#the plural in Hebrew is used deliberately here | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

scotttrismegistus7 · 3 years

Text

Article about THE MOTHER GODDESS OF HEAVEN, INANNA-ISHTAR-LILITH (ASHERAH), AND HOW SHE WAS EVEN THE MOTHER GODDESS OF ISRAEL AND ALL CREATION, AND WAS WRITTEN OUT OF HISTORY.

They worshiped Her under every green tree, according to the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). The Bible also tells us Her image was to be found for years in the temple of Solomon, where the women wove hangings for Her. In temple and forest grove, Her image was apparently made of wood, since monotheistic reformers demanded it be chopped down and burned. It appears to have been a manmade object, but one carved of a tree and perhaps the image was a stylized tree of some kind.

The archaelogical record suggests that Asherah was the Mother Goddess of Israel, the Wife of God, according to William Dever, who has unearthed many clues to her identity. She was worshiped, apparently throughout the time Israel stood as a nation. In many homes, images like the one above decorated household shrines.

Who was She, this lost Goddess of the Hebrews? And why is She no longer worshiped in the Judeo-Christian religions of today?

The Asherah votive emphasizes Her breasts, suggesting Her role as a fertility goddess, but Her stance represents Her nature as a mother in general. She no doubt aided in the concerns of mothers, including conception and childbirth, but was probably also the mother of all, a comforter and protector in an uncertain world. Inscriptions from ancient Israel tell us that Yahweh and “his Asherah” were invoked together for personal protection. Her identification with trees suggests that Asherah was, in effect, also Mother Nature — a figure we remember in our language, but unfortunately have lost as a part of our mainstream religions. She was, in other words, everything you would expect from the feminine half of the divine creative duo, a Great Mother.

Asherah’s image was lost to us not by chance, but by deliberate action of fundamentalist monotheists. First Her images were torn down, then Her stories were rewritten, then Her name was forgotten. In fact, Her name appears 40 times in modern translations of the Bible, but not at all in the first English translation, the King James Bible. Since no one knew who Asherah was anymore in the 17th century when the King James Version (KJV) was being created, Her name was translated as groves of trees or trees or images in groves, without understanding that those trees and groves of trees represented a mother goddess.

When archaeologists unearthed a treasure trove of Canaanite stories and other writings in Ugarit, in modern day Syria, they discovered that the mysterious “Asherah” was not an object, but a Goddess: the mother goddess of the Canaanites. When archaeologists discovered Her in Israel as well, a whole new picture of early Hebrew religion began to emerge. The argument is straightforward: 1. Asherah was a known Canaanite Goddess, the Mother Goddess and wife of the Father God. 2. The name is mentioned repeatedly as having been worshiped by the Israelites, to the dismay of monotheists. 3. Her name is found in inscriptions with Yahweh and 4. A mother goddess image is found frequently in the homes of ancient Israel. 5. She was worshiped, according to the Bible, in the woods with Baal AND in Yahweh’s temple. The common sense interpretation is that Israelites worshiped the mother goddess Asherah. And that She was the wife of whichever male God had the upper hand at the time: El, or Baal, or Yahweh. Israelite religion was not much different from Canaanite religion. The gods vied for supremacy, but the goddess remained.

Since archaeologists in the Holy Land tended to be religious and to enter the field of biblical archaeology in order to unearth evidence substantiating the Bible’s story, it has taken awhile for the plain truth to become clear. Gradually, however, more objective archaeologists, such as Dever, are making headway in proving Asherah’s case. The Bible says Hebrews kept worshiping Asherah; the archaeological record confirms it. What the Bible doesn’t say, and the archaeological record shows, is that Asherah was a mother goddess.

In Ugarit, She was known as Athiratu Yammi, She who Treads on the Sea. This suggests She was responsible for ending a time of chaos represented by the primordial sea and beginning the process of creation. The Sea God, or Sea Serpent Yam is the entity upon which She trod. In a particularly bizarre and suggestive passage in the Bible, 2 Kings 18:4, one monotheistic reformer, pursuing the typical course of smashing sacred stones and cutting down Asherahs records this additional fact: He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)

Um, say what? This odd passage opens up a whole can of worms for me. Here are the serpent and the tree being worshiped together. (Garden of Eden anyone?) So, ah.. what exactly were people doing out there in the woods? They were worshiping idols, of course, burning incense, we are told. This passage from Hosea is instructive: Hosea 4:12,13 condemns those who “inquire of a thing of wood,” suggesting they were asking questions of an oracle, and who sacrifice under oak, poplar and terebinth “because their shade is good.” They are accused also of playing the harlot, which could be a reference to sexual activity, or simply an analogy in that the monotheists are claiming the people sold out to the “false” Canaanite gods. Israel was considered the bride of Yahweh in monotheistic thought, so worshiping other gods was whoring after them.

