We are living in a world of illusion

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,308
Reputation
-910
Daps
1,845
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
@Koichos

Resh - Wikipedia



Sheqer or Seker?
RealisticPlushAss-size_restricted.gif

maybe both

We are living in a world of illusion
Is this another one of your ridiculous etymological connection claims? Boring!

shéqer לבני ירושלים, לבני ספרד ולבני המזרח, לבני אשכנז, פולין ורוסיה
sháqar לבני שרעב
shágar לבני צנעא

You score only 33⅓% for that, with a teacher's assessment of 'Must try harder!'
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
Is this another one of your ridiculous etymological connection claims? Boring!

shéqer לבני ירושלים, לבני ספרד ולבני המזרח, לבני אשכנז, פולין ורוסיה
sháqar לבני שרעב
shágar לבני צנעא

You score only 33⅓% for that, with a teacher's assessment of 'Must try harder!'

Babi

:lolbron:

“Moses struck an egyptian in a state of anger who was mistreating an Israelite”
We are living in a world of illusion

:troll: re-read

Exodus 7:1
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

All my posts have linked symbolic meanings (thus the theme of illusion)
 
Last edited:

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
The fact is there is a higher dimension and there are intelligent beings that live in that dimension.
ive thought about this lately too

but from my perspective, the concept of dimension itself may be poorly understood. ie we arbitrarily assume discrete steps for dimensions

furthermore, given that we are born the way we are, i would say God intended us to view reality from this perspective. Consider how much we perceive just here?!?
What-You-Dont-Know.jpg

If we were meant to see and interact with higher and lower dimensional worlds it would be intrinsic to our nature. Even the green slice I'm not so sure we can be sure we know that we know

i still say knowledge in itself is not fully understood, given its plastic nature. Ive never been the type to enjoy or entertain "demonology" but to me those things come purely from bad knowledge or rather knowledge that begins to subjugate its host.

26132.jpg


"Our witness" :jbhmm:
 

Chrishaune

Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
31,859
Reputation
2,725
Daps
75,695
Reppin
Huntsville
ive thought about this lately too

but from my perspective, the concept of dimension itself may be poorly understood. ie we arbitrarily assume discrete steps for dimensions

furthermore, given that we are born the way we are, i would say God intended us to view reality from this perspective. Consider how much we perceive just here?!?
What-You-Dont-Know.jpg

If we were meant to see and interact with higher and lower dimensional worlds it would be intrinsic to our nature. Even the green slice I'm not so sure we can be sure we know that we know

i still say knowledge in itself is not fully understood, given its plastic nature. Ive never been the type to enjoy or entertain "demonology" but to me those things come purely from bad knowledge or rather knowledge that begins to subjugate its host.

26132.jpg


"Our witness" :jbhmm:



Your clues are in Genesis. Adam and Eve both interacted with God and the serpent before the fall of man. What does it mean to fall? You take a step back from a level higher than your current level. Our level of interactivity was limited after sin. God even kept us from eating from the Tree of Life and being stuck in this state. That's what you regain and surpass in your glorified body in eternity.
 
Last edited:

Marks

as a mountain
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
2,043
Reputation
740
Daps
8,463
@MMS
3 hours long so I haven't peeped but I enjoy these conversations before, this one supposed to be more open ended and less an interview/about w/e he's writing rn:
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
@MMS
3 hours long so I haven't peeped but I enjoy these conversations before, this one supposed to be more open ended and less an interview/about w/e he's writing rn:

@Koichos

In an earlier post I linked to Socrates and although I did not explicitly state it, his famous "I know that I know nothing" is one of the most confounding statements because it makes assumption that nothing is real.

Socratic daimonion

Alcibiades Receiving Instruction from Socrates, a 1776 painting by François-André Vincent, depicting Socrates's daimon.[140]

In several texts (e.g., Plato's Euthyphro 3b5; Apology 31c–d; Xenophon's Memorabilia 1.1.2) Socrates claims he hears a daimōnic sign—an inner voice heard usually when he was about to make a mistake. Socrates gave a brief description of this daimonion at his trial (Apology 31c–d): "...The reason for this is something you have heard me frequently mention in different places—namely, the fact that I experience something divine and daimonic, as Meletus has inscribed in his indictment, by way of mockery. It started in my childhood, the occurrence of a particular voice. Whenever it occurs, it always deters me from the course of action I was intending to engage in, but it never gives me positive advice. It is this that has opposed my practicing politics, and I think its doing so has been absolutely fine."[141] Modern scholarship has variously interpreted this Socratic daimōnion as a rational source of knowledge, an impulse, a dream or even a paranormal experience felt by an ascetic Socrates.[142]

So in essence the belief in nothing spawns an entire alternate thought process where nothing is the assumption. Which in turn gives rise to assumptions about the origins of thoughts.

