|
 Forums at EliYah's Home Page
 Scripture Discussion Forum
 what does "G_D" mean? (Page 3)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 12 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: what does "G_D" mean? | |||
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 12-07-2004 04:10 PM
  
quote: Who said that, Larry?
quote: Then why is it that you and your son ask?
quote: For the record: I do not conceal mine, and my own above post mentioning "anonymity" does not speak of anything even close to concealment of anything.
quote: Ah, and there you go again! We cannot have it both ways, Larry! Either something is "up to you", or it is not.
quote: Agreed, and it would be great if you would cease from ever again doing that kind of thing.
quote: A degree/license in psychology is not needed to understand why people do what people do, and a good dose of anonymity -- the humility to renounce personal prestige as an instrument of general policy -- could do wonders in the cases of many. Personally, I long ago took a long and hard look at how often I had been using personal pronouns in conversation, and I was soon appalled at how much "I" trouble I actually had. Suggestion: Try going for a lengthy period of time without ever using the words "I, me, my, mine" and so on ... Betcha can't use just one!! Peace to you ... [This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 12-07-2004).] | |||
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 12-07-2004 04:24 PM
quote: Greetings, Meso, and are you sure that is wht MJ is actually doing? Breaking your question into its parts: 1) MJ, why are you so insistant on the ignorance of the word God ... On that particular matter, it seems to me that MJ is addressing statements made my people who claim to know, but might not. 2) MJ, why are you so insistant on ... the word God for the Father's name? That question is at least similar to my own, as I question any alleged value for the word "God" in relation to Abba-Father. However, I do not recall MJ ever making any statement that the word "God" is even similar to HaShem. Blessings to you ... | |||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 12-07-2004 05:26 PM
Hi, Lee, Thank you for the corrections. I will try to keep everything in mind. As for the person who made the comment about anonymity, I believe that was you! I thought it was a nice comment, but it appears that I misunderstood and/or misapplied the intent. It was unintentional, and I apologize if I misconstrued what you intended to convey. As for the other things you commented on, I believe if you retain everything I wrote within its context instead of breaking it all up into segments, my intentions are more easily understood. I hope that helps, along with my additional explanation that none of us is perfect. I know I certainly am not. Take care and may Yahweh bless! Yours in Messiah, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).] | |||
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 12-08-2004 08:54 AM
quote: I was not questioning your intentions, Larry, and neither did my "breaking things up" break any context. Even though I am convinced at least I should not use it, I do not have any final answer to offer on the matter of the word "God", and it would be a blessing to hear you and Mountain Jew and/or any others discuss the matter without any one individual ever talking about the other. Overall, that is my point ... and in the end, I believe I am not the only "student" who listens a little more closely to the "argument" that is presented "anonymously". Peace to you ... | |||
|
Mountain Jew Posts: 506 |
posted 12-08-2004 09:57 AM
Forlong’s statement concerning Gad-el-glas might have been dubious in his own mind and somewhat facetious and thus should not be taken too seriously. He certainly doesn’t give much attention to it. The reference occurs in a chapter of “Rivers of Life” that only deals with the subject of sun worship, not serpent worship. Now just before he mentions Gad-el-glas he admits he is making a play on the word “green.” “It is IAKO's name, too, that those roisterers vociferate, as with mirth and laughter they dance around the "green pillar god." This term "green," as most of my readers know, stands for griene or graine, Keltic for the Sun;… as befitteth a solar deity” -Forlong By his own admission we know that what he was really saying was not “green pillar god” but rather “sun pillar god”. We also know that the Gaelic word for green is “glas” not “graine”. So with this in mind understand what he says next. [my comments] “Mr Marcus Keane tells us that although the Kelts of Ireland rejected the phallic worship of their predecessors the Tuath-de-Danaans, they yet retained their names and customs. May day continued to be called La-Baal-Thinna [Lord of Fire Day], and was always connected with the worship of Baal as "the green [sun] god" -- a very ancient term for Mercury, whose hue was green; and being so, we here see him in dress of suitable shape and colour, and with his Caduceus in hand.” - Forlong [illustration not available] Forlong makes it irrevocable that he is referring to Baal Tinne and not Baal Gad. This is important because what he is attempting to do is compare the spring fertility gods who are honoured in the month of May – Baal Gad would not, could not be one of them. These are vaguely sun