| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jul 2004 : 20:24:56
|
Thank you, Link;
No wonder I could not find it. I feel a little silly about the model I was trying to build on faulty memory. But there may be some recovery of my rather wild eyed theory.
There is a passage in 1 Maccabees 12 about a letter and some historians have put this together with the Trojans who infiltrated the Spartans being the tribe of Dan. [Do I remember correctly, a hollowed out horse?] The letter is about the Romans being long lost brothers of Israel.
Interestingly the conqueror Alexander the Great was welcomed into Israel and Jerusalem like a long lost brother.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 14 Jul 2004 08:50:50 |
 |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2004 : 11:39:58
|
Greetings,
I remember reading a story about a man accused of piracy by Alexander the great. The man responded during the trial: "I might be a pirate with one ship, but you... you conquer the world with fleets!"
Further... St. Augustine commented regarding the incident: VINDICIA CONTRA TYRRANUS
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 08:46:52
|
Dear Manuel;
I take that to mean "Vindication is contrary to tyranny". So I am having trouble translating what, Latin? (Maybe Spanish?)
Maybe the time of forceful courts has ended. The grace of God will defeat the tyrants and bankers, who covet the world through attorney action. But as always, He works through His people. Maybe that was the many possibilities in the model I so sloppily tried to construct. [I am not certain what I was trying to say. I remember reading about the Gordian Knot many years ago and it seemed that the violent immentizing by sword, of the Peaceful Age had some interesting parallels in history.]
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 09:46:58
|
David,
I think the well known "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" has similar meaning.
Rebellion is "activated" using different awareness, mainly holsum Truth. Some use passive resistance, some use aggressive resistance. Passive resistance can be as simple as not paying attention (turning your cheek) to the actors which rely on holly-wood MIXED-media style propaganda and ratings. Once their "advertising budget" is "exhausted" their sales returns in percentages decrease demand.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 18:18:07
|
Dear Manuel;
I am hopeful that this is not a rebellion per se. But TIKKUN or Restoration called for in the Abrahamic Covenant through the Messiah at the end of the Age like found at Matthew 24.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2004 : 19:07:30
|
David,
Well... using as a metaphor, like a mosquito or tic repellent. If we have the "armor" & "shield," the parasites will not "suck your blood" or "eat your flesh."
That is why Father demands of us to have Him always in our hearts, minds and soul. We are "subject" to be pene-traded when our guards are down.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2004 : 08:15:32
|
Dear Manuel;
Good metaphor. So I plug true name (again) here - a sound sense of identity is foundational to any relationship, even with Him.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2004 : 11:28:36
|
Metaphor II
Tortoise NOT TORTUOUS
|
Edited by - Manuel on 03 Apr 2005 23:27:22 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2004 : 22:21:23
|
Greetings,
the word that seem's to be missing is rectify. The pyramid of Giza was never built according to the Plan, or if you will, the four corner sockets. {on purpose}. Man, like for a house, build's bottom up. Yahuweh build's top down. Heaven to earth.
The builder's rejected the Capstone. In Yahushuah's time, the pyramid of Giza was called, "The Great Light". The casing stone's were still in place and the largest structure ever built...even till today, shone like the sun, with the white limestone 'clothing' shining in its brilliance. Think Yahushuah ever saw it? Think he was well traveled?
Isaiah 19:19-20.
There is more math built within the pyramid of Giza than Pythagorus or Newton had within their grey matter.
On another note, Pythagorus was indeed captured and brought to Babylon while Daniel was there. Daniel even mention's him, in his writings. "The secret numberer"...palmoni. Daniel 8:13.
Since Pythagorus is numbered by modern day paranoid cretin's, as a bugger man, we would do well, to re-search the foundation's of the Faith.
I know of three well known men who never wrote down their thought's: Pythagorus-Socrates-Yahushuah.
I once asked, "why not"? "Because you can receive them without reading them". I asked, "when"? The Spirit said...when you are ready to receive.
Ok.
1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1
The point being; no 2's allowed.
John 17:21 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 04:21:07
|
Hello Robert-James,
Fascinating, "Palmoni", that is. Why did you choose the transliteration of "the secret numberer" over "the wonderful numberer" ? I am simply curious.
As for quote:
1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1
The point being; no 2's allowed.
I couldn't agree more. That is why I am so appreciative of David Merrill's non-paranoia stance. If we come to realize that there is really only one thing happening here, than there is nothing to fear but ourself. If we fall for us vs. them, than it is also hard to distinguish what is "us" projecting out onto "them" that may be responsible for eliciting "their" response. Sometimes we would do better to own that what ever is the One Song's natural response to our projections, conscious or not, is just that, a natural response to
our projections. Of course, if you think you are simply your body that might be a little hard to wrap your ideas around, but if you know that you are not simply your body it comes naturally, once you let go of the standard indoctrination. Not that the latter is easy,
but I do think I am beginning to ramble here, :).