Genesis 1 does not imply true emptiness, just that the beginning is hard to discern from our perspective as the reader.

Once light is declared, it is also declaring that discernment is declared. As before light we can assume that emptiness was the only true thing. Yet emptiness isn't nothing.

Now that Light is declared, fullness is the truth and emptiness is constantly fleeing from it

me and @MMS building

peace to the other gods as well though



Rahab - Wikipedia

Jonah 4:6-7

6 And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
The Black Faced Rock

We are living in a world of illusion

We are living in a world of illusion
25d8ae41b78f8673168364a707978663.gif

We are living in a world of illusion

Four Kumaras - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,308
Reputation
-910
Daps
1,845
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
“Moses struck an egyptian in a state of anger who was mistreating an Israelite”
We are living in a world of illusion
Interestingly, Sh'moth 2:12 is one of at least three occasions in the Tanach where the disastrous consequences of uttering the Four-Lettered Divine Name to the people it was spoken against is borne out (as evidenced by verse 14). Firstly, there is no word 'looked' in verse 12, and neither does that verse say 'killed'; the words used are וַיִּפֶן wayyifan ('and he turned') and וַיַּךְ wayyach ('and he attacked' or 'struck'). More to the point, the implication of 'he turned here and there and saw that there was no man' is not that 'no one was watching' but rather that he perceived prophetically that 'no man' who would ever serve Hashem was destined to emerge from that worthless Egyptian. Secondly, the wording of verse 14 is הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִי hal'hor'geni ʾattoh ʾomer kaʾashar horag'to ʾath hamissri, which literally means 'do you mean to say [something] and kill me in the same way that you killed that Egyptian?'—which the midrosh 'Sh'moth Rabboh' 1:32 understands to mean that Moshah 'killed' the Egyptian by speaking the shem ham'forosh (the 'Explicit Name') at him. But, in any event, Moshah killed that Egyptian to prevent him taking an innocent life, which he had a positive duty to do so.

:troll: re-read


Animals of Set | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

All my posts have linked symbolic meanings (thus the theme of illusion)
We read that division two months ago alongside ʾUnq'los's Targum... while you lot were hungover from your 'New Year's' celebrations.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,308
Reputation
-910
Daps
1,845
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
@Koichos

In an earlier post I linked to Socrates and although I did not explicitly state it, his famous "I know that I know nothing" is one of the most confounding statements because it makes assumption that nothing is real.



So in essence the belief in nothing spawns an entire alternate thought process where nothing is the assumption. Which in turn gives rise to assumptions about the origins of thoughts.


Genesis 1 does not imply true emptiness, just that the beginning is hard to discern from our perspective as the reader.
You seem to be overlooking one simple fact of grammar... the Tanach's opening sentence is not about a grand 'Beginning of Everything', but just says that ʾAlohim's first creative act vis-à-vis Heaven and Earth was to call 'light' into existence:
:בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ; וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם, וְרוּחַ אֱלֹקִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם; וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים: 'יְהִי אוֹר'—וַיְהִי־אוֹר
1At the start of ʾAlohim's creating of Heaven and Earth, 2when the Earth was amazingly empty and darkness covered the surface of the deep [water] and a wind from ʾAlohim was blowing across the water's surface, 3ʾAlohim said: 'There should be Light!'—so there was Light.
On a similar tack, it is interesting to note that while אוֹר ʾor ('light') needed to be created, ʾAlohim never said יְהִי חֹשֶׁךְ y'hi hoshach ('There should be darkness!') since, indeed, חֹשֶׁךְ hoshach ('darkness') already existed ('וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם', B'reshıth 1:2). Why? Because 'darkness' is simply the absence of light; it is only necessary to create one of the two in order to have the other. What's more, the word יְהִי y'hi in verse 3 is not an imperative. It is equivalent to יִהְיֶה yih'yah and means 'it will be' or 'it should be' or even 'let it be'; thus וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְּהִי אוֹר should correctly be rendered ʾAlohim said: 'There should be light!'—so there was light. If you think about it, the imperative form of a verb used in that place would mean that ʾAlohim was commanding 'light' to start existing, and the structure of the main clause (1:3) would then have to be something to the effect of Then ʾAlohim said to the light [which did not yet even exist]: 'Come into being!'—which is nonsense.