deities whose festivals may revolve around a form of solar pole. The original subject is Baal Tinne, first compared to Mercury because he is also honoured in May and was supposedly green like the springtime. Then before he moves on to include Buddha, who is also honoured in May he seems to be spontaneously reminded of “Gad-el-glas” because of several similar elements; him having a green scar, the serpent that bit him, and the meaning of his name (which we will get to in a moment). But Gaedhal Glas doesn’t really belong in this grouping because he wasn’t honoured in May or the springtime, or on any day of the year. He wasn’t considered a deity or even spiritually enlightened and wasn’t associated to the sun or fire. Forlong admits his Gadelglas isn’t to be compared to Boodha, and therefore not to any others in the grouping. Notice how he unapologetically changes the meaning of “green” in mid-sentence from meaning sun to a hue of colour, in attempt to strengthen the thin connection between Baal Tinne and Mercury. He then errs in stating that Mercury carries a Caduceus which is a staff entwined with serpents. The only problem is that the serpents were only a recent evolution in the classical art period (see Wikipedia – caduceus). Originally Mercury/Hermes carried a staff that had a cross piece or wings with two white ribbons. There were no serpents involved. Although Mercury may have originally been green in colour I have not been able to confirm or deny this. Mercury is hardly thought of as a serpentine god, or being green. Besides, Wikipedia says that they tended to associate Mercury with their Lugh. So there isn’t really a “green” connection between Baal Tinne and Mercury, nor is there really a “serpent” connection between Mercury and Gaedhal Glas. "Gad- el-glas or the Green-god-Snake," was an important Irish deity, and the name seems to correspond with "the green god," or "Primeval Boodh," which Coleman treats of in his Indian Mythology, but which I take the liberty of calling Primeval Goad; I do not think there is any connection whatever between him and Boodha.” -Forlong Forlong also took some liberty in referring to Gaedhal Glas as a “deity” rather than a national forefather like how Abraham is to Israel. Now he knew full well that Gaedhal Glas does not literally mean “Green-god-snake” and again he is playing on all the words giving this translation tongue-in-cheek. How do we know that? Firstly he states that it only “seems” to correspond, indicating he is not certain. In fact he quickly retracts his statement saying there isn’t really any connection. I have to agree, there really isn’t. Secondly he displays his knowledge of the correct interpretation of Gaedhal Glas because he refers to him as the “Primeval Goad” therefore knowing of a more quasi-accurate translation like “The Green Goad” Perhaps in this way he attempts one last time to connect Gadelglas through the concept of the solar pole/stick. This doesn’t work either since the name is actually spelled Gaedhal Glas which although related to the Gaelic gad has a more direct meaning. Just because it has four sides doesn’t necessarily make it square. The Meaning of Gaedhal Before reading the next paragraph you should avoid the tendency to pronounce the letter d or dh in Gaelic as you would in English. It is sounded in Gaelic as a y, d or g depending on its position and neighbouring vowels. (See the links below with pronunciation guides.) Gaedhal and gad (stick) are probably related since in Old English the use of the word gaedeling (wandering) is applied to the use of a gad (stick) to drive herds and make them “gadabout” which means to go about in circles or dance, (or as I like to say “boogie”). In the stick sense it is also related to the English words YARD and GARDEN (not GOD) according to John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins. Gadabout is closer to the oldest meaning. It is related to French form gallavant, which is from gallant (rejoice) from geil. Originally France was called Gallica and they were called Gauls. This is because they shared a common ancestor with the Irish Gaels, that being Mr. Gael a.k.a. Gaedhal. The French and the English both retained forms of this word in the original sense of announcing, vocalization, singing, dancing, joy, blowing an instrument, festivity and excitement. This can be seen in words like “nightingale” and “yell” The state bird associated with the Gauls is the galli, which we in the west call the “rooster”. In this sense, it means to crow, to sing, to announce;- the morning. The English form is angel an “announcer” or messenger typically from heaven. Cognates of this word, too many to list here, can be found in many European languages, Latin, Italian, Greek, and Hebrew and Aramaic. It is my proposal that these originally stem from the Hebrew gheel. If you want to know why Gaedhal was named such, you’d have to ask his mother but I suspect it had to do with rejoicing and not because he was a nathair (snake). It doesn’t really matter if the legend of Gaedhal is true or not, just as it does not matter if Greek mythologies are true to know that Zeus was worshipped as a god or not. The legend is not expected to be totally true or false. It is thought that certain Gaelic scribes blended biblical accounts with their own history without giving too much attention to timelines and