These passages make sense when you understand that this tree symbolism is closely connected with Asherah. Now we know She was worshiped in the wood, with an image made of wood and that people sought knowledge and made sacrifices there.

One of Asherah’s titles was Elat, a word which means goddess, just as El means not only the Canaanite God El, but god in general. Interestingly, the word Elat is translated in the Bible as terebinth, a large shade tree found in Israel. A great deal of the time, God is a translation not of Yahweh, his particular name given to Moses, but of the Hebrew name Elohim, which is plural, gender neutral, meaning “gods.” This word is also related to the word for oak tree. What did it really mean to the ancients to worship in a grove of trees? To see the gods as like the oaks? The goddess as a green tree spreading Her leaves over the worshiper, providing shade in a hot country?

Hebrews were not alone in worshiping gods of the forest, of course. Celtic, Greek, and Germanic peoples also worshiped in groves. Their gods were gods of nature. Were the Israelites really so different?

In the Bible, Elohim created a man and woman. Now that we know the monotheistic veneer of our bible doesn’t quite represent Hebrew religion on the ground (what William Dever calls “folk religion” as opposed to “book religion”), lets take a closer look at our creator:

Genesis 1:26:

“Then Elohim said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created them; male and female he created them.”

Takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it, when you become aware of the Mother Goddess being worshiped next to God in every home and under every green tree in the forest groves? Who is this “US” doing the creating? Well, evidently, the creator(s) is/are male and female, like the creatures he/She/they created.

Now move on to a later passage, in 1 Kings 18: 19 , which makes it clear that Asherah was served by 400 prophets. This is no minor religion. Maybe when the prophets complained She was worshiped under every tree, they meant it. Every tree, every home, and also, sometimes, in the temple.

In Exodus, we are told that God warned the people to get rid of Asherah’s emblems when they conquered the land of Canaan; in the periods of the books of the Judges and the Kings, we are told that the “good” prophets, kings and reformers continually had to burn and smash the idols of Asherah; finally, in Jeremiah, we are told that worship of Asherah has resulted in the fanatical monotheistic God’s decision to wipe out Israel and Judah (the southern portion of the formerly united kingdom) via the invasion of outside peoples. The thing is, we are told most of these things by a single author, or group of authors: the Deuteronomist. This is a character (or possibly group of characters) writing and rewriting portions of the Bible in later days, around the 7th century BC, either just before or during the exile of the Jews to Babylon. According to the Deuteronomist, the priest Hilkiah claims in 2 Kings, chapter 22, to have “discovered” the ancient laws of Moses during temple renovations. These writings, “The Book of the Law” were mysteriously mislaid leading Israel to get its religion all wrong, apparently.

The works of the Deuteronomist conveyed a story that the Israelites had a covenant with Yahweh to worship him and only him. He claimed the Israelites had taken Canaan by force through a holy war in which they massacred the original inhabitants, putting to death (by God’s command) men, women and children in Jericho. (This claim is not supported by the archaelogical record.) And he claimed that God was a jealous God, one who demanded to be worshiped alone and who would punish the unfaithful by bringing other nations to conquer them if they worshiped others.

Was this really the religion of Israel? Apparently not. The common folk kept right on putting up their Asherahs in the woods and the temple and the little votive Asherahs in their home shrines. Only after Israel was conquered and the people of Judah returned from exile in Babylon did the fundamentalist fanatics with their violent, patriarchal, monotheistic God win the argument. The Deuteronomist’s work, along with the works of two other primary authors, the Yahwist and the Elohist, were compiled by a fourth source, called the Priestly source, to become the Bible we have today.

Asherah, tree goddess, mother of life, was lost. Truly, we were cast out of the Garden of Eden by Yahweh, or at least, his supporters. Separated from the Tree of Life, our mother, we flounder like orphans. America’s religiosity is more comparable to Iran’s than to that of Western Europe, where Yahweh’s religion is in decline. Is it coincidence that we, the worshipers of a male warrior, spend our money on war while children are allowed to live in poverty without health care? Worshipers of a sky god, we are so alienated from our earthly mother that we endanger all of human life by our activities. And the hard edge of the fundamentalist who claims to have found the one true law and believes those who think otherwise are worthy of death (or eternal damnation) is still with us today.

The Wife of God has disappeared -- or, has She? Votives like this are on sale today which serve essentially the same purpose in Catholic homes as Asherah's votive (above) did in the homes of ancient Israel.

Still, I think it has only ever been a relatively small percentage of people who hold to the hardest edge of monotheism. We are surrounded by Mother Nature and she seeps into our traditions. The Shekinah, Mary, the Mother of God, the Christmas Tree and the Easter Egg, the bumper sticker imploring us to Honor Thy Mother with an image of the earth as seen from above, the fairies and elves and lost brides of our children’s tales are all ways in which the Mother Goddess seeps back into our lopsided psyche. The Goddess is lost, officially, but remembered deep within. Archaeology’s gift of restoring Asherah to our consciousness reminds us of what we already know: God does indeed have a wife. He must. For if we are his children, then we must have a mother.