Once light is declared, it is also declaring that discernment is declared. As before light we can assume that emptiness was the only true thing. Yet emptiness isn't nothing.

Now that Light is declared, fullness is the truth and emptiness is constantly fleeing from it
As our commentator Rash"i points out, the issue of טוֹב ṭov versus רַע raʿ ('good' versus 'evil') can be approached through two routes, that is, the philosophical and the theological, because he writes in B'reshıth 1:4
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹקִים אֶת־הָאוֹר כִּי־טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל'—אַף בָּזֶה אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לְדִבְרֵי אֲגָּדָה: רָאָהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְדַאי לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְשָׁעִים וְהִבְדִּילוֹ לַצַּדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. וּלְפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ כַּךְ פָּרְשֵׁהוּ: רָאָהוּ 'כִּי־טוֹב' וְאֵין נָאֶה לוֹ וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּעַרְבּוּבְיָא, וְקָבַע לָזֶה תְחוּמוֹ בַיּוֹם וְלָזֶה תְחוּמוֹ בַלַּיְלָה׃'
'ʾAlohim saw that it was good, and ʾAlohim divided'—Here, too, we have to rely on the ʾAggodoh [i.e., the philosophical interpretation]: 'He saw that it would not be appropriate for the wicked to benefit from [lit., 'use'] it [i.e., the special 'light' that was created during the first 'yom'], so He set it apart and reserved it for the righteous in the Hereafter'. However, according to the verse's p'shoṭ [i.e., the theological interpretation], this is what it means: 'He saw 'that it [light] was good' and that it would be unseemly for it to function at the same time as darkness [i.e., both mixed together], so He limited one to the daytime and the other to the nighttime'.