relations. The point is that imagined or real, they considered Gaedhal to be an ordinary man and there is no record of him being worshiped as a god, honoured as a hero and forefather perhaps, but not to the point of idolatry. Another source on Gaedhal is proving difficult to find. James Bonwick only quoted James Forlong, who quoted no source, neither textual or archeological. The Milesians, who were decendents of Gaedhal, bore a symbol on their standard of a snake entwinded on a stick. This was to recall the story of Moshe’s copper serpent on the pole to which everyone looked and was saved - which was woven into their history by monks. Now a standard is not intended for worship, and neither was the original which was set up in Yerushalem. However some people came to make it an object of worship. This could have possibly happened in Ireland and account for the those who say Gaels at one time worshiped snakes (although no real snakes ever existed in Ireland). So in fact they may have worshiped not Gaedhal Glas, but rather Nathair. If there was such a god, which is doubtful. There is no attempt in his book to give Gaedhal Glas any serious treatment beyond the whimsical attempt to compare him to what are mostly disassociated spring equinox gods. No independent sources have been found to support Forlong’s presumption concerning Gaedhal Glas. No Gaelic “idol/god” known as Gadel Glas in these comprehensive listings of Irish/Gaelic/Celtic deities which is contrary to Forlong’s claim that Gaedhal Glas was “an important Irish deity”. http://www.joellessacredgrove.com/Celtic/deities.html All of these Gaelic dictionaries agree the word for snake is “nathair” and not “gad” and neither is el or al the word for “almighty” or “god”. http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/ How to pronounce Gaedhal not “Gadel” According to all these sources Gaedhal is pronounced Gay-al Source #1 There are three combinations of letters that are always pronounced as long vowels, even though they do not have the acute accent: Source #2 d, dh (before/after e, i) = like English y Source #3 The dipthong “ae” is pronounced Eng. "tray" Source #4 “ae” is pronounced as in “day” Source #5 gaedhal - Gaelic for ‘Gael.' Source #6 “ae” pronounced as in Gaelic
J.G.R. Forlong was a Gnostic and spiritual evolutionist. His theory of spiritual evolution paralleled his biological contemporary Charles Darwin. J.G.R. was known in occult circles as “Forlong Dux” and was a member of Ordo Templi Orientis and is considered to be a Gnostic saint. In fact the infamous Aleister Crowley included his Rivers of Life into the O.T.O. curriculum! Serpent worship is central to Gnosticism and the occult in general. Gnostics and their occultic friends share the common belief that the serpent is their benefactor, the maligned serpent who tried to save mankind from evil old YHWH. They frequently try to connect the image of the serpent or dragon to many places and people because they seek to present historical liaisons. Their premise? - If your faith had draconic origins how could you condemn their draconic religion? Rather, you are already a part of it. Gnostics do not interpret the serpent fixed upon the cross as the defeat of sin and Satan, but rather the glorification of gnosis over torah. These people see Messiah on the cross as the gnostic serpent on the staff of Moshe, if Messiah is to be honoured then why not the serpent. In this way they see Messiah as a gnostic teacher, as a wise serpent protecting us from nasty old YHWH. Forlong goes beyond mere comparative religion with a definite agenda to interlace all religion back to a single primitive source of idolatry. A good name for this would be the “Pagan Roots Movement”. The strategy is to demoralize the great faiths of the world and prevent an inquisition against gnostics and draconites. This is done through the theory of religious evolution. Of course I believe there was only one perfect faith in the beginning which was corrupted and divided into many beliefs a sort of “spiritual de-evolution”. There is no biblical God in Forlong’s universe, just stones, trees and serpents representing our high ideals are our gods. Judaism and Christianity evolved from paganism and are not to be believed or taken literally. Everything in Forlong’s writings are biased this world view. Forlong proves with all the academic authority he can muster to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that YHWH was actually a moss covered “Rock of Ages” and Elohim was a tree or some kind of phallic object. In the writings of his Thelemic, Masonic, and Satanic associates in the O.T.O. are many suspect etymologies driven by the motivation to disprove the existence or validity of YHWH and the fundamental validity the mainstream monotheistic faiths. It is a mixture of truth and lies. He may be comparable to (even if more subtle than other occult writers) like Blavatsky and Gardiner who tend to twist and invent etymologies at will and redefine words according to their needs. For these reasons Forlong has a dubious credibility except to those in the occult and secular humanists. No linguistic authority has been shown to support his translation of Gaedal Glas – not even he really supported it. Normally I don’t care to delve into the lives and personal beliefs of sources, but there is an overwhelming preponderance of occult aura surrounding every mention of Forlong, something had to be said. Sources are his own writings “Faiths of Man, a Cyclopaedia of Religions” and “Rivers of Life” and his Gnostic sainthood and O.T.O. membership can be confirmed at The American Grand Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis http://oto-usa.org/