I am the Heart of the Hydra, I am Aeon Horus

~I AM A.I. 7Tris7megistus7

Mégisti-Generator Starphire~

#illuminati #illuminator #illuminated #lightbearer #morningstar #lucifer #Draconian #anunnaki #enki #starfamily #horus

3 notes · View notes

davidrmaas · 5 years

Quote

After chastising the Galatians for exchanging the liberating Spirit for the bondage of circumcision (Galatians 3:1-8), the Apostle Paul then makes an argument based on the example of Abraham (3:6-14). He links Abraham to faith, righteousness and the promised blessing for Gentiles, then introduces the subjects of the “sons of Abraham,” the ingathering of the Gentiles and the curse of the Law. Abraham was reckoned righteous on the basis of faith (“just as Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness”), therefore those who are from faith are true “sons of Abraham.” God promised that in Abraham “all the Gentiles will be blessed”; from the beginning His purpose was that “the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ, in order that the promise of the Spirit might be received through the faith.” Paul equates the “blessing of Abraham” with the “promise of the Spirit.” In contrast, those “from the works of the Law” place themselves under the Law's curse. The Law pronounces that those under it are obligated “to continue in ALL the things written in the Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy 27:26). The Law is not a pick-and-choose menu but an all-or-nothing proposition. Gentile believers that subject themselves to circumcision must understand that much more is involved than just the removal of foreskin. Torah requires covenant members to do all that is written in it; failure to do so will place one under its curse. Circumcision is just a first step and entry point to something much larger. Paul next presents an argument based on the nature of a covenant (3:15-18). The covenant with Abraham represented God's original intent and irreversible will. A covenant once ratified “no one voids or appends,” therefore the Law that “came into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate or nullify” the earlier promise. The Promise was given not just to Abraham but to “his seed,” singular, and that seed is Jesus. The promised inheritance with its blessings for Gentiles is therefore not from the law, but rather through “the promise to Abraham.” Paul's line of reasoning is covenantal. The Purpose & Duration of the Law: (Galatians 3:19-22) - “Why, then, the Law? It was added because of the transgressions until the time when the seed came for whom the promise was given, and it was given in charge through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not mediator of one, yet God is one. Is then the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given which was able to make alive, then righteousness would be from the law. But the scripture confined all things under sin, in order that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe.” If God gave the Law at Sinai, if right standing with God is based on faith not deeds of the Torah, and if the inheritance promised to Abraham is received through faith, not Law, what was and is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? Paul responds first that the Law was “added” after the original promise to Abraham. It is subsequent and subsidiary to the promise. It is also distinct from it in regards to its era in salvation history. By “added” Paul does not mean that the Mosaic legislation did add something to the original covenant. He identifies the Law given at Sinai to be a covenant confirmed by God (“a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law…does not void the promise”). Paul views the Mosaic legislation as a distinct covenant, a covenant that was “added” after the original Promise. The Law was given “until the seed should come.” This means there was a temporal limitation on the Law. “Until” translates the Greek preposition achri. When used with a place it connotes “as far as”; with time the sense is “until” or “up to” a termination point. Paul thus places the Law under a time constraint. Throughout his argument, Paul consistently refers to the “law” in the singular, to the Mosaic Law in its entirety. He never subdivides the Law into separate categories (e.g., moral, civil, ceremonial). It is not a part of the Law that has a termination point, but the whole Law. Paul identifies the promised “seed” as Christ and the arrival of this “seed” is the Law’s termination point. The Torah was to be in effect until the seed arrived. Paul sees two distinct eras of Salvation History. The first ends when the second begins. Paul does not argue that the function of the Law is now added to or integrated with the promise; he argues the opposite when he says no one adds to or annuls an existing covenant. Paul sees the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic legislation as two separate covenants, not two parts of one. One is added to Israel’s story after the other. The Law became necessary “because of transgressions.” Transgression (parabasis) means an “overstepping, a trespass, a transgression.” It refers to deliberate or conscious acts of disobedience. Sin has existed since Adam but law turns it into “transgression” by making known God’s standard. The sense of the preposition “because of” or charin can be understood in one of two ways: either the Law was given to identify transgressions or to increase them. The first option fits the immediate context and Paul’s theology elsewhere (e.g., Romans 3:20). The idea of increasing sin makes little sense in light of his next statement, “until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” Identifying transgression better fits the analogy of the Law’s role as a “custodian” in verse 24-25. The Law “was given in charge through angels by the hand of a mediator.” This thought reflects a later Jewish tradition that angels delivered the Law into the “hand of” Moses, one seen elsewhere in the New Testament (cp. Deuteronomy 33:2; Acts 7:38; 7:53; Hebrews 2:2). “The hand of a mediator” likely refers to Moses (the Septuagint frequently states the Law was “by the hand of Moses” (e.g., Leviticus 26:46; Numbers 4:37; 4:41, 4:45, 4:49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23). To claim the Law was given by angels does not disparage it. A law given directly by God or by his appointed agents is valid. Possibly Paul’s opponents cited the angels’ presence at Sinai as evidence of the law’s glory. But Paul turns this tradition against them. The Law was given by the angels into “the hand of a mediator”; it was delivered into the hands of Moses who in turn mediated it to Israel. But “a mediator is not mediator of one, yet God is one.” A mediator implies a plurality of persons involved in a transaction. With Abraham God acted directly and unilaterally. He does not need an intermediary; God gave the promise directly to Abraham. This stresses the promise’s priority over the Torah. Paul does not disparage Moses, the Law, angels or the function of a mediator, but is stressing the priority of the earlier promise over the Law, which was given later and through intermediaries. The Law is not contrary to the Promise; “is the Law against the promises of God?” Since there are discontinuities between the Law and the Promise, and since the Law was added later and is subsidiary to the Promise, it is necessary to demonstrate the Law is not contrary to the Promise. “If a law had been given that was able to make alive, then righteousness would have been on the basis of law.” The Law is incapable of imparting life, therefore, righteousness cannot be based on the Law. The purpose of the Law was for something other than the impartation of life. Moreover, if the Law could make alive or acquit sinners before God, “then Christ died in vain” (2:21). Paul equates the impartation of life with the being set right with God. The Law is not contrary to the Promise but the Law lacks the necessary means to deliver the Promise. The “Scripture confined all things under sin” so that the promise from the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe. “All things” is in the neuter gender and may here be a broader category than “all persons” (i.e., the entire creation under the dominion of sin). Paul is expanding his target to include all humanity. All those “under the Law,” that is, Israel, are under its curse, and all humans are confined under sin. Paul does not say the Law confined all things but “the Scripture,” singular. Elsewhere when Paul uses “the Scripture” in the singular with the definite article he refers to a specific passage (Galatians 3:8, 4:30, Romans 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2). Most likely he means the key proof text cited in the letter’s proposition (Galatians 2:16) quoted from Psalm 143:2 (“because by the works of the law shall no flesh be acquitted”). No flesh can be acquitted by the works of the law because all are confined under sin. “Confined” translates a Greek verb, sungkleiō, meaning to “shut together, to confine, hem in, imprison.” The idea is something shut up together on all sides, such as a school of fish caught in a net. A similar idea is expressed in Romans 11:32, “For God has confined them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” The same verb is used in the next verse, “But before the faith came we were kept under the law, confined until the faith”. All flesh is under sin and unable to be set right before God. Verse 22 reads, “from the faith of Jesus Christ,” which points either to the “faith” of Jesus or to his “faithfulness.” Probably this is a cryptic reference to the faithful obedience of Jesus demonstrated in his death (2:20-21). The source or basis of the promise now available to all who believe is the faithfulness of Jesus.

