We are living in a world of illusion

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
26,309
Reputation
3,646
Daps
31,275
Reppin
Auburn, AL
Agreed with most of what you stated but in reference to the bold, mythology is different from that of organized religion. The latter is more fitting for the description you just gave in the bold since organized religion deals with dogma, sectarianism, and the illusionary construct of moralism. Religion is essentially the historicalization, politicization, and b*stardization of Mythology by establishing a Biblical/Koranic patriarch deity as The Most Supreme of All Things and making astronomical figures and metaphysical equations (think of the hieroglyphs on the Kemetic walls for example) into literal historical beings that never existed such as Solomon, David, Abraham, Paul, etc. and also to keep the masses in check while everybody continues to get fukked over.

Whereas mythology deals with highly advanced educational and spiritual scientific mystery systems that pertain to physics, alchemy, astronomy, cosmology, metaphysics, chemistry, and other higher sciences used to understand who and what you are, what you are not, and the reality and unreality of all that is around you.

Often makes you wonder, what kinda God would put people in such a horrible and devious construct like The Matrix and have a certain group of people in a catatonic state for so long? I’m no atheist but I definitely believe y’all need to start asking that nikka a lotta questions about why our Black asses are really down here and been through all this shyt for centuries under “His Grace”.

suggestion and repetition are the most basic forms of witchcraft :jbhmm:

remember...just because people say something (or make a movie about it) doesn’t mean it’s true

at one point in history most of old mythology was valuable wisdom due to allegorical explanation but at a certain point people began bowing to statues and god kings

Look outside, is man sovereign over the world or just trying to survive despite it? The way people live is why there is cyclical events pertaining to those ways
 

Why-Fi

gnap
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,716
Reputation
2,388
Daps
25,907
Reppin
smurf village
The way that can be explained is not the everlasting Way
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name
The unnamable is the eternally real
Naming is the origin of all particular things
Free from desire, you realize the mystery
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations
Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness
The gateway to all understanding
 

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
26,309
Reputation
3,646
Daps
31,275
Reppin
Auburn, AL
The way that can be explained is not the everlasting Way
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name
The unnamable is the eternally real
Naming is the origin of all particular things
Free from desire, you realize the mystery
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations
Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness
The gateway to all understanding

Genesis 1:1-2

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Dave24

Superstar
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
16,653
Reputation
1,438
Daps
22,543
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
26,309
Reputation
3,646
Daps
31,275
Reppin
Auburn, AL
I don't really understand the gematria value stuff, but if you say Belisarius is the antichrist, why him over hitler, napoleon, caesar, etc, etc? Also, since belisarius was from thousands of years ago does that men no more antichrist in the future??

Nika riots - Wikipedia

On January 13, 532, a tense and angry populace arrived at the Hippodrome for the races.[citation needed] The Hippodrome was next to the palace complex, and thus Justinian could watch from the safety of his box in the palace and preside over the races. From the start, the crowd had been hurling insults at Justinian. By the end of the day, at race 22, the partisan chants had changed from "Blue" or "Green" to a unified Nίκα ("Nika", meaning "Win!" "Victory!" or "Conquer!"), and the crowds broke out and began to assault the palace. For the next five days, the palace was under siege.[citation needed] The fires that started during the tumult resulted in the destruction of much of the city, including the city's foremost church, the Hagia Sophia (which Justinian would later rebuild).