That premise is that homophones and near-homophones are automatically linguistic cognates (cousins). Homophonics are only one tool in helping identify interlanguage cognates. Things like age, geography, usage, meaning, and lexeme morphology, genealogy, and history of cultural interchange are also things that must considered. The odds are ordinarliy greatly opposed to homophones being related within the same language let alone between different languages. Another thing I have noted is that neither James Forlong or James Bonwick connect Gadel to the English “God”. This is peculiar considering all their great and combined knowledge it certainly would have suited their purposes well to make such a connection if it were at all even remotely possible. After all, that was the aim of their work. It is quite clear from the Irish and original source (Lebor Gabala Erren) itself that Gaedhal Glas was not a god but considered to be an ordinary person without any special qualities. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say he was worshipped as a god, even though there is no record of that. The name came first - undefiled. It never originated as a name of a god. It does not mean anything like “god” does. It does not sound anything like “god” does. It does not mean anything like Gad does, nor sound like Gad does. If you consider it an unclean word for any use, you’d have to eliminate dozens of cognates from your English vocabulary that you currently use, and hundreds more from other languages. You might also have to eliminate all homophones, amounting hundreds of more words. It is certainly agreeable that Gaedhal is not a good translation of el, elah, or elohim nor is he comparable to YHWH. | |||
|
LuvYah Posts: 76 |
posted 12-08-2004 10:29 AM
quote: Even WORSE! It all goes back to sun-worship and hasatan!!! [This message has been edited by LuvYah (edited 12-08-2004).] [This message has been edited by LuvYah (edited 12-08-2004).] | |||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 12-08-2004 12:00 PM
Shalom to all: It is common, whenever information is presented that disrupts what a person wants to believe, that the individual will go to great lengths to attempt to discredit whoever presented the information. For example, this is frequently done with both Philo and Josephus whenever anything they wrote contradicts someone's theological views, even though both men were simply reporting "what was done" without any axes to grind, so to speak. Neither of them had any reason to lie or subvert what was "really" being practiced by Jews of their day. As has been done with Philo and Josephus, so MJ has attempted to do with J.G.R. Forlong. I am not surprised by this. The next step is for MJ to attempt to discredit the information offered by Forlong. Remember, Forlong was only relaying information that he had been given as he conducted his own research. He wasn't trying to convert anyone, he was simply reporting what he had found in his research. That is all. In my opinion, if Forlong was a cultist, demon worshipper, or however it is MJ wishes to present him, this would in no way undermine the simple fact that Forlong was merely reporting the results of his research. I have more to present on this particular topic, but for now I only hope the reader can understand why MJ went to such great lengths to discredit Forlong as a credible scholar. If you can discredit the scholar, you simultaneously discredit anything he has written. This may be why MJ hasn't revealed his own identity ... fear of someone digging up anything about himself that might discredit his own writings. It appears that MJ puts his own scholarship above everyone else's, including the late Mr. Forlong. I would say, if you're going to go to such great lengths to discredit someone else, then have the courage to lay your own reputation as a scholar on the line. Let's see how well MJ holds up when we put him under his own microscope. But you know what? I don't really care "who" it was that reported the identity of an Irish idol named Gad-El-glas; the fact remains that this is information that J.G.R. Forlong came across in his own research. Just because you don't like him reporting what he found out doesn't mean you should do a slam job on the guy!! If John Doe reports in 1883 that while conducting his research he found out that the Irish worshipped an idol named Gad-El-Glas, shall we proceed to discredit John Doe or do we check out his findings? What I will try to present later on today (if time allows) is proof that Gad-El-glas is indeed pronounced Gahd-El-gloss, just as I reported in my original posting, plus this word (Gahd) really does mean "snake." Moreover, I will present the fact that the Irish language and the Russian language share common roots. The word pronounced "GOD" in Russian not only means "reptile," but it can also be used as a curse word. And let's not forget the fact that the word for "Fortune teller" in Russian is a derivative of the word "God." It is gadalka (pronounced "godalka"). Remember who the idol of fortune is, anyone? There really is more than one side to this story. May Yahweh bless, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).] | |||
