#hebraisms

[andromerot]

"words that aren't in the bible" is a phrase to express the wildness of a sentence to YOU. to girls that are learning yiddish a word that is in the bible is a category of word they cant read

[mjilightworker]

Understanding Leaven Bread

Understanding Leaven Bread

Mat 13:33  Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. 

(See also; Luke 13:21)

1Co 5:6-8  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

English definition for leaven;

Leaven is a substance that causes fermentation and expansion of dough or batter that is an element that produces and altering or transforming influence. A chemical breakdown.

Leaven from the Greek;

G2219 ζύμη Probably from G2204; ferment (as if boiling up): - leaven. G2204 ζέω A primary verb; to be hot (boil, of liquids; or glow, of solids), that is, (figuratively) be fervid (earnest): - be fervent.

John 6:32-35  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 

That bread is our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mat 6:11  Give us this day our daily bread.

“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” is to rise by way of following truths, love, eliminating repetitive evils as leaven is “like” the kingdom of heaven and heaven is the balance of goodnesses and shuns evils according to how a soul chooses to live.

“Purge out the old leaven,” meaning a soul should not be complacent-stagnent in their growth in their relationship with God. Love, faith, trust, understanding, wisdom, knowledge, and obedience.

Gal 5:9  A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (See Also; Luke 13:21)

“Till the whole was leavened,” (The kingdom of heaven being complete within a soul.)

Mat 16:5-12  And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 

Mat 5:20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 

Scribes and Pharisees in the Greek; Scribes being writers, and interestingly Pharisees being separatists, exclusively religious, literally to disperse or wound.

Bread in the Greek;

G740 ἄρτος From G142; bread (as raised) or a loaf: - (shew-) bread, loaf. G142 αἴρω A primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figuratively to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specifically to sail away (that is, weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare [H5375]) to expiate sin.

To expiate sin meaning to atone-make reparations for guilt or sin. In this case, Jesus being the bread is the power of taking away the sins of the world.

Summarizing; The kingdom of heaven being "like leaven" can be understood as being the "process" leading to a heavenly life and that life is the "bread" Jesus Christ as He works through you in accordance to your loves and progression becoming complete within the kingdom.

MJI (LightWorker)

[evangelistedissoncharles]

Good morning brothers and sisters! Don't do anything ungodly.

‭‭Proverbs 20:17 ESV‬‬

[17] Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel.

The Bible points us to a long-term view of things. The fleshly view is that of getting the bread and enjoying it. This is the short-term, ends-justify-the-means mindset that prevails in too many parts of the world around us. Who cares how you got the bread - you've got it and it tastes wonderful. The problem comes in that there will be a price to pay - even if you cheated someone out of the bread for free.

The price is a mouth filled with gravel. There is a slight Hebraism in this idea of a mouth filled with gravel. The idea is that though bread tastes sweet at first - the bread obtained by ungodly means will weigh down the one who deceived in the end. Though sweet at first, the bread will break the teeth of the deceiver - and the bread will weigh like stone in his stomach.

This takes into account God's moral law. That law teaches us two things we should consider when deceiving others. First, God's moral law says, "You shall not steal." When we deceive others about what we are offering to them, we are thieves - taking their goods without a fair exchange of goods or money in return.

Second, we are told by God's moral law that we are not to bear false witness - which basically means, "do not lie." No matter how sweet the bread may taste initially - it will be like teeth-breaking rocks on the day that we answer to God for our deceit and con-game. The wisdom offered to us here is to make decisions based not on our immediate pleasure in the flesh. We should make decisions based on God's moral law and upon principles of righteousness. Though we may not gain as much quickly and unrighteously at the beginning, the blessing in the end is worth it.

[oxyvisualanalysis-fa23]

question

"For this word, reiterated with a power now sublime, now affecting, but always admirable, our race will, as long as the world lasts, return to Hebraism; and the Bible, which preaches this word, will for ever remain, as Goethe called it, not only a national book, but the Book of the Nations.."

In this passage, Arnold talks about the enduring significance of Hebraism and the Bible in teaching humanity the value of embracing one's ideal with devout energy. How does Arnold's perspective on Hebraism and the Bible compare to the role of religion in current society, where all of the various secular and spiritual worldviews exist together?