In
Y'shaʿyohu 45:7 (Forming 'light' and creating 'darkness', making 'peace' and creating 'evil'—It is I, Hashem, doing all these things), Rash"i does not show any interest at all in these philosophical aspects; in fact, all he says is
יוֹצֵר אוֹר'—לַצַּדִּיקִים׃'
וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ'—לַנָּבָל, וְכֵן 'עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבֽוֹרֵא רָע'
'Forming light'—for the righteous.
'and creating darkness'—for the impious; and the terms 'making peace and creating evil' are to be understood similarly.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,308
Reputation
-910
Daps
1,845
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
While we are on the subject of Socrates, @MMS, the end of chapter 8 of Hil'choth M'lochim in the Ramba"m's Mish'neh Torah is the closest approach to anything like 'Euthyphro's Dilemma' that I have come across in Jewish writings (which can be restated in the modified form—'Is what is 'good' commanded by God because it is good, or is it considered 'good' because God commands it?'—in order to pose a question that is valid in the context of monotheistic religion, of course). I maintain that 'Euthyphro's Dilemma' is a philosophical, not a theological, issue—which is why I invoke the greatest of all Jewish philosophers, Rabbenu Moshah ban Maimon (whom we call 'the second Moshah'), to respond to the question.
כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל שֶׁבַע מִצְוֺת וְנִזְהָר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן, הֲרֵי זֶה מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְיֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא׃
וְהוּא שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתָן וְיַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּוָּה בָהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהוֹדִיעָנוּ עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ שֶׁבְּנֵי נֹחַ מִקֹּדֶם נִצְטַוּוּ בָהֶן. אֲבָל אִם עֲשָׂאָן מִפְּנֵי הֶכְרֵֽעַ הַדַּעַת, אֵין זֶה גֵּר־תּוֹשָׁב וְאֵינוֹ מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְלֹא [ס״א אֶלָּא] מֵחַכְמֵיהֶם׃
Anyone who accepts the 'Seven Misswoth' and is scrupulous in their observance is considered to be among the hasidei ʾummoth hoʿolom ('pious of the gentiles') and does have a share in ʿolom habboʾ (the 'World to Come').
However, this only applies if he accepts and observes them specifically because he believes that the Holy One—oh, how blessed He is! made commands about them on the Torah and made it known to us through Our Teacher Moshah that No'ah's sons were originally commanded about them. But, on the other hand, a person who does them merely because they appeal to the intellect, does not have the status of Ger Toshov ('resident alien') and is not considered to be among the hasidei ʾummoth hoʿolom ('pious of the gentiles') or even [var. lect. 'but just'] one of their wise men.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
You seem to be overlooking one simple fact of grammar... the Tanach's opening sentence is not about a grand 'Beginning of Everything', but just says that ʾAlohim's first creative act vis-à-vis Heaven and Earth was to call 'light' into existence:
On a similar tack, it is interesting to note that while אוֹר
ʾor ('light') needed to be created, ʾAlohim never said יְהִי חֹשֶׁךְ y'hi hoshach ('There should be darkness!') since, indeed, חֹשֶׁךְ hoshach ('darkness') already existed ('וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם', B'reshıth 1:2). Why? Because 'darkness' is simply the absence of light; it is only necessary to create one of the two in order to have the other. What's more, the word יְהִי y'hi in verse 3 is not an imperative. It is equivalent to יִהְיֶה yih'yah and means 'it will be' or 'it should be' or even 'let it be'; thus וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְּהִי אוֹר should correctly be rendered ʾAlohim said: 'There should be light!'—so there was light. If you think about it, the imperative form of a verb used in that place would mean that ʾAlohim was commanding 'light' to start existing, and the structure of the main clause (1:3) would then have to be something to the effect of Then ʾAlohim said to the light [which did not yet even exist]: 'Come into being!'—which is nonsense.


As our commentator Rash"i points out, the issue of טוֹב ṭov versus רַע raʿ ('good' versus 'evil') can be approached through two routes, that is, the philosophical and the theological, because he writes in B'reshıth 1:4
In
Y'shaʿyohu 45:7 (Forming 'light' and creating 'darkness', making 'peace' and creating 'evil'—It is I, Hashem, doing all these things), Rash"i does not show any interest at all in these philosophical aspects; in fact, all he says is

That's a heavy judgment though, the concept of "beginning" is what gives rise to the concept of "end"

So it begs to reason, what kind of beginning is "the beginning" and what separates "the" from "a"
Omphalos - Wikipedia

I should warn you though, I know how to beat cover 4 defense @YOGEBEAR09 :mjgrin:

zeus-god.gif

Pa Post Shot

explain the meaning of Seths firstborn "Enos"

Enos (biblical figure) - Wikipedia
"During the times of Enosh, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. Enosh himself was one of those who erred. Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king."

Seth - Wikipedia

Children Enos, 32 other sons, 23 daughters

:jbhmm:

In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus refers to Seth as virtuous and of excellent character,[8] and reports that his descendants invented the wisdom of the heavenly bodies, and built the "pillars of the sons of Seth", two pillars inscribed with many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy. They were built by Seth's descendants based on Adam's prediction that the world would be destroyed at one time by fire and another time by global flood, in order to protect the discoveries and be remembered after the destruction. One was composed of brick, and the other of stone, so that if the pillar of brick should be destroyed, the pillar of stone would remain, both reporting the ancient discoveries, and informing men that a pillar of brick was also erected. Josephus reports that the pillar of stone remained in the land of Siriad in his day.