It does bring me to an intersting topic that I have been afraid to bring up, but here goes. Names, Palmoni for instance? How often are the stories in the whole Judeo-Christian-Muslim cycle, misunderstood, because a name that was not really a personal name has been taken as one?
Lord, Moses and Miriam, (Mary,) are the three biggest examples. Some may take offense that I include references to the Lord, but in some of the stories, the Lord clearly has a visible, flesh eating, fornicatig body, and at the same time He is clearly stated to be the Lord.
Then there is the issue of relevant artifacts to support the historical interpretation of the story. Solomon built a lot of amazing things, but there is no evidence that Solomon existed in the
archeaological record, although we can find the artifacts for some of the things he is credited with. We can even find a King to whom we may attribute many of those artifacts, but in taking Solomon
to be the actual name for that King, the evidence for his existence disappears. I'll leave it at that for now. It is just "poetry" after all, and no one may like it or care.
Thank you again for an interesting and enjoyable share. I think David Merrill is right. I am a closet poet, who claims to not like poetry. I don't for the most part, or so I believe, :).
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 07:44:05
|
quote:
Robert-James said: 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1
The point being; no 2's allowed.
Ah, at the root you really are a non-dualist. No two's allowed. YHWH agrees when He said "I am YHWH there is none else".
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 10:17:14
|
Dear Robert James;
I am fascinated after cursory research into "palmoni".
Direct transliteration reveals "a certain one". Like a noun in specific - "so-and-so" out of Strong's #6422. There is reference to "a certain (Assyrian) king" Tiglath Pil'eser, and there is the specificity in the Pe, Lamed ("P" followed by "L") at #8407.
Between Strong's and Young's I find this word is for the "certain" saint inquired of, "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation,..."
And so I find it quite wonderful that the transliteration has developed somehow to "secret" or "wonderful" numberer. Because the decrypted answer (Daniel 8:13-14) of 2,300 when applied to the Timeline starting with the Delivery of the Key; (MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN) is the year 1776 - the cleansing of the sanctuary.
This is supporting the Daniel's Timeline http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/DanielCalendar.jpg
At least in a subliminal manner in my mind. But then I drew the timeline from the Scriptures cited on its face, so I may be spinning that to fit. But the answer came from a "certain" saint. I do not know where the development of numberer came from as it is outside the scope of the two mentioned lexicons.
But it is a noun in specific, "palmoni". And that is the objective in English to specify only the first letter be in upper case. A specific person, place or thing. Now this is a little difficult to articulate so please think about it. This "wonderful numberer" can deliver the key and even the decryption from within our own sound sense of identity.quote:
I once asked, "why not"? "Because you can receive them without reading them". I asked, "when"? The Spirit said...when you are ready to receive.
I find that amazing.quote:
How often are the stories in the whole Judeo-Christian-Muslim cycle, misunderstood, because a name that was not really a personal name has been taken as one ?
I believe Ishmael Aylwin is speaking of resolution of the same identity crisis - capital integration.
Also, I hope he picks that thought about Solomon being a figurehead instead of David's son; or maybe just that the real architect was under Solomon's rule so Solomon's name went on everything, I am not sure. The Masons are into an entire related mythology about Solomon and building. But maybe it should not be dismissed so quickly.
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Jul 2004 15:03:31 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 19:33:24
|
Hello David Merrill,
quote:
I believe Ishmael Aylwin is speaking of resolution of the same identity crisis - capital integration.
Also, I hope he picks that thought about Solomon being a figurehead instead of David's son; or maybe just that the real architect was under Solomon's rule so Solomon's name went on everything, I am not sure. The Masons are into an entire related mythology about Solomon and building. But maybe it should not be dismissed so quickly.
With respect to Solomon, what I was referring to was not the relationship between Solomon and David, nor the almost assured reality that there were subjects of his who were the architects of his many works. What I was referring to, is that although evidence, granted it is hearsay for me, can be found to show the historical existence of David by that name. That is not so for Solomon. Yet, there is clearly a king, who is literally/figuratively I don't remember which, the descendant of David, who ruled and did in fact leave lots of evidence of his reign. He just didn't leave the
evidence with the name "Solomon." So I am essentially pointing to the fact that like Moses, and Miriam, Solomon is not actually the name of the historical figure. In the case of Solomon, since I have not read of it being a title, or role, I can only presume that is a coded or "nick" name, for the King who did in fact build the works of Solomon.