[transgenderer]

@wendelsae said:

similar in what respects? in fundamental doctrine & cosmology, yes, but I'd say in practice Islam is closer to Communism than it is to Christianity.

@zinkoff said:

i may be missing the point but does islam not openly support free market economy? what correlation do you see between islam and communism?

wendelsae:

both are essentially discontinuous revolutionary inter/antinationalist political ideologies trying to carry forth the global political vision of a founder through careful study of his words. both have a tendency towards perpetual renewal, new anti-revisionist movements trying to push out the old, and a seemingly self-contradictory tendency towards cults of personality in their leaders, and schisms tend to revolve around loyalty to leaders rather than to doctrine (when I say the schisms revolve around leaders rather than doctrine, I mean it's about which leaders have righteous succession or can successfully interpret (usually legal) doctrine. there have been theoretical theological controversies in Islamic history, but they're a lot less prominent & divisive than they are in Christian history.)

@billy-the-blake said:

This description is at least as true about Christianity as it is about Islam.

wendelsae:

is it? certainly there's papal supremacy as the major counterexample, but even there the opposition was built around theological issues, somewhat with the Byzantines (though I suppose you could say azymes was a legal issue) and very much so with the Protestants. Even the kind of reverence for the *office* of the pope as effective magisterium is very different from the Shia reverence for the *person* of the Imam.

billy-the-blake:

Don’t get me wrong, Islam and Christianity still differ in important ways, but they’re still much more similar to each other than either are to communism. Massive social movements build around the popular writings/sayings of an historical person will evolve similar methods of self-propulsion, internal regulation, and divisions over interpretation of text, yet all these are superficial similarities. Christianity and Islam both observe weekly recitation of sacred texts in places of worship, a reorganization of older mythology into a cohesive narrative, an elevation of the importance of the afterlife, an often contradiction between mysticism and a need to enforce dogma, etc.

wendelsae:

Similar in what respects? In terms of cosmology, ritual, & theology, yes they are more similar, but I think there's a massive difference in how they work politically. Christianity wants to control the state- it was born under Roman governance and accepted this- but Islam was born to a free people and wants to be the state, with not only ethical principles to derive law from, but a preextant law code (which is much farther than Communism goes, and is more like Hebraism)

im pretty much only interested in religion in terms of cosmology, ritual, and theology, but interesting discussion

Kind of a bummer that the two most populous religions are from the same greco-abrahamic milieu. I think political concerns really make people overstate how different Islam is, it's extremely similar, especially because both Christian and Muslim theology/philosophy were actively being influenced by grecoroman stuff until like. Very late, idk, 1000+ AD

[eli-kittim]

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!

[anarchotolkienist]

Listening to a talk in Yiddisch and it’s interesting just how close it (or at least, the particular dialect of it spoken in official circumstances by Jack Jacobs - who I believe speaks Poylisch but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is, if you speak English and Swedish and have a small smattering of Yiddisch words and phrases from listening to songs - like just how much of it you can actually understand. I would, of course, be unable to communicate in Yiddisch and would never claim any degree of fluency in the language (

[warriorsfortheplanet]

Melchisedech the Jew: a lesson on religious diversity from a 14th century author

Between 1348 and 1350, Giovanni Boccaccio, the father of Italian prose and storytelling, wrote his most famous novel, the Decameron (which means “ten days”), a collection of stories and tales meant to entertain ladies (to whom the novel is dedicated) and gentlemen (especially merchants) and to distract them from the despair of the Black Death, which had struck Europe in 1348.

The novel tells the story of ten young men and women from Florence who have decided to escape the town and run to the countryside to protect themselves from the plague; during this period in the countryside, they spend their time storytelling. Each day, each storyteller tells a tale based on a theme proposed by the queen or king of the day, who has been elected at the end of the day before.

The first day of the Decameron has no peculiar theme, as queen Pampinea stated once she had been crowned by the other storytellers. Although the storytellers are free to choose whatever theme they want, the main theme of the day becomes the religious one.