Some of the senators saw this as an opportunity to overthrow Justinian, as they were opposed to his new taxes and his lack of support for the nobility.[citation needed] The rioters, now armed and probably controlled by their allies in the Senate, also demanded that Justinian dismiss the prefect John the Cappadocian and the quaestor Tribonian. They then declared a new emperor, Hypatius, who was a nephew of former Emperor Anastasius I.[citation needed]

Justinian, in despair, considered fleeing, but his wife Theodora is said to have dissuaded him, saying, "Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as empress."[10] She is also credited with adding, "[W]ho is born into the light of day must sooner or later die; and how could an Emperor ever allow himself to be a fugitive."[11] Although an escape route across the sea lay open for the emperor, Theodora insisted that she would stay in the city, quoting an ancient saying, "Royalty is a fine burial shroud," or perhaps, "[the royal color] Purple makes a fine winding sheet."[12]

As Justinian rallied himself, he created a plan that involved Narses, a popular eunuch, as well as the generals Belisarius and Mundus. Carrying a bag of gold given to him by Justinian, the slightly built eunuch entered the Hippodrome alone and unarmed against a murderous mob that had already killed hundreds. Narses went directly to the Blues' section, where he approached the important Blues and reminded them that Emperor Justinian supported them over the Greens. He also reminded them that Hypatius, the man they crowned, was a Green. Then, he distributed the gold. The Blue leaders spoke quietly with each other and then they spoke to their followers. Then, in the middle of Hypatius' coronation, the Blues stormed out of the Hippodrome. The Greens sat, stunned. Then, Imperial troops led by Belisarius and Mundus stormed into the Hippodrome, killing any remaining rebels indiscriminately be they Blues or Greens.[11]

About thirty thousand rioters were reportedly killed
.[13] Justinian also had Hypatius executed and exiled the senators who had supported the riot. He then rebuilt Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia and was free to establish his rule.

remember Byzantium was a Christian kingdom :dame: this is also the first destruction of the famed Hagia Sophia...the current one is actually a replica

furthermore if you read what i posted earlier, revelations may be a false prophecy written by early gnostic Cerinthus

Cerinthus - Wikipedia
 

DoubleClutch

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
16,539
Reputation
-2,230
Daps
29,984
Reppin
NULL
Saying it is different since a sound can't be torn or have dirt on it or burn

The written word is a physical object. As such, is corrupt and subject to decay. So the idea is you don't subject the name to such material filth

those are basically religious customs and traditions....

but if you believe it that’s exactly why we have the name Jesus as a replacement/substitute to God who is still human so that Nobody cares if you write “Jesus” on paper (or T-shirt’s) or even make images of him.

But the name when spoken is powerful ironically :banderas:

Saying God (or Allah) no matter the language means nothing as it can refer to any faith, in different cultures or a multiple of different gods/unknown God, etc... but everyone knows Jesus of the Bible by the name :manny:
 

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,567
Reputation
-792
Daps
2,155
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
The 2nd Psalm of David

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
T'hilim is composed in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The word that KJV translates as "the Son" in 2:12 is בר, which in Hebrew means "pure/clean/clear" or "grain". In Aramaic בר is the construct form ("son of...") of the Hebrew word בן, "son". The construct state denotes an "of" relationship (see Ezra 6,14: זכריה בר עדוא—Zecharyoh son of Iddo). The grammatical construction of the Aramaic noun בר requires it to be used in the possessive construct ("son of...") and not as a freestanding definite ("the son"), the latter of which requires the definite article א (i.e., ברא). In Hebrew the definite article ה 'the' is a prefix (הבן the son); but in Aramaic the definite article א 'the' is a suffix (ברא the son). KJV repackages the verse in Xtological wrap by using Aramaic as the source language to insert their Yushke into the verse.

There is no compelling reason to employ an Aramaism in verse 12 in view of the use of the Hebrew word בן, "son", which appears only five verses earlier in the same psalm (2:7). It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word בר 'bar' ('var' when following nikkud, a vowel) is correctly translated by KJV and other Xian texts in every other one of its occurrences in T'hilim ("pure", "clean", or "clear": T'hilim 18:21, 19:8, 24:4, 73:1; "grain": T'hilim 65:14, 72:16). Only here do they incorrectly render the word בר using Aramaic instead of Hebrew, unaware that נשקו בר is Aramaic gibberish as it is without the definite article א. The Biblical Aramaic phrase for "kiss the son" does not appear in the psalm. And in Biblical Hebrew it would be נשקו את הבן, the participle את preceding the definite direct object הבן, 'the son'.