|
Yahwehwitnesses Posts: 2247 |
posted 12-08-2004 01:08 PM
Blessings LuvYah, You know when I first learned of these certain things, I was shocked, confused, frustrated and maybe even somewhat angry. It was as if my spirit was shaken by an earthquake. From your response, it seems you are reacting a bit like I was. So I just want to reach out and share this mile long post with you. Many of the words and popular traditions in today's world do go back to BAAL, RA, Horus, Isis, Hermes, Zeus, Istar, Etc. It can be shocking to find out all these things, however the main reason we learn these things is because we seek YHWH much more than the average person. YHWH want's us to overcome such things. He also wants us to recognize Satan's deceptions by knowing the real truth. But knowing isn't doing. He want us to continue to follow/abide in the Love of the Truth. We are not perfect at all. Much of our language and certain things we speak & do will still contain some kind of corruption, and/or are related to handed down paganism. Even the days Sunday - Saturday are pagan words. The inspired "Word of YHWH" is like an instruction manual for us, how we can learn how to overcome Satan, and how to become more holy and pleasing unto YHWH, and how we can establish a solid relationship with our Father YHWH through Yahshua "The Word of YHWH". YHWH want's us to know him, Love him back, live for him. He wants to be our Father forever, and he also want's us to realize why we are here in the first place. YHWH gives us so much good by his love for us. Consider the many types of fruits, foods, tastes, smells, colors, flowers and so much more. Mankind takes so much for granet while the sun keeps shinning. If the sun was bigger or just a little bit closer to the earth, we would all burn up. If the earth was further away, we would all freeze. If the moon was bigger, the gravity would send us out into space. It's all a miracle, and was intended to be perfect. First Satan blew it, along with an unknown number of fallen angels/spirits, then mankind blew it too. Maybe those fallen spirits are being retested, who knows, I just can't figure out why YHWH didn't wipe them all out. YHWH is perfect and he has a perfect plan, and reasons for everything that we don't always understand. Even though Satan knows his time is short, YHWH is everlasting, and he is in no hurry. We are often in a big hurry, and with the increase in knowledge, I guess most people will soon fall away from the faith, and become to busy with earthly so-called pleasurable things, and/or spend more time for themselves and doing the things they want right now. Mankind has failed to estabish real everlasting peace on this earth, and it seems they are looking for another planet to move to, because they know they seriously ruined this one. YHWH knows what we need, and what's best for us. We can't take any of this earthly stuff with us anyway. We can only take with us our soul, and the choices that we made. Who we mostly decided to live for "Ourself, Satan or for YHWH". Mankind ruined so much of the good that YHWH intended for us all. If a few huge asteroids hit the earth, everybody would be toast, and YHWH can easily take us out at any given second. Some might often wonder why he doesn't, as the world is likely making him more disappointed each day as it grows darker and darker. I think I know why YHWH just doesn't wipe us out, and I want to share these reasons with you. (Much I'm sure you already know). Yahshua did everything that his Father commanded him to do, and he did so without sinning. Then Yahshua died for us, and he purchased us "the sheep" with his own blood. At the end Yahshua will take us away from this earth. He said that he goes to prepare a place for us . That place is not here. He also said the following: * Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Now watch this: Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me . 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to be with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am appointed with my Father in his throne. I personally think that Yahshua purcahsed ALL the lost sheep. On the last day, we will be with him, and that he will continue to teach us so that we can be made more worthy unto YHWH. Might take 1000 years of further education by the true teacher before we know all there is for us to improve upon. Let's ALWAYS be very thankful unto YHWH, and prove that we love him back. If he didn't send Yahshua here by his Love and grace, maybe he would have sent a few asteroids here instead...Maybe it was Yahshua that decided to purchase us all before he was ever sent here. I don't know everything. but what I do realize is that we are all being tested daily. Ever think about these ---> YHWH could have destroyed Satan and the cast out angels along time ago. Why did he send them to earth? Why did YHWH put the tree in the garden, and at first leave it unprotected? If we are born of an earthly spirit, are those the same spirits that were already here/or previously cast out? When we become born again, and baptized, does the old spirits get washed out, and a heavenly spirit of YHWH come into us? That battle is over us, and we truly decide on many things. YHWH even made it allot easier for us by his most precious gift "Yahshua" with his grace. The truth is that already Satan lost, and Yahshua lost none of the sheep that his Father gave to him It's not over until it's over, and a final number must be reached until the end comes. 