The third storyteller of the day is Filomena, who tells the tale of Melchisedech the Jew: Salah-al-Din (known as “Saladino” to 14th century Italians), sultan of Egypt and ruler of Babilonia, has lost most of his royal treasure and is in desperate need to find a big amount of money. He would like to ask for help to Melchisedech, a rich Jewish usurer that lives in Alexandria of Egypt. However, Melchisedech is known for being a greedy man and the sultan doubts he will be willing to borrow the sultan his money. Eventually, he decides to try and trick the usurer with a tricky question: the sultan invites Melchisedech to his court and asks him which of the three faiths he believes is the truthful one: Hebraism, Islam or Christianity. Melchisedech, who is a very wise man, understands the intentions of the sultan, and answers by telling a story, which is known as the tale of the three rings:

There once lived a man who had a beautiful ring. Because it was so beautiful, he decided that he would pass down this ring to his legitimate heir, who would then receive most of the heritage, and that all his brothers would have to respect him as the favourite pupil of the house. This tradition was kept for many generations, with fathers passing the beautiful ring down to their favourite son. The ring ended up in the hands of an elderly man with three sons. Each of the sons was trying to please their father as they could to obtain the ring. Eventually, the father asked a good blacksmith to create two identical copies of the same ring and he passed the rings down to his sons. When the father died, each of the three sons came to claim their heritage, showing off their rings, not knowing the existance of the two copies. Incapable of telling which of the three was the real ring, they started quarreling on who was the legitimate heir, and Melchisedech tells us that they are still quarreling in vain. 

Melchisedech answers the sultan that his question has no solution, because like the father who gave the three rings to his sons, so God gave each population a different heritage and religion without telling which one was the right one. Therefore, there is no right religion, as they all come down from God. The sultan praises Melchisedech’s intelligence, as it was just the right answer; eventually, now that he has tested his intelligence, the sultan feels finally free to ask the usurer for help. Melchisedech welcomes the sultan’s request and the sultan repays completely his debt with Melchisedech and become close friend with the wise man.

As you can imagine, this is one of my favourite tales of the whole novel. Despite the plague spreading all over Europe, which caused stereotypes and descriminations against jews and muslims to rise all over Europe (they had already been banned from Spain and assaulted during the first crusades during XI-XIII centuries), Boccaccio shows how in fact religious intolerance has no real motive or foundation and is actually impossible to tell which is the “true faith”. Besides, the fact that the protagonists are a very wise and rich Jewish man and the sultan of Egypt, a muslim monarch, really makes a difference: Boccaccio allows representers of the two other religions involved in the question to speak up. It’s not a Christian preacher that’s talking, but a muslim monarch and a jewish businessman (he is a usurer, which was considered a sinful profession, but during the XI-XIII centuries actual laws were made so that Jews could only be usurers, because this profession was seen as necessary, but Christians couldn’t practice it because it was seen as sinful; so it is not strange or weird to see a Jewish usurer during the Middle Ages. What is new with Melchidesech is that he is, in fact, a wise and generous man, although concerned about money, representing the uprising bourgeois class. Besides, his knowledge and intelligence make him more than just an usurer: they make him a wise man, which is something that was quite unconventional in an antisemitic society like the medieval one). They are high-status representers of their own culture and religion and they are portraied as generous, wise and well educated. Besides, Salah-al-Din isn’t an ordinary sultan: he defeated the Christian kingdoms with ease during the crusades, establishing his supremacy over the Middle East. He was an illuminated monarch, a great leader and a close friend of Frederick II of Swabia, with whom he shared his own culture.

Although the tale might seem a little bit old-fashioned, it actually sends a very important and current message: there is no right or wrong religion. Each of them has their own culture and heritage and it deserves to be practiced withouth any form of discrimination. Furthermore, this tale teaches us that it is in fact possible to be friends with people with different beliefs and cultures.

All that I can say is: well done Boccaccio, bravo.

And what about you? Do you agree with me on my personal analysis of Boccaccio’s tale? Do you think it could set a good example for islamophobes and antisemites? Let me know :)

Disclaimer: this is my personal analysis of Boccaccio’s tale “the tale of Melchisedech the Jew”. The historical evidence I reported comes from my recent studies on medieval European and Middle Eastern history and culture at school, which I got from my teacher’s lessons and my textbooks.