Then my curious mind asks, why? Why the use of the "nick" name, and what was its significance, and for whom? Similarly, how are the stories interpreted differently for those who knew that Moses and Miriam, were also/actually titles. Surly, though it is my presumption, the meaning of the
story changes with that recognition. And once again, I ask for whom, and how significant would the change be to me, or to us? Their is no doubt that using other names in the religeous texts for the people referred to, could have changed history dramatically. The impact these texts have had on us as humans in the past three thousand, or more, years is enormous, even if only affecting the lives of billions is relatively recent. So, in the sense that the use of a different name in the religeous texts, can change the story in significant ways because of other information we may, or may not, associate with the people referred to, I would have to concur with David Merril, that I am referring to Capital Integration. However, not in the manner in which he has. I understand his usage to be more directly in relation to our own personal story, and our use, or not, of our true name. In this case I am referring more to the use of titles as names, or coded names for at least some of the more significant figures in our religeous stories.
Since I am fascinated with how we create the re-presentation of our reality, and the stories being referred to have had an enormous impact on the lives of literally billions of people, it is interesting to me to wonder how our social reality might be different, possibly more integrated, if we knew the true name of some of the major characters in these stories. Or, if not their true name,
at least the name they used to refer to themself. Another way of seeing this, is that names were clearly important to the original writers of the stories, even if simply to maintain geneaologies. Yet some people's names, turn out not to be their true names at all. I am sure for those close enough to the history, who was being referred to, was always clear enough. But, for those later, including us, I am also confident that we have lost information, by not knowing the true names of the characters. We already have a whole thread on the true name of simply one major character, so clearly some of us find it at least entertaing to think about.
Sincere Blessings,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 21:02:00
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I think of the same thing (I think) as the numero-linguistic interface. That our destiny or MUSSAR (more like curriculum) is related to the sounds our parents assigned to us. My name said relatively the same in Hebrew means "Beloved God is my Contender". And my family name means "Understanding the Delivery" or "Understanding Currier". Either way depending on Pe, Lamed, Teth or Pe, Lamed, Tav. So these fell around "Palmoni" in this morning's research; Pe, Lamed, Mem. I have done these translations of sound for others but you can yourself.
Ishmael is easy because it is a Hebrew name to begin with; like David. So look at (Aleph), Lamed, Vaw, Nun. For some of the rules look at Edenics; the Mother Language. I flipped over a book titled "The Word; The Dictionary that Reveals the Hebrew Source of English" by Isaac Mozeson. But you can use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
Looking at SCHeLOMO; Solomon - peaceful. Like shalom. But I do not see any of the other names he had. I recall that David had three different names when I researched that years ago. The coronation name was BRANCH; like you say, a title. And is it any concidence that Yehoshuah H'Natzrith is Jesus BRANCH*? Nun, Tzaddi, Resh NETZAR is BRANCH. I likewise feel that if we are not informed of the true names of the Biblical characters we lose valuable information.
On the linguistics, I met the guy who invented computer linguistics. He sold the patent to Texas Instruments (for $1) for the Speak-n-Spell. One day I want to get back with him about a universal translator based in the above mentioned book. Certain sounds have the same meanings in all languages; that sort of thing.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Quite literally, Jesus' last name. Last names are titles; Cooper, Smith, Taylor etc. My family's name defines us as hunters and trappers.
So I was able to trigger the Montana Freeman Standoff (and I recall Leroy Michael SCHWEITZER chuckling as I pronounced) by properly naming the parties, International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service + David Merrill; FAMILY NAME" on the Comptroller Warrant. Properly naming by title/legal name "Robert E. Rubin" for instance on Return of Bill of Indictment on May 12, 1999 from "David Merrill" had him announcing his resignation by the 5:00 News.
There is power once the enunciation is correct. http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
Thus we find a prolific amount of debate on the "His Name is not Yehushuah" thread. The people sense that it is important to get these things correct but have to deal with Paul's weapon against Rome that says all is ok in God's grace, so it really does not matter.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Jul 2004 08:55:27 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 13:07:27
|
so*lo, a I. adj., (sin compania) alone. II.m. MUS. solo
lo*mo m. ANAT., CUL., loin; ZOOL., back; (de un libro) spine; (de un cuchillo) back * pasar la mano por el I. COLL. to pat on the back
lo*ma f. hillock, knoll.