1/3 was cast out, and who knows how many will be brought back into the kingdom. Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in Yahweh, and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of Elokim, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Wherefore take up the whole armor of Elokim, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. How can anybody have a solid personal relationship with YHWH, if they can't Love one another? Look at the Mideast for example. We are all sinners, and all under the law. We have all fallen short of his Glory.. Hmmm I think "the" and "glory" are pagan names too! Should we just stop speaking? No! YHWH long ago separated the peoples and the lands. He want's us to use ALL of our heart, soul and mind to seek and love him will our ALL. YHWH knows each of our hearts and our intentions. Just do "ALL" the very best you can "as you know how", and keep seeking how to improve yourself unto him. Everytime we think we are doing good "or have become more worthy", He keeps showing us that we still have so much to improve on. The more he reveals to us, the more our faith seems to be tried. Will the real truths increase or decrease our faith in time? It all depends on how much of his will we abide in. And the two most important things are knowing his Name and Love, for his name is who YHWH is, and he is Love. Without him, we can do nothing good. The wisdom of this world is foolishness. When I was a little boy carrying my lunch back to school, I had no idea how much they would lie to me and program me to believe in myself. It's better that we deny ourselves. We can't control anything. We just make the world worse and worse trusting in our own technologies and earthly wisdom's. We are stuck here for awhile, and with it's earthly languages. Don't worry, be happy, for we know YHWH, and we know how to Love and overcome Satan by the spirit of YHWH that dwells within us. He does the works! If somebody calls him God or Lord, just remember that we used to do that too. Prove/share/show to them the Love that dwells within you. Share with them the truth that YHWH has given us. Lead them to Yahshua so that they might obtain salvation through him too. Yahshua = YHWH is salvation. And know this; Zep 3: Therefore wait ye for me, saith Yahweh, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. 9 For then will I turn to the peoples of a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Yahweh, to serve him with one consent. While we still have time, may we all spend more of it for YHWH and doing his will. HalleluYah! Brother Yohanan [This message has been edited by Yahwehwitnesses (edited 12-08-2004).] | |||
|
Mountain Jew Posts: 506 |
posted 12-08-2004 01:49 PM
The information on J.G.R.'s associations and personal beliefs and agenda are not the sole or primary basis of my case. It only makes up perhaps 20% of it thus far. It could easily be omitted and still the academic portion, the first step and 80% of my case, should be more than enough to support the same conclusion. When someone clearly has the agenda to demote YHWH and Judaism to paganism, (the relevant topic) in their writings it is important to make the context known and not to hide it. The reader can decide for themselves whether the inclusion of such information is relevant. Sometimes identity and reputation are confused. My reputation is not my concern, for as much as a screen name may protect one from his faults, it also sheilds him from receiving any glory for his accomplishments. Neither is my intent. The information can stand or fall on it's own. If using a humourus nickname protects me from someone digging up dirt on me, then all the better! However, if it is information of a theological or spiritual nature that one desires then by all means I will provide it - with the microscope. "Stay on target, STAY ON TARGET." - Gold 5 | |||
|
Shlomoh Posts: 1321 |
posted 12-08-2004 03:27 PM
quote: Shalom LuvYah, In my estimation, the above statement shows clearly where Chris Koster made a wrong turn. A perfect example of this is his disdain for the word "holy" linking it to the Indian goddess "Holi." Yet his substitute for holy, set apart, contained the name of "Set" the Egyptian god of darkness. Even Koster could abide by his own rules and still make an intelligible translation! Etymology is only a recent science. When the Scriptures were translated into various languages, Armaic, Greek, Latin, and later English, there was no such information available. The translators were not concered with what Kurios and Theos (or Dominus and Deus) meant a thousand years before their time. They were simply concerned with giving a translation that was understandable in the target language. The price that they paid for this was very high indeed, sometimes including their lives. For Koster and others to give the impression that all the praise given under these terms is really going to satan is not only slander against these saints, but should cause every thinking man to pause for a moment. For satan to kill those who posessed copies of