[gepm251-blog]

Dude, what are you on about? Drawing feathered wings on ocs has always been something humans do, like...I'm not even gonna quote the spread influence of abramitic religions and the tons of winged spirits they depict, because they are a new trend and you might not be familiar if you didn't keep up after the Huns moved in the Black Sea region and there was the whole Goth discourse (though they've become quite mainstream, so if you really haven't heard of Christianism, Hebraism and Islam, dude, HOW); but have you seen any five year old drawings or the literal goddess Nike? Eros? Half the Egyptian Gods? That one parchment with fanfiction of Odin that has been going round?

the massive popularity of MCYT has irreversibly affected the way people do character design now

its in fact very easy to tell if someone binged DSMP or Hermitcraft by following a very simple checklist:

Does the character design have wings, if so, what kind of wings?

A) They do not have wings

B) They have large, white, feathered wings. Similar to an angel or a bird

C) Literally any other kind of wings

If the character design falls under B), then congratulations! We recommend you schedule a lobotomy appointment!

[mjilightworker]

Dreams, Visions, Prophesy, Trance, Meditation, Revelations

(292 verses in the Bible relate to the above)

Acts 2:17-19  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 

All scripture is God spoken. All scriptures are God, which is the Word, which is alive. Therefore, humankind is always in the end days. All scriptures are in the NOW. Is it YOUR now, maybe, maybe not.

Meditation;

1Ti 4:15-16  Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 

(See Also; Jos 1:8, Isa 33:18, Luke 21:14, Psalms 1:2, 5:1, 19:14, 49:3, 63:6, 77:12, 104:34, 105:5, 119:15, 119:23, 119:48, 119:97, 119:99, 119:48, 143:5)

Psa 119:97  MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 

The definition of meditation in the Hebrew;

H7881 שִׂיחָה Feminine of H7879; reflection; by extension devotion: - meditation, prayer. H7879 שִׂיחַ From H7878; a contemplation; by implication an utterance: - babbling, communication, complaint, meditation, prayer, talk.

Scriptures were penned by the souls that lived and spoke in their own way-language-understanding. Visions and prophesies are expressed through that soul but the Word that comes from the spirit world, by way of God, Jesus, spirit guides, the Holy Spirit, angels, your “higher” true perfect spiritual self.

Act 10:19  While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. 

We see in this vision of Peter, the Spirit spoke to him.

Vision in the Greek;

G3705 ὅραμα From G3708; something gazed at, that is, a spectacle (especially supernatural): - sight, vision. G3708 ὁράω Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.

2Co 12:1-4  It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 

See also; (2Co 12:7, Num 12:6, Eze 1:1-28, Eze 11:24, Dan 10:5-10, Joel 2:28-29, Acts 9:10-17, Acts 18:9, Acts 22:17-21, Acts 26:13-19, Gal 1:12, Gal 2:2)

Num 24:4  He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: 

Acts 10:10  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 

(See Also; Num 24:16, Acts 11:5, Acts 22:17)

Trance in the Greek Concordance;

G1611 ἔκστασις From G1839; a displacement of the mind, that is, bewilderment, “ecstasy”: - + be amazed, amazement, astonishment, trance. G1839 ἐξίστημι From G1537 and G2476; to put (stand) out of wits, that is, astound, or (reflexively) become astounded, insane: - amaze, be (make) astonished, be beside self (selves), bewitch, wonder.

In today's world, “trance” is the same as channeling. Channeling is an established connection and communication with the spiritual world in through a focused state of consciousness. A meditation, or displacement of the mind.

MJI (LightWorker)

[abaddooonn]

𝕵𝖚𝖉𝖆𝖎𝖘𝖒

monotheistic religion developed among the ancient Hebrews. Judaism is characterized by a belief in one transcendent God who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions.

[lamiaprigione]

B'Yerushalaim (1963)

[eesirachs]

there is a sumerogram—one so looming it exceeds sumerian entirely—for 'my father:' AB.IA. there is no matrixial cognate (it would be, maybe, AM.IA). similarly, there is a hebraism, a kind of idiom, used for when someone dies: they are gathered into their father/their person (3ms). there is no matrixial cognate (no gathering into tombs of mothers, though the bible tells us we know exactly where these tombs are).