Genesis 11:1-5

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
We are living in a world of illusion


Introduction to the Book of Enos

Enos relates that, while hunting beasts in the forest, his "soul hungered"[6] and he knelt and prayed for forgiveness. His prayer continued throughout the day and into the night, until he heard a voice, saying: "Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed".[7]

Having obtained personal forgiveness, Enos continued to pray on behalf of his people, the Nephites, and was given to understand that they would be blessed "according to their diligence in keeping [God's] commandments".[8] His faith being strengthened by these revelations, he began to pray for "[his] brethren, the Lamanites",[9] who had become estranged from the Nephites and were now their enemies. He received a promise that the record of the Nephites would be preserved and would be brought forth to the Lamanites in the Lord's "due time".[10]
We are living in a world of illusion
 
Last edited:

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
While we are on the subject of Socrates, @MMS, the end of chapter 8 of Hil'choth M'lochim in the Ramba"m's Mish'neh Torah is the closest approach to anything like 'Euthyphro's Dilemma' that I have come across in Jewish writings (which can be restated in the modified form—'Is what is 'good' commanded by God because it is good, or is it considered 'good' because God commands it?'—in order to pose a question that is valid in the context of monotheistic religion, of course). I maintain that 'Euthyphro's Dilemma' is a philosophical, not a theological, issue—which is why I invoke the greatest of all Jewish philosophers, Rabbenu Moshah ban Maimon (whom we call 'the second Moshah'), to respond to the question.

from my perspective, there is no such thing as "the intellect" nor is their true "memory", only what we ask of God in the very moment.

We are living in a world of illusion


We are living in a world of illusion

200w.gif


See me ebb and flow

so to live lawfully is an existential choice, not one that actually requires thought. This is why in ancient egypt the concept of negative declaration "I have not ...." is markedly different from "thou shalt not".

While seemingly slight, they are very different. This is why I say to you earlier in the thread, that from the kings of egypt perspective you have already been fed to allegorical alligators (infinite suggestion and submersion into water) and endlessly digested (the bowels of endless holy text) whos only function like scavengers is to devour and recycle dead flesh.

441643307c5f3c6ee57ab9644d4a0da0.jpg

We are living in a world of illusion

if you believe in the infinite God then the function of moses is indeed to devour entrails, maybe the story's real purpose is God's way of explaining digestion to his people

dont forget we are still talking apples and bananas :troll:

without forgiveness as a philosophy and theology there would be endless indigestion

ANCIENT EGYPT : The Wisdom of Ptahhotep
Thus said Atum :

"Tefnut is my living daughter,
and she shall be with her brother Shu ;
'Living One' is his name, 'Righteousness' is her name.
I live with my two children, I live with my two twins,
for I am in the midst of them:
the one near my back, the other near my belly.
Life lies down with Maat, my daughter,
the one within me and the other around me.
I stood up between them both, their arms being about me."

800px-AnkhnesmeryreII-and-Son-PepiII-SideView_BrooklynMuseum.png


Whirlpool vs Eddy - What's the difference?
Pepi II Neferkare - Wikipedia
A glimpse of the personality of the pharaoh while he was still a child can be found in a letter he wrote to Harkhuf, a governor of Aswan and the head of one of the expeditions he sent into Nubia. Sent to trade and collect ivory, ebony, and other precious items, he captured a pygmy. News of this reached the royal court, and an excited young king sent word back to Harkhuf that he would be greatly rewarded if the pygmy were brought back alive, where he would have likely served as an entertainer for the court. This letter was preserved[8] as a lengthy inscription on Harkhuf's tomb, and has been called the first travelogue.
 
Last edited:

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
@Koichos @Marks

I had a weird feeling about the story of Belisarius when I saw the myth on how he died (a blind beggar)

the secret to the Nika riot story is the names of Justinians "generals"

Narses - Wikipedia

Narses was reported to be a very pious man with a special devotion to the Virgin Mary. Evagrius Scholasticus in Ecclesiastica Historia reported that she would tell him the proper time to attack, and Narses would never engage in battle without her consent.[8] Narses also was reported to be generous to the poor and zealous when it came to restoring churches. He was so devoted to prayers and vigils that "he obtained victory more by the supplications he poured forth to God, than by arms of war."[9] Before accepting supreme command of the army, Narses built a church and monastery in Cappadocia, intent upon going there upon his retirement.[10]

1*AqDkZGzbxf_ygqCGm0MlEQ.jpeg

This name derives from the Ancient Greek “Narsês (Ναρσή)”, from Middle Persian “Narseh” (Middle Persian: Nar “male, masculine”), which in turn derives from the Avestan “*narya-saha-“, meaning “the heroic announcement, the divine messanger”. 1) Nairyosangha was the god of fire and messenger between gods and men in Persian mythology. He is associated with Atar in the Avesta.