There is not a single example in T'hilim where the word "son" is produced by the Aramaic word בר, for all of T'hilim is written in Hebrew. Moreover, the word נשקו, specifically נשק, does not necessarily mean "to kiss". נשק is a homonym; it can also mean "to arm" oneself. The whole context of this verse is about embracing purity. Should you turn away from Hashem's purity, you will be at war with Him. "Arm yourself (נשקו) with purity (בר), lest He be angry." Dovid Hamelech uses the word בר perhaps as a metaphor for Torah. Should you turn away from Hashem's "purity" (Torah), you will be at war with Him. The Aramaic Targum renders T'hilim 2,12 thusly: the Hebrew phrase נשקו בר (Arm yourself with purity) is translated as קבילו אולפנא (Accept the law). אולפנא is Aramaic for "law" or "instruction" - Torah.
 

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,567
Reputation
-792
Daps
2,155
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
Gematriyos can be used as hints or emphases for many different ideas, but it is not a specific tool for the prognosis he is talking about. Either way, you should be using Hebrew letters. It's 379.

One can just as easily relate 379 to the holy Torah, and Bottei Din (particularly the Sanheidrin). Those familiar with Sifrei Torah know that between the parshiyos (sections) in the scroll there is a little space, either a p'tuchah or a s'tumah: a parsha p'tuchah is an "open" portion measuring a minimum spacing of the equivalent of nine Hebrew letters (there are a total of 290); a parsha s'tumah is a "closed" portion measuring a minimum spacing of three Hebrew letters (there are a total of 379). In relation to this is the gematriya of סנהדרין (Sanheidrin), 379, the same number of parshiyos s'tumos or "closed" portions in a Saifer Torah. As we know, the role of the Bais Din, the Jewish tribunal, of which the Sanheidrin was the highest form, was to clarify the halochois of Torah which were "closed" or "sealed."
 

ImmaGetJoeClarkArrested

The Goshfather
Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
5,109
Reputation
3,225
Daps
27,957
Reppin
South Central Los Angeles So Wut U Wanna Do??
A l
I love the Matrix because of its philosophical themes

One of them is the idea that you're living in a dreamworld. A world of Illusion.

People take this "literally" (from the POV of the movie characters) and wonder if we are living in a computer simulation. We're not.

But we are living in a world of illusion. And just like in the Matrix the truth is not very far from where you are now, but it will fukc your head up.

Get out of here now if you are a Blue Pill Breh. Enjoy your digital steak without knowing the real.

Here are a few layers of programming you need to free your head from

Language:

the natural human is born without it. It's very handy, but is totally imaginary and very misleading if you think language is real.

Try to look at a billboard without reading the words. Impossible.

Simply put. A label can oversimplify a real object. If you label a person a terrorist, you've closed the door on him being a hero, a freedom fighter, a martyr. Depending on what side you're on, one side's thief is another side's Robin Hood. Any one object is really countless parts that could be considered their own object. Or. Any single object is really a part of larger and larger "wholes". A countless number.

Numbers and words are completely imaginary, but very useful to exchange important information. And now most words carry unimportant info and misinformation.

Dogma:

Lots of people BELIEVE in G-d. The only reason why is they were taught to by their parents. If you never heard of any religion before you were like 20 years old you would laugh your ass off at the things they portray as truth. I even know better than most of it, yet I can't shake the feeling of an angry G-d ready to destroy me. I think G-d is real but its not a humanoid in the sky. Its the essence and.consciousness of the entirety of existence. The One that everything else adds up to.

Myths are fine, but really examine The things people tell you. If it doesn't make sense then it was likely added for the purpose of manipulating the congregation and collecting money, not true wisdom

Optimism/Pessimism

Your expectation is what really controls how you feel. If you expect to be treated as an important person, but you get treated like regular people - you may be upset. If you already know you're not special then you're fine with normal.