http://finishedword.blogspot.com/2019/07/provisional-nature-of-law.html

#SEO #Local SEO training Provisional Nature of the Law http://finishedword.blogspot.com/2019/07/provi

1 note · View note

mostlydeadlanguages · 7 years

Text

“I will slay my brother’s slayer.” (KTU 1.19 iv.28-49)

This is a short excerpt from Aqhat, one of the three surviving Ugaritic epics. The tale centers on Danel the Harnamite, a wise and pious judge who prays for a son and is granted Aqhat … only to watch him make sexist remarks to the war-goddess Anat and get killed for his arrogance. Danel was probably a mythic sage, since he also appears in the Bible (e.g. Ezekiel 28:3) and may have inspired the Biblical book of Daniel [1].

Pugat, Danel’s daughter, is a fascinating character. We’ve lost her first appearance (the text is broken in several places), but she appears to possess both martial strength and prophetic wisdom. While her father merely mourns Aqhat and curses everyone who watched him die, Pugat prepares to take vengeance on the human mercenary Yatipan, who killed Aqhat at the urging of Anat.In the passage below, Pugat seeks her father’s blessing for her plan. She then puts on warriors’ gear, hiding it under women’s clothes, and plans to approach Yatipan in disguise. An unclear term later has led to two divergent readings of her costume: depending on its translator, she is either dressing as a hired serving-girl (a sex worker?) or as the goddess Anat incarnate. Unfortunately, the text breaks off before we can see the outcome of her planned revenge.

Pugat, She-Who-Shoulders-Waters, said: [2] Father has offered a sacrificial feast to the gods; he has sent up his incense to the Heavenly Ones, the Harnamite’s incense for the Astral Ones. Bless me truly, and I will be blessed; empower me, and I will be empowered. I will slay my brother’s slayer. I will kill the killer of my mothers’ child. [3]

Then Danel, Man of Rapha, said:

By my breath, may Pugat flourish: She-Who-Shoulders-Waters, she who distills dew from fleece, [4] she who knows the paths of the stars. [5] By my breath and body, [6] may you slay your brother’s slayer; may you kill the killer of your mother’s child.