Luke 11:18-20

18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.

20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Narses had a limited involvement in the Nika riots in 532, in that he was instructed by Justinian or Theodora to take, from the treasury, funds sufficient to bribe the Blue Faction's leaders. Narses appealed to their party loyalty. He reminded them that Hypatius, the man they were about to declare emperor, was a Green, unlike Justinian, who supported the Blues. Either the money or his words were convincing, so that soon the Blues began to acclaim Justinian and turned against Hypatius and the Greens.[13] Narses himself may have been with the men that dragged Hypatius from the throne on the Imperial Stand.

:jbhmm:

The Little Known Biblical Curse of Egypt by Isaiah

Hail to you rising cobras

Blues and Greens, political factions in the Byzantine Empire in the 6th cent. They took their names from two of the four colors worn by the circus charioteers. Their clashes were intensified by religious differences. The Greens represented Monophysitism and the lower classes; the Blues, orthodoxy and the upper classes.

Nika revolt against Emperor Justinian I and Empress Theodora. However, Theodora's resolute stand and the aid of Belisarius and Narses ended the revolt. The factions continued to oppose each other into the 7th cent., but by the 9th cent. they had become mostly ceremonial.

Hypatius

This name derives from the Ancient Greek Adjective “húpatos (ὕπᾰτος)”, meaning “at the very top, lowest, furthest, highest, best, the supreme one, high, eminent”, from “meaning “hupó (ὑπό)”, meaning “from underneath, under, beneath”.

Is it real history, or a veiled story of war between christian believers :mindblown: was Justinian responsible for Revelation? :dwillhuh:
Monophysitism - Wikipedia

Methuselah - Wikipedia
Methuselah's father Enoch, who does not die but is taken by God, is the seventh patriarch, and Methuselah, the eighth, dies in the year of the Flood, which ends the ten-generational sequence from Adam to Noah, in whose time the world is destroyed.[33] Boia believes that Methuselah serves the symbolic function of linking the Creation and the Flood, as Adam would have died during Methuselah's lifetime and Methuselah could have learned about the Garden of Eden from Adam.[34] The kings of the Sumerian King List lived for over a thousand years, and Mesopotamians believed both that living over a thousand years made someone divine or somewhat divine, and that their contemporary kings were descended from the kings of the Sumerian King List.[citation needed] Robert Gnuse hypothesizes that the author of Genesis made all of its characters die before they turned one-thousand as a polemic against these Mesopotamian beliefs, as well as any claim that a king is divine. Gnuse also believes that the author of Genesis said that Methuselah died before he lived a thousand years to show that he was not divine.

Lightsaberfish of Kurumi Tokisaki
SimpleDeafeningBrownbear-size_restricted.gif

Montu - Wikipedia
Montu's epithet was "Horus of the Strong Arm"

Because of the association of raging bulls with strength and war, the Egyptians also believed that Montu manifested himself as a white, black-snouted bull named Buchis (hellenization of the original Bakha: a living bull revered in Armant) — to the point that, in the Late Period (7th-4th centuries BC), Montu was depicted with a bull's head too.[2] This special sacred bull had dozens of servants and wore precious crowns and bibs.[7]

Neferhotep_I_Konosso.png

Official Count to 1 Trillion Thread
 
Last edited:

Tair

All Star
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
1,988
Reputation
748
Daps
10,150
From my perspective on the spiritual side:

If we are to be less than G-d, are we necessarily fully real or are we sort of like a sub-reality of what is real, i.e. G-d and the layers between ourselves and what is real (the "real" being G-d)?
 
  • Dap
Reactions: MMS

MMS

Intensity Integrity Intelligence
Staff member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
23,015
Reputation
2,289
Daps
26,190
Reppin
Auburn, AL
From my perspective on the spiritual side:

If we are to be less than G-d, are we necessarily fully real or are we sort of like a sub-reality of what is real, i.e. G-d and the layers between ourselves and what is real (the "real" being G-d)?
given that there are multiple living entities sharing the same space, id say considering ourselves like sub-realities is probably a smart choice

once you say "I project reality" then what does that say about your denizens? Hopefully you have a plan :hubie:
 
Top