To approach every situation as if its gonna go your way - optimism - is just setting yourself up for disappointment. A significant percent of the time.

Same with pessimism. You end up being surprised.when it works out, but.you spend the whole day before.the interview feeling terrible. So you're still adding bad vibes to everyday processes.

Things will neither always go well nor always go bad. So the permagrin or permafrown is just extra. You should know the odds and try your best but don't decide what the outcome will be before you see the outcome
A lot of waht u said is simplified in The Four Agreements: Don't assume anything, Don't take anything personally, Be Impeccable with your word, Always do your best...that book changed my life and I try to abide by those agreements and i feel peace:yeshrug:
 

DoubleClutch

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
16,539
Reputation
-2,230
Daps
29,984
Reppin
NULL
T'hilim is composed in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The word that KJV translates as "the Son" in 2:12 is בר, which in Hebrew means "pure/clean/clear" or "grain". In Aramaic בר is the construct form ("son of...") of the Hebrew word בן, "son". The construct state denotes an "of" relationship (see Ezra 6,14: זכריה בר עדוא—Zecharyoh son of Iddo). The grammatical construction of the Aramaic noun בר requires it to be used in the possessive construct ("son of...") and not as a freestanding definite ("the son"), the latter of which requires the definite article א (i.e., ברא). In Hebrew the definite article ה 'the' is a prefix (הבן the son); but in Aramaic the definite article א 'the' is a suffix (ברא the son). KJV repackages the verse in Xtological wrap by using Aramaic as the source language to insert their Yushke into the verse.

There is no compelling reason to employ an Aramaism in verse 12 in view of the use of the Hebrew word בן, "son", which appears only five verses earlier in the same psalm (2:7). It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word בר 'bar' ('var' when following nikkud, a vowel) is correctly translated by KJV and other Xian texts in every other one of its occurrences in T'hilim ("pure", "clean", or "clear": T'hilim 18:21, 19:8, 24:4, 73:1; "grain": T'hilim 65:14, 72:16). Only here do they incorrectly render the word בר using Aramaic instead of Hebrew, unaware that נשקו בר is Aramaic gibberish as it is without the definite article א. The Biblical Aramaic phrase for "kiss the son" does not appear in the psalm. And in Biblical Hebrew it would be נשקו את הבן, the participle את preceding the definite direct object הבן, 'the son'.

There is not a single example in T'hilim where the word "son" is produced by the Aramaic word בר, for all of T'hilim is written in Hebrew. Moreover, the word נשקו, specifically נשק, does not necessarily mean "to kiss". נשק is a homonym; it can also mean "to arm" oneself. The whole context of this verse is about embracing purity. Should you turn away from Hashem's purity, you will be at war with Him. "Arm yourself (נשקו) with purity (בר), lest He be angry." Dovid Hamelech uses the word בר perhaps as a metaphor for Torah. Should you turn away from Hashem's "purity" (Torah), you will be at war with Him. The Aramaic Targum renders T'hilim 2,12 thusly: the Hebrew phrase נשקו בר (Arm yourself with purity) is translated as קבילו אולפנא (Accept the law). אולפנא is Aramaic for "law" or "instruction" - Torah.

Doesn’t matter if it’s “repackaged” or insinuated as “the son” or not because it ultimately depends on if the reader believes it or interprets it that way.

Maybe it has double meaning. Psalms is like poetry, Jesus spoke in parables. Take it how you want. But even knowing how both languages translations differ It actually makes more sense to me when you explain it:

“the son” or Jesus is pure/clean and so is those who following the law/Torah/believe in Jesus

Nice dualities rather than one view being right or wrong.

The scripture applies to both times/readers. Only for later Christians Jesus fulfills it. Even you being Jewish see it but you choose to accept 1 meaning or interpretation that fits your beliefs

David life wasn’t an example of purity so he’s speaking from experience but Jesus life was sinless.

Even Jesus died that David might be saved through his faith in God if you see it that way
 
Top