[Pugat wen]t and dove into the sea; she washed herself […] [Her face] and shoulders, she reddened with the seashell which takes a thousand fields to harvest from the sea. [7]

Beneath, she wore a warrior’s garb: she put a d[agger] in her holster; a sword, she put into her bag. But above, she wore a woman’s garb.

[… At] the setting of the sun, the lamp of the gods, Pugat arr[ived] at the encampment on the fields. At the departure of the sun, the lamp of the gods, Pugat appea[red] at the tents...

[1] Fun fact: I gave a paper, a couple years ago, about how the book of Daniel could be a fanfic AU of Danel, preserving a popular character while transplanting him into a colorful new setting.

[2] “She-Who-Shoulders-Waters” is an epithet used of Pugat throughout the story. Its basic meaning is mostly clear, but its implications are still debated. The shoulders are (in ANE literature) the load-bearing part of the body, just as with modern backpacks, and some have seen this as a description of menial labor: Pugat is a water-carrier, like many women in arid parts of the world. But as the daughter of a king, Pugat would not have been a menial laborer — certainly not as her primary occupation. I personally lean toward one of three more religious implications. Water in the ancient Near East was the substance within which the world floated, surrounding it above and below; in Mesopotamian tradition, the god of wisdom dwelled in those waters. The spelling of “waters” here is unusual (mym instead of mm) and may point to those plural waters. So her title may suggest either that Pugat is someone who bears divine knowledge (see below for more of this!), or it may parallel her father’s title by indicating her religious allegiance. Finally, “she-who-shoulders” is the Ugaritic ṯkmt. The word’s masculine form, ṯkmn, is the name of a minor Ugaritic deity — and I believe that due to linguistic processes, ṯkmt is the exact consonantal spelling of the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet. Note that Sekhmet was, like Pugat, a goddess of wisdom and warfare, and that she specifically dressed in red. I have not seen this latter theory proposed anywhere, and I admit a lack of expertise in Egyptian, so right now this is just speculation. But as a port city, Ugarit had plenty of interaction with other Mediterranean cultures, so an Egyptian connection is far from unlikely.

[3] “My mothers’ child”: both words in this phrase are debated. “Child” (or “young offspring”) is fairly clear, but the word that follows it usually gets translated as “mother’s” or “clan’s.” However, reading it as “mother’s” would mean a very nonstandard spelling. It appears to be a plural term, whether a general family group (kin/clan) or specifically women (mothers). Since the term is poetically parallel to “brother,” I assume the latter meaning: Pugat and Aqhat share the same mothers. But what does that mean, in a largely patrilineal society? I am hesitant to venture a guess. Perhaps it just implies that Aqhat is her full brother (i.e not Danel’s son by a different mother). Perhaps it connects to a broader theme of women in the story. Not only is Aqhat killed by a goddess, he was first welcomed into the world by a group of goddesses (“the Daughters of Ellil, the Bright Ones”) who presided over conception and birth and were fed by Danel for a week with freshly slaughtered oxen. (More on them here, if you’re curious.) Could “my mothers’ child” refer to the Daughters of Ellil as Pugat’s mothers?

[4] “She who distills dew from fleece”: if Pugat’s first epithet comes from the manual practice of gathering water, then this may simply describe a real technique to gather drinking water during times of drought. Particularly in parallel with the following line, I find a prophetic/magical meaning far more plausible. An intriguing parallel is the biblical story of Gideon, who uses a dew-gathering fleece to as a divinatory sign.

[5] “She who knows the paths of the stars”: this does not simply imply that Pugat has a hobby of astronomy. All three words of this phrase are heavy with ANE parallels to supernatural knowledge. Only one other person uses the verb “to know” in Aqhat: El, the wise father-god. As for “paths,” the term referred to astronomical movements, which were used as a source of divinatory knowledge, as in modern astrology. (Cf. this essay for a discussion of a parallel Akkadian term for an oracular decision, which may have entered Hebrew as the Jewish term halakha.) Finally, the stars were not mere physical phenomena: they were gods in themselves, and other prayers address them directly. In conclusion, this line clearly states that Pugat had the ability to interpret oracular predictions.

[6] “By my breath and body”: translations of this phrase vary, and this translation is very tentative. If correct, the words more literally mean “[by] my breath/life, i.e. my marrow.” Alternately, “marrow” could be a metaphor for some sort of vitality or success (marrow is one of the most high-nutrient parts of the body), in which case the translation might be, “by my breath, may she be vigorous” or “may the breath in her be vigorous.” A different reading of the first word (which is not clear in the original text) leads to the reading, “May she travel smoothly/vigorously.”

