it would read 'Yehwah' (not 'Yahweh'). Or, since י-ה-ו-ה is sui generis, perhaps one would need to get past the nikkud and look deeper to a rhyme scheme such as what can be found in B'raishis.
אֲדֹנָ-י — יְ-הֹ-וָ-ה (When י-ה-ו-ה is pointed as אדנ-י there is a שווא under the י, a חולם above the ה, and a קמץ under the ו. Note: under the א in אדנ-י is a חטף סגול, but under the י in י-ה-ו-ה is a שווא. This is because a שווא presents itself as a חטף סגול under a guttural (e.g., א)
אֱלֹקִים — יֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה (This usage is found as a result of י-ה-ו-ה appearing before and after אדנ-י, so as not to repeat אדנ-י where it isn't written this way in the text. So, when davening, we pronounce a standalone י-ה-ו-ה as 'Ad-noi'; but "אֲדֹנָ-ייֱ-הֹ-וִ-ה" becomes 'Ad-noiElokim')
Also, 'I am that I am' is not relevant to י-ה-ו-ה; it is a (mis)translation of the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה. The verb 'to be' in the present tense is not attested to within Biblical Hebrew, and it is grammatically incorrect to render it into English this way. There are but two 'tenses' in Biblical Hebrew, 'perfect' (completed action) and 'imperfect' (incomplete action), whereby 'perfect' and 'imperfect' express not point-in-time but rather the state of an action (complete or incomplete). The word אהיה is a first person common singular `imperfect' conjugation of the third person masculine singular`perfect' verb, היה, and should be rendered thusly: I Shall Be. אהיה, "I Shall Be", is working in conjunction with the relative particle אשר, "what/that which/as". אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist as I Shall Exist".
To prove this point, the first appearance of the word אהיה is found in Shmois 3:12, just two verses prior to the phrase אהיה אשר אהיה (ibid. 3:14), where we see a unanimous reading of 'I shall be' (see also ibid. 4:12, 15). Only in its reference to Hashem in Shmois 3:14 do we find—typically in Xtian texts (traduttore, traditore)—the rendering 'I Am' (even though these same texts use 'I shall be' for אהיה everywhere else) despite there being the same Hebrew word with the same nikkud (אֶהְיֶה; a סגול under the אֶ and the יֶ, and a שוא under the הְ). Those who learn Torah in its original Hebrew can see that we are actually introduced to the word אהיה in verse 12. It is then repeated in verse 14 as a phrase: אהיה אשר אהיה, "I Shall Be as I Shall Be". This connotes Hashem's presence during the Jews' subjugations.
The אהיה in verse 14 is a reassurance of the אהיה seen earlier in verse 12. (And already promised by Yaakov to Yosef in B'raishis 48:21 ("ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת והיהאלקים עמכם—And Yisroel said to Yosef, `Behold, I am going to die, but G-dwill bewith you'"). In other words, the name revealed to Moshe in Shmois 3:14 was not a new name as Yaakov had already been familiar with it. It is one of the attributes of Hashem.) In the Torah, אהיה appears only three times in reference to Hashem (3/43), all three in one verse during Hashem's dialogue with Moshe at the burning bush. Perhaps the reason Xtians accept the erroneous 'I Am' is because it affirms their belief in Yoshke being l'hovdil G-d incarnate. This way the 'I Am' here in Torah would comport with the 'I Am' statements found in John.
ויאמר משה אל האלקים מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים. 12 ויאמר כי אהיהעמך וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה. 13 ויאמר משה אל האלקים הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל ואמרתי להם אלקי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אמר אלהם. 14 ויאמר אלקים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם
"But Moshe said to G-d, `Who am I that I should go to Paroh, and that I should take B'nai Yisroel out of Mitzroyim?' 12 He (G-d) said, `But I shall bewith you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you have brought the people out of Mitzroyim, you shall serve G-d on this mountain.' 13 Moshe said to G-d, `If I come to B'nai Yisroel and say to them, "The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' 14 G-d said to Moshe, `I Will Be [With You] asI Shall Be [With You].' And He said, `Say this to b'nai Yisroel, "I Shall Be[With You] has sent me to you."' (Shmois 3:11-14)
R' Shlomo ben Yitzchok (Rash"i) on Shmois 3:14
The infinitive form of the verb היה is להיות. The participle form of the verb היה, which is rarely used, is הוה. The causative form of the verb היה is מהוה, meaning 'causes to be' or 'causes to exist'. י-ה-ו-ה is not the third person conjugation of 'being' or 'existing' (הוה), it is the third person conjugation of 'causing to be' or 'causing to exist' (מהוה). It is much more powerful than 'He Is' or 'He Exists'; it means 'He Causes to Be' or 'He Causes to Exist'. The first person אהיה is a common singular imperfect `qal'(simple active verb), "I Shall Be" or "I Shall Exist". The third person י-ה-ו-ה is a masculine singular imperfect `hifil' (causative active verb), "He Who Causes Existence to Be" or "He Who Causes Existence to Exist", denoting the repetitive, ongoing context of creation; actions in the process of accomplishment.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
but I dont rationalize my basis for faith on afterlife entirely either