the psychic crypt is one we cannot mourn at, precisely because the mother (or, 'my mother') is entombed there. thinking, now, of a hermeneutics of matrixial unburying. or, a hermeneutics of leaving flowers at her grave. or, at the very least, remembering her

thinking about a nominative form of 'my mother.' thinking about how it evades the bible or the bible evades it. i mean that if mothers appear in the bible, they are not spoken of relationally (they lack the possessive 'my'), or, they are in the vocative or accusative case. but i want, and i miss, a biblical nominative 'my mother.' i want to hear a child talk about her—this partner in difference, this co-emergent site of becoming. i want to hear her mourned for. i want to hear how she was, who she was. the bible has no 'my mother,' maybe because she exceeds it. maybe because it hurts to talk of her. maybe because if anyone can supplant god it's her

[oxyvisualanalysis-fa23]

Arnold and Leavis Response

I was really interested with Arnold's ideas about the establishment. While I'm not sure I had a full grasp on them, I am wondering if / how that connects to what we refer to as the mainstream today? Also, I have to say I was confused about what Arnold meant with his "Hebraism" assertions. To me it seemed dangerously close to anti-semitism but, again, I could be misinterpreting.

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

So your plan is to create a cult that basically copies Christianity? You want to make a church but ancient pagans didn't have churches. You want to use baptism but pagans didn't have baptism. You want to have a canon but pagans didn't have a canon. It just seems like you really want to create a copycat of Christianity. Why not just be a Christian if we already have everything you want?

oh boy.

i'll start with your last question. why? because i'm not a christian. i don't believe what christians believe and i don't have the same values christians have. and most importantly, i want a religion rooted in the ancestral religion of my people. i don't want to center another people or their holy book or their culture. why do that when i can center my own people? i could turn this question back on you and ask why you don't join us since it will have everything christianity has, minus the hebraism.

anyway, to address your other points...

pagans didn't exactly have churches in the way we have now, sure. but that's okay. i often make the point that the way in which people worship evolves over time. the way we worship is different from how pagans worshiped in late antiquity. how they worshiped was different from how worship was done in classical antiquity. and again how they worshiped in archaic greece was different still. so yeah, maybe ancient pagans didn't have churches exactly like we have now. but that's okay. i'm fine with innovation. i quite like the idea of a church so i don't see any reason to not adopt it just because they didn't have it in ancient times.

however, i do want to make the case that pagans had a sort of proto-church. and that's the mystery cults. these were congregations of people who got together for the purpose of communal worship. they had their own rituals and ceremonies, they feasted together, sang hymns and prayed, made offerings, etc. sounds pretty similar to church. this leads me to your next point...

these same mystery cults are famous because membership required initiation. the exact initiation process varied from cult to cult, but ritual immersion -- in oceans, rivers, or just regular baths -- wasn't an uncommon part of the process. same with aspersion and affusion. in the eleusinian mysteries initiates were sprinkled with the blood of a sacrificed pig after their ritual submerging. in the cult of isis, at least according to apuleius, after bathing a priest poured water over the initiate to ritually wash them. and this doesn't even account for all the other forms of initiation that fulfil the same function as baptism (initiation). but even if they didn't (they did), who cares? practices evolve.

and finally your point about a canon. sure there was no official codified canon among ancient pagans. however, there was definitely a cultural canon from which all pagans of that particular culture drew from. there were poets and priests and sages who were seen as authoritative on matters of the gods. also some mystery cults did have a religious text. orphism had the orphic hymns and the pythagoreans had the golden verses, for example. but again, whether they did or didn't isn't that important because things change.

[forbidden-sorcery]

In his famous essay “Culture and Anarchy,” Matthew Arnold defines this prejudice: “The governing idea of Hellenism,” he writes, “is spontaneity of consciousness; that of Hebraism, strictness of conscience.” Therefore the spontaneous phenomena of Pan—panic, sexual urges, nightmares—are encountered moralistically. We are told to fight the good fight against bad impulses. Western history has left us with two equally repugnant alternatives. Either we worship an Arcadian Pan of sentimentalized Nature who offers liberation from that history, or we curse him as a pagan demon who threatens civilization with anarchic atavism and other excesses with psychological labels such as shadow, acting out, exhibitionism, or id. The way each of us responds to the calls of Pan and is guided by him into the territory of “Greece” depends largely upon the Christian twist within our deeply cherished attitudes. Thus it seems that the sole possibility for crossing the bridge into an imagination of antiquity requires us to set aside those prejudiced perspectives that we have ennobled as “civilized” and which go on repeating the death of Pan by both sentimentalizing and demonizing him at one and the same time.

James Hillman - Pan and the Nightmare