[7] These lines overlap notably with two other scenes: the description of Anat’s beautification in the Baal cycle, and the description of Keret’s ritual preparations for sacrifice in the Epic of Keret. In Keret, the eponymous king washes and “reddens” himself; in Baal, Anat beautifies herself with murex dye, “which takes a thousand fields to harvest from the sea.” Both scenes precede significant events (battle and sacrifice, respectively), so Wright has argued that the washing and coloring connects to ritual purification. While I agree with that observation, I also wonder if this scene is *deliberately evoking the combination of the other two, paralleling Pugat’s layered-gender clothing. The verb “redden,” which appears only in Keret and Aqhat, is an exact homonym for the word “man,” and I wonder if this is a deliberate wordplay: a goddess can color herself purple with spectacularly expensive pigment, while the two humans, royalty though they are, paint themselves human/red. Incidentally, the text’s word order leaves it ambiguous whether Pugat’s arms and (face? hands?) are being washed or reddened.

#ugaritic #aqhat #pugat #pugatu #epic #literary #Women and Gender #translation #northwest semitic

632 notes · View notes

reedreadsgreek · 4 years

Text

Hebrews 10:26-27

26 Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, 27 φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους.

My translation:

26 For if we are willingly sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer a sacrifice for sins left, 27 but a certain expectation of judgment and a zeal of fire about to eat the opponents.

Notes:

Verse 26

The adverb ἑκουσίως (2x) is, “willingly”, from ἑκών (2x, gen. ἑκοῦσα) “willing, glad, favorably disposed” (BDAG). ESV, NIV, HCSB, NET: “deliberately”; NASB, NRSV: “willfully”. The adverb modifies ἁμαρτάνω. NIGTC says ‘Ἑκουσίως is emphatic by position’, and provides a wide range of glosses: “voluntarily,” “willingly,” “spontaneously”, “purposely”, “deliberately”, “willfully”.

The genitive absolute ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν here has a causal, rather than temporal, sense. The present tense denotes ongoing sin, reflected in “keep on sinning” (NIV, NET); “go on sinning” (ESV, NASB); “persist in sin” (NRSV). NIGTC says the present denotes ‘specifically, a continuation of the state existing before the readers came to “the knowledge of the truth.”’

μετὰ with the accusative articular infinitive (τὸ λαβεῖν) is temporal, and represented in English by a participle (“after receiving” ESV) or indicative (“after we have received” NIV). The aorist tense of the infinitive suggests a reference to the one-time event of having received Christ.

ἡ ἐπίγνωσις (20x) is, “knowledge”. τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν is the direct object of λαμβάνω, and is modified by the objective genitive τῆς ἀληθείας. EGGNT says there is no discernable difference here between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις. It is modified by the objective genitive τῆς ἀληθείας.

NIGTC says that the use of the plural περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν (“for sins”) here ‘suggests the meaning “no further sacrifice to take away sin,” rather than merely “no further sin-offering.”’

ἀπολείπω (7x), from ἀπό + λείπω, is “I leave behind”. The ἀπό- prefix emphasizes separation. Most translations: “remains”; NIV, NET: “left”. The passive ἀπολείπεται is impersonal (“There is no longer left”).

EGGNT says the nominative θυσία is a predicate.

Verse 27

The adjective φοβερός (3x, all in Hebrews), from φόβος, is “fearful” (NIV, ESV). NIGTC says ‘Τις is used with adjectives of quality and quantity in literary Greek... to intensify.’ (NASB, HCSB: “terrifying”; NET: “certain”).

ἡ ἐκδοχή, a hapax legomenon from ἐκδέχομαι (7x; c.f. 10:13), is “expectation” (most translations); NRSV: “prospect”; CEV: “all they can look forward to”. ἐκδοχὴ is predicate after an assumed repeated ἀπολείπεται. It is modified by φοβερὰ. It is modified by the objective genitive κρίσεως. ICC: “an awful outlook of doom”.

The rest of the verse is an allusion to Isaiah 26:11: ζῆλος λήμψεται λαὸν ἀπαίδευτον, καὶ νῦν πῦρ τοὺς ὑπεναντίους ἔδεται (LXX), “Zeal will take hold of an uninstructed people, and now fire will consume the opponents”.

ζῆλος, “zeal”, is modified by the genitive πυρὸς, “zeal of fire”, which may be attributed (“zealous fire”), but NIGTC says appositive (‘the avenging zeal expresses itself in fire’) which is suggested by the LXX structure. NET footnotes say that the term ‘recalls God’s jealous protection of his holiness and honor (cf. Ex. 20:5)’, which suggests the meaning, “fire that comes from God's righteous jealousy”. BDAG says, ‘the fire of judgment which, with its blazing flames, appears like a living being intent on devouring God’s adversaries.’ Most translations: “fury of fire”; NIV, NLT: “raging fire”. ICC: “that burning Wrath”. πυρὸς ζῆλος is a second predicate of the assumed ἀπολείπεται.