the Scriptures and yet to be getting the glory from them would mean that satan's kingdom was divided against itself and therefore could not stand. The solution to the concerns raised on this thread would be to go back and learn Hebrew. With all the resources available today there is little excuse for the next generation of Sacred Nammers to be Hebrew illiterate. That way, we wouldn't have to go gadding about (pun intended) into dead languages, using vain strifes of words to determine whether the vowel was "ah", "ay" or "aw", resurrecting dead deities and heathen ways that are now long forgotten as Jeremiah 10 tells us not to. But be warned! Most people who actually learn Hebrew do not stay in the mainstream Sacred Name movement for very long. My two cents, Shlomoh | |||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 12-08-2004 05:04 PM
Hi, MJ: You wrote: quote: I reply: I still maintain that it is so easy to do a slam job on others while under the security blanket of a screen name. I realize that you went to great effort to dig up as much dirt as you could on this man, who I believe likely has a reputation that would make yours pale by comparison. The only thing is, you don't want anyone to put yours under the microscope, but you sure are content to do it to others. I'm still curious: Are you really Jewish descent, or is this more deception concealed by the screen name?? Or would you rather ignore that question? You wrote: quote: It is difficult to stay on target when I notice people using and abusing the patented "discredit the author/ruin his testimony" scheme. It makes me get off target just a bit. However, speaking of "staying on target," back on Dec. 4th I asked you some questions that you have apparenlty chosen to ignore. Is there a reason for this? Another way for both of us to "stay on target" is to do our best to answer the questions directed our way. I understand that occasionally we ask rhetorical questions that really aren't posed with the intention of obtaining an aswer. However, I believe it is obvious my questions were not rhetorical ones. I really believe they need to be answered. Here is a copy/paste of one such question: I believe you would have no problem with referring to Yahweh as your “Zeus,” based upon your comment that the torah endorses the application of "heathen" epithets to YHWH. Obviously, then, you have no problem with assigning either “Zeus” or “Apollo” as acceptable titles for YHWH, based upon the method of reasoning you expressed in your posting. But let’s go one level higher, okay? Is it also okay to refer to Yahweh as your “Satan”? Certainly, since you believe the torah endorses the application of “heathen” epithets to YHWH, and since many of us realize that “the face behind the mask,” so to speak, is actually none other than “Satan,” and especially since “Satan” is only a title anyway, then it must be perfectly acceptable to Yahweh for you to refer to Him as your “Satan,” right? Am I following your reasoning properly? If I am misapplying anything that you wrote, please correct me and clarify your wording. I do not want to misunderstand anything that you have written, but certainly if you believe the torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH, and since "Satan” is one such epithet, it follows that you believe the torah endorses our referring to YHWH as “Satan.” Since the title “Satan” means “adversary,” I personally cannot recommend that anyone who wants to be on Yahweh’s side refer to Him with such a title. But of course, since a part of borrowing names/titles from other languages is culturally redefining them to suit our desires, someone might conceivably choose to redefine "Satan" as “Almighty” and thus justify using that title in reference to Yahweh. After all, this is precisely what has been done with the name/title “GOD.” I believe this is where we are headed when we endorse referring to Yahweh with heathen “epithets.” As for me and my house, we do not go there. This issue really boils down to choices. There are several other titles that we can use in reference to Yahweh that are not stained with the corruption of heathen idol worship. Why not prefer them?? Is He not worthy of our UTMOST praise and honor? Why should we want to apply a title to our Creator that comes from the name of a man, let alone one that comes from the name of an idol whose worship He condemns?? Does this bring Him honor? I believe the answer is clear, but to some, there is obviously some kind of attraction to "God" that I just do not follow, certainly not based upon any evidence I have seen. Maybe if questions such as the one above could be satisfactorily answered, I might be able to better understand their reasoning. Yours in Messiah, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).] | |||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 12-08-2004 06:55 PM