- The American Heritage Spanish Dictionary, second edition, Spanish/English
I am,
Manuel |
Edited by - Manuel on 24 Jul 2004 13:13:54 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 16:59:41
|
Dear David Merrill,
Here is a site with more details about the question of who was biblical Solomon. I will warn you that some definitely discount this author's work. I do not have enough real knowledge of the facts to do so. I am wary of those who are resistant to a well presented argument, assuming the facts stated are accurate, when those opposed seem mostly to be defending an indoctrinated party line. That is to say, I expect a counter argument to be on the alleged facts, and not on what is reputed to be the truth, even of the community of scholars. We should all know that real evidence has a foundation in substance, not authority. Here is the URL:
www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/solomon.html
You may find several of these articles interesting, as there are also ones about David and Moses. I look forward to your response, public or private, to this material.
Enjoy & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 18:41:31
|
| added to my 'favorites' and will give it a surf. |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2004 : 15:50:51
|
Dear David Merril,
I have an understanding of the meaning of my names, but I have not felt it neccessary to reference the Hebrew meaning to find it valuable.
Ishmael Aylwin [McIntosh]: God hears, the elf friend, son of the chief.
I have an introductory book on Gnostic Hebrew Quabala. Part of the reason I don't use it to understand words in other languages so much, is that I find I don't see how the name Ishmael, becomes "God hears." That meaning to me seems to come more out of the bible story, than the roots of the word, or the meaning of the characters used to create the roots.
In my research, I can't even understand how the root 'Ishma', is even
related to the letters that comprise it. Things are often encrytpted, but I don't have the decrypter. So, I instead tend use the standard definitions as above.
Out of curiousity, I did create a meaning for (Aleph), Lamed, Vaw, Nun, my second name in my true name, because I had never tried to before. For me, it came out as, "teacher of the work of eternal rebirth." I liked that. My reference is __An Introduction to Hebrew Gnostic Quabal __, by Murray Weber. So, thank you for inspiring the exercise.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 04:07:37
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I suggest you simply look through the lexicon in the back of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. You will find information about the various sounds in your name and your family's name.
From my Reply on "His name is not Yehushuah"
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=7&TOPIC_ID=332
quote:
His name is no more Yehushauh than yours is Robert-James. And no more Yehuwah than yours is Robert of IOWA. Check the standards. Listen to the experts.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Jul 2004 09:51:40 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 22:20:35
|
What is an expert? I know of no "so called experts" that can disect paleo-hebrew picture letter's.[though some labor in the privacy of their own dominion, shearching out the heavenly treasures that Yahuweh allow's His singular one's to come into}Your 'expert's' are versed in BABYLONIAN block aramic hebrew. A far cry from the ancient paleo-hebrew.
Iammai, hold your ground, as what you are thinking is good.
Just like the English RoBeRT. R=head, B=house.
Paleo is the language from heaven. Not, Babylonian block lettering, with the Jewish vowel placing and pronunciation.
YaHuSHuAH...I Will Be-Salvation. In the form of a man, My Son.
Ishmael, the second name in Anglo-Saxon speak, is the tribal name. The third name is the sir-sur name....family name, of a freeman. A fourth name is descriptive of the man's action's. Though most all do not have a fourth name. For they do nothing...risk nothing.
Now the world will ask one for a LAST NAME, which is a slave name. For if one already has a LAST NAME, he has withdrawn himself from having a new name. By one's own's word's one will be justified or condemned, here and now.
So Ishmael, is to learn and speak of the second birth.
Now, Nicodemus...John 3rd ch. was quite a fine man. And he asked the Master questions about the second birth. Nicodemus was even there at the end, a believer in the Truth.
Eternal re-birth? Maybe so, but listen to: Revelations 3:11...and he shall go out no more.
Have fun, dear brother.
For over five thousand years paleo-hebrew was spoken and written, before the JEWS invented block aramic hebrew, and transcribed the ancient scripture. Now, what is a JEW? Ezra found the book of scripture, and the people wept for day's, seeing just how far the house of Judah had strayed.
And we are not without hope, even the KJV, with concordance help will open the door of our understanding...to what has been written. So much so, that a child of Yahuweh can understand. For the Law is written upon our hearts, circumcised hearts...can see and hear...and feel.
Aleph=A. aleph = 1000. Aleph = teaching. Now, think about a 1000 year reign, in another light. Now, think as John did, as he veiled his message. Cainanites were trying to destroy the Light as fast as they could. And still are.
berkano brought up a fine point...what paper work shall redeem me? It that somewhere in scripture?
I read: By the Blood of the Lamb, by the word of their testimony, by loosing their life {civil-old man] shall they become overcomer's. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Mathematics worth pondering