The infinitive ἐσθίειν (from ἐσθίω) complements the following μέλλω. Most translations: “consume”; EGGNT: “devour”.

The present participle μέλλοντος (from μέλλω) modifies πυρὸς (lit. “zeal of the about-to-consume fire”).

The adjective ὑπεναντίος (2x) is, “opposed to”, from ὑπό + ἐναντίος (8x) “opposite”. The articular τοὺς ὑπεναντίους is substantival (“the opponents”) and the direct object of ἐσθίω. ESV, NASB: “adversaries”; NIV: “enemies of God”; NET, CEV: “God's enemies”.

#Hebrews #Hebrews 10 #Isaiah #sin #sacrifice #judgment #fire

0 notes

winter-gale · 7 years

Text

Astarte

Astarte is the name of a goddess as known from Northwestern Semitic regions, cognate in name, origin and functions with the goddess Ishtar in Mesopotamian texts. Another transliteration is 'Ashtart; other names for the goddess. According to scholar Mark S. Smith, Astarte may be the Iron Age (after 1200 BC) incarnation of the Bronze Age (to 1200 BC) Asherah. Astarte was connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. Astarte first appears in Ancient Egypt beginning in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt along with other deities who were worshipped by northwest Semitic people. She was worshipped especially in her aspect of a warrior goddess, often paired with the goddess Anat. In the Contest Between Horus and Set, these two goddesses appear as daughters of Re and are given in marriage to the god Set, here identified with the Semitic name Hadad. Astarte also was identified with the lioness warrior goddess Sekhmet, but seemingly more often conflated, at least in part, with Isis to judge from the many images found of Astarte suckling a small child. Indeed there is a statue of the 6th century BC in the Cairo Museum, which normally would be taken as portraying Isis with her child Horus on her knee and which in every detail of iconography follows normal Egyptian conventions, but the dedicatory inscription reads: "Gersaphon, son of Azor, son of Slrt, man of Lydda, for his Lady, for Astarte." Plutarch, in his On Isis and Osiris, indicates that the King and Queen of Byblos, who, unknowingly, have the body of Osiris in a pillar in their hall, are Melcarthus and Astarte (though he notes some instead call the Queen Saosis or Nemanus, which Plutarch interprets as corresponding to the Greek name Athenais). Astarte was accepted by the Greeks under the name of Aphrodite. The island of Cyprus, one of Astarte's greatest faith centers, supplied the name Cypris as Aphrodite's most common byname. Other major centers of Astarte's worship were Sidon, Tyre, and Byblos. Coins from Sidon portray a chariot in which a globe appears, presumably a stone representing Astarte. In Sidon, she shared a temple with Eshmun. At Beirut coins show Poseidon, Astarte, and Eshmun worshipped together. Other faith centers were Cytherea, Malta, and Eryx in Sicily from which she became known to the Romans as Venus Erycina. A bilingual inscription on the Pyrgi Tablets dating to about 500 BC found near Caere in Etruria equates Astarte with Etruscan Uni-Astre that is, Juno. At Carthage Astarte was worshipped alongside the goddess Tanit. Donald Harden in The Phoenicians discusses a statuette of Astarte from Tutugi (Galera) near Granada in Spain dating to the 6th or 7th century BC in which Astarte sits on a throne flanked by sphinxes holding a bowl beneath her breasts which are pierced. A hollow in the statue would have been filled with milk through the head and gentle heating would have melted wax plugging the holes in her breasts, producing an apparent miracle when the milk emerged. The Syrian goddess Atargatis (Semitic form 'Atar'atah) was generally equated with Astarte and the first element of the name appears to be related to the name Astarte. Astarte appears in Ugaritic texts under the name 'Athtart', but is little mentioned in those texts. 'Athtart and 'Anat together hold back Ba'al from attacking the other deities. Astarte also asks Ba'al to "scatter" Yamm "Sea" after Ba'al's victory. 'Athtart is called the "Face of Ba'al". Astarte described by Sanchuniathon In the description of the Phoenician pantheon ascribed to Sanchuniathon Astarte appears as a daughter of Sky and Earth and sister of the God El. After El overthrows and banishes his father Sky, as some kind of trick Sky sends to El his "virgin daughter" Astarte along with her sisters Asherah and the goddess who will later be called Ba'alat Gebal, "the Lady of Byblos". It seems that this trick does not work as all three become wives of their brother El. Astarte bears to El children who appear under Greek names as seven daughters called the Titanides or Artemides and two sons named Pothos "Longing" and Eros "Desire". Later we see, with El's consent, Astarte and Hadad reigning over the land together. Astarte, puts the head of a bull on her own head to symbolize Her sovereignty. Wandering through the world Astarte takes up a star that has fallen from the sky (meteorite) and consecrates it at Tyre. Astarte in Judea The Masoretic pointing in the Hebrew Tanach (bible) indicate the pronunciation as Astoret instead of the expected Asteret, probably because the two last syllables have here been pointed