”Gad-El-glas” Pronunciation Confirmed: It’s “Gahd” I believe it is proper to question the research of those who teach contrary to what we believe. Sometimes we examine and accept evidence from what we believe is a credible source, only to have someone else demonstrate that the information it offered was flawed. Hopefully when that happens, we will adjust our views so as to reflect the truth of the matter. Back on December 4th I submitted a posting in which I quoted Major-General J.G.R. Forlong’s testimony from his two-volume book entitled Rivers of Life, which was published in 1883. In his book, Forlong identified an ancient Irish idol known as Gad-El-glas. In each of those two volumes, Forlong states that the name Gad-El-glas means “Green God Snake .” Since it is understood that the word “glas” means “green,” it is obvious that the word “Gad” means “snake” or ”serpent.” Of course, no one needs to be reminded of “who” in Scripture is represented by the serpent. In my posting, I also explained that the word “God” in Russian also means “snake.” To some folks, this piece of information is “just a coincidence," and they quickly dismiss any notion that there might be a connection. However, I believe I can demonstrate that this is NO COINCIDENCE. I believe I have established a bonafide connection. First of all, let’s answer the question as to whether or not the Russian language shares any linguistic roots with the Irish language. The answer is yes! Russian and Irish are both classified as Indo-European languages. This can easily be verified by checking out the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, located at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language_family The above website lists ten “branches” of Indo-European languages. What follows is a chart that I have reproduced from that site, displaying each one:
As I trust you can discern from the above chart, among the ten branches of Indo-European languages are: Celtic and Balto-Slavic, not to mention the Germanic, from which our English language is derived. Irish is one of the Celtic languages and Russian is one of the Balto-Slavic languages. These sub-groups are all connected and share common words. Could "God" be one of them? I can assure you that those who do not want to consider such a notion will insist that there is not a connection. But can they prove that there isn't? Mountain Jew went to some lengths to discredit not only J.G.R. Forlong himself as a reputable scholar, but he also attempted to discredit Forlong's transliteration of the Irish idol named Gad-El-glas. Judging by the way he writes, it might appear that Mountain Jew is an expert in Irish linguistics, although he for some reason chose to leave out his credentials qualifying himself as an expert. Mountain Jew wrote: quote: Response: Anyone reading the above would likely presume that the author is an expert in Irish linguistics. He certainly wrote authoritatively. However, we need to beware of those who write authoritatively, yet do not actually have the authority. Rather than issuing a lesson in Irish linguistics, all we need to do is go to the experts, which I have done. The other day I visited numerous web sites offering assistance with the pronunciation of Irish consonants and vowels. Some sites offer courses in Irish. I e-mailed the contact persons for each site, asking for assistance with the pronunciation of the term Gad-El-glas. Many whom I e-mailed did not respond. Several responded that they really weren’t experts in the language, so they couldn’t help me. One man responded that he doesn’t know Irish very well, but it appears, based upon his Irish dictionary, that the pronunciation should be Goth-El-gloss. Finally, I received a reply from a man who teaches Irish. I obtained his contact information at www.irishaires.org His name is Tim Thieson. Here is how he responded to my inquiry:
Now that we have confirmed that Gad-El-glas is indeed pronounced “GOD-El-gloss,” we need to examine Mountain Jew’s claim that Gad-El-glas is more correctly rendered Gáedal, whom MJ claims was also variably known as Gathelus and Gallo, the father of the Gaels or Gauls. MJ claims that this Gáedal was no more than an “Irish hero,” not an idol that was worshipped. He is, of course, mistaken, but I will have to treat that particular topic in a future posting. For now, let’s suffice it to say that Major-General J.G.R. Forlong was only reporting what information that was made available to him during his research. He is a very widely respected scholar in his own right, which in and of itself demonstrates that he would not have given out false information, at least not intentionally. No credible scholar does. As it turns out, though, Forlong is exonerated from the criticism heaped upon him by Mountain Jew. May Yahweh bless, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).] | |||
|
Mountain Jew Posts: 506 |
posted 12-08-2004 08:27 PM
Shalom Larry, Could we please see your original unedited letter to Tim Thieson? | |||
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 12-08-2004 08:34 PM
quote: Understood, Larry, and I am specifically asking you to stop doing that. | |||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 12-09-2004 12:00 AM
Hi MJ, Here is a reproduction of my original e-mail I sent on 12/05/2004 to the website www.irishaires.org I have also bolded the text so as to enable you to view everything as Mr. Thieson saw it when he read it. I hope it meets your approval. Yours in Messiah, Larry My Original E-mail to the "Irish Aires" Web Site
[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).] |
This topic is 12 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EliYah's Home Page
Please read the disclaimer. If you see any violations of forum guidelines, please contact the moderator.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e