DPMartin wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:20 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Ab(ba) ra ohem == father who sees (over) them......the Aten, originally from Egypt, the original 'promised land'.
Ra == the where we get "ray" from as well as "are" etc. The "Ra" , from Egypt again, was the rays of the sun and likely got its name from the mimicking of the lion's roar.
Ja-cob == "I cobble" (I walk and/or stumble), originally from the Achille's heal story or another earlier source than both of them.
God == "good" (a shorthand assignment for the source cause assumed to have favor for us, and thus, we saw that it was "good"
Elohem == El- ohem == "the them", the general sources collectively or plural of a collection of all people's different beliefs about sources, including possibly ancestors.
El == the, or it, or she (feminine concept means the feel versus adam, which represented mankind or men in context [now Al or el, la, il, le, or il]
Is-ra-el == I or we saw, felt, or knew him. When Egypt's last dynasties fell the remnants of the Akenaten (akin or same as the best or perfect one [aten] as the sun's shape in the heavens).
Eve == follows, that which follows in time, space or number, Where Adam represents the earthly solids that are less perfect, Aten was "the one" perfect thing and source, and Eve was all that follows after one. Note "Oden" from the Norse (north) mythology is Aten. From 'eve' we get the following: evening, ever, and even ...versus (g)od(d) or (g)oden
I could go on but thought to throw this at you given you appear to be a believer who doesn't know the secular source meanings. The bible was a secular collection of the various peoples (tribes) and had derived originally from Akenaten's reign. The whole people were a takeover of Assyrians, who represent the original Jews (or 'wanders'...those not settled or denied a place to settle by "lords", land owners.
Sorry if this blows your bubble.
nope no bubbles secular views are that, secular, and have nothing to do with what is understood as the bible or the intent of what was documented therein. you don't believe it fine, but that doesn't make one an expert at what you're not familiar with. only in looking for or spotting alternatives. besides I wasn't the one who mentioned Isaac and the offering of his life. FYI most of what you've posted sounds like hogwash anyway.
Jacob son of Isaac named Israel is much older than Greek history or mythology or culture. you should get you're miss information straight.
Are you suggesting that what you NOW interpret religiously couldn't possibly have been affected by politics as we see happening all the time? When one people take over another in war, they do what they can to destroy any remnants of past that grants the last peoples reason to compensation for its theft. The bible was a cannonized collection of different works and to understand what was meant, you have to go back and put yourself in their shoes. Your religious beliefs interfere with your will to look.
"Jesus" == "I am" == French's "je suis";
The "j' is actually FROM the Greek language reinterpreting aramaic, and certain practices that evolved a distinction between capitalizing versus small letters. The "J" was actually a legal 'hook' to indicate a financial transaction, like a check when we place lines before and/or after to prevent others from turning $10 into $100 or $1010, for examples.
"Jesus Christ" was a general shorthand way of referencing those who preached soap box style to the poor, telling them that they TOO are as 'equal' in significance to the emperor.
But I'll stick to this. The thread is about agreements and my two cents is only to mention the point about HOW and WHY we used what appears like cruel measures in the past to formalize agreement between two or more parties. Though it may be odd to you or others, the ancients were neither stupid NOR beholden under the curse of some actual magical world of literal Gods. And the original works had to be relatively NEUTRAL and inclusive in an area that was relatively multicultural. The story also addresses the stories in a forcefully cohesive way to hide the original distinctions of the different peoples and sources. Egypt WAS the promised land but when fallen had its last post at the temple of the 'divide' [ie David] where the last of those who honored the sun as a true perfect source of all, the 'sol amen' [ie Solomon] There are too many coinciding factors and hints at a lot of northern influence from a prior era as we would spread out of African and back in like tides.
The Temples were literally from "temporal" meets of the tribes AS they were transitioning to settled land. They needed a means to officiate "idols", which were literal tribal formal signatures to prove the tribes or individual of them to lands they only used to meet up seasonally to sow and harvest prior to land claims. These were places used of priests that were mere official representatives in the way we have the United Nations conventions.
You're welcome to NOW disagree to what was real in its day. But the original foundation of religion was the past's secular means of civilizing from a transient lifestyle to the settled ones. And in times when people DID begin to turn it into the religious interpretations with unusual extremes, new leaders, like Akhen-aten, a 'moses' (==leader) would also attempt to destroy the old interpretations that devolved into the stupid people's minds, that often become extremists justification to act bad in times of environmental upheavals, like the plagues, that first caused threats to whole farm lands, as the Irish potato famine in more recent times had occurred....due to not understanding a need to diversify crops, for instance.
We need agreements only conditionally if we want settled society to be civil. Unfortunately, those who want to conserve their power of 'own'-ership and greed for accumulation, they tend towards a more authoritative non-negotiable means of 'settling' things. And they then start thinking, "why" do we need agreements? If Nature (or the Go(o)d Nature) has granted ME such fortune but I have no justification to prove I actually earned it indifferent to a thief -- then you/we might tend to prefer an 'anarchic' non-democratic system that prevents power to the masses, keeps them in desperation and weak, and act to serve and keep the kings on their thrones. ....kinda how that "Je suis christos" claimed to try to serve the poor by empowering them as a collective. (Jesus Christ == short for "I am anointed a Caesar" or "I am as equal as the kings or powerful" by Nature (God) alone.