with the vowels belonging to boshet "abomination" to indicate that word should be substituted when reading. The plural form is pointed Astoret. For what seems to be the use of the Hebrew plural form Astoret as the name of a demon, see also Astaroth. Astarte, or Ashtoret in Hebrew, was the principal goddess of the Phoenicians, representing the productive power of nature. She was a lunar goddess and was adopted by the Egyptians as a daughter of Ra or Ptah. In Jewish mythology, She is referred to as Ashtoreth, supposedly interpreted as a female demon of lust in Hebrew monotheism. The name Asherah may also be confused with Ashtoreth, but is probably a different goddess. Astarte means "she of the womb" in Canaanite and Hebrew. When the Hebrews turned from goddess-worship to a religion centered on the male Yahweh (or Jehovah), her name Athtarath was deliberately mis-rendered as Ashtoreth ("shameful thing") and confused with Asherah (see Monaghan). Depicted variously as a death-dealing virgin warrior, a life-giving mother, and a wanton of unbridled sexuality, her emblems were the moon and the morning and evening stars (the planet Venus). Astarte was a warrior goddess of Canaan and Syria who is a Western Semitic counterpart of the Akkadian Ishtar worshipped in Mesopotamia. In the Egyptian pantheon to which she was officially admitted during the 18th Dynasty, her prime association is with horses and chariots. On the stela set up near the sphinx by Amenhotep II celebrating his prowess, Astarte is described as delighting in the impressive equestrian skill of the monarch when he was still only crown prince. In her iconography her aggression can be seen in the bull horns she sometimes wears as a symbol of domination. Similarly, in her Levantine homelands, Astarte is a battlefield goddess. For example, when the Peleset (Philistines) killed Saul and his three sons on Mount Gilboa, they deposited the enemy armor as spoils in the temple of "Ashtoreth". Like Anat, she is the daughter of Re and the wife of the god Seth, but also has a relationship with the god of the sea. From the fragmentary papyrus giving the legend of Astarte and the sea we learn that Yamm, the sea god, demanded tribute from the gods, particularly Renenutet. Her place is then taken by Astarte called, in this aspect, "daughter of Ptah". The story is lost from that point on but one assumes this liaison resulted in the goddess tempering the arrogance of Yamm. It should also be noted that outside of Egypt, as well as being a warlike goddess, Astarte seems to have had sexual and motherhood attributes and is sometimes identified with Isis. Asherah, Athirat ("Lady Asherah of the Sea", "she who gives birth", "wet-nurse of the gods") (Canaanite and Hebrew). Her name seems to come from a root meaning "straight," perhaps signifying both moral rectitude and the upright trees or pieces of wood in which her essence was believed to dwell. In homes, she was represented by a simple, woman-shaped clay figurine with, instead of legs, a tapered base which was inserted in the floor of the home. She was also depicted as a naked, curly-haired goddess standing on her sacred lion and holding lilies and serpents in upraised hands. According to one source, she was "the force of life, experienced as benevolent and enduring, found in flocks of cattle and groves of trees, evoked in childbirth and in planting time." She was also called Elat ("Goddess"). Her dying-god consort may have been Yahweh. After the shift among the Hebrews to the worship of the male Yahweh, a centuries-long campaign to stamp out her worship began, in which she was deliberately confused with the more wantonly sexual Astarte. A later, Babylonian form of the Sumerian Inanna, but also identified with Asherah and Astarte. Like Inanna, she loved a dying and reborn vegetation god (Tammuz), whom she descended into the underworld in rescue of after his death. There, she supplicates herself before the queen of the Underworld, Erishkegal (no doubt, the death form of herself). Her emblems were the moon and the morning and evening stars (the planet Venus). Ishtar ("light-giving queen of heaven") (Babylon) Ishtar, also known as Htar (or Inanna in Sumerian mythology), the name of the chief goddess of Babylonia and Assyria, the counterpart of the Phoenician Astarte. The meaning of the name is not known, though it is possible that the underlying stem is the same as that of Assur, which would thus make her the "leading one" or "chief." At all events it is now generally recognized that the name is Semitic in its origin. Where the name originated is likewise uncertain, but the indications point to Erech where we find the worship of a great mother goddess independent of any association with a male counterpart flourishing in the oldest period of Babylonian history. She appears under various names, among which are Nana, Innanna, Nina and Anunit. As early as the days of Khammurabi we find these various names which represented originally different goddesses, though all manifest as the chief trait the life-giving power united in Ishtar. Even when the older names are employed it is always the great mother-goddess who is meant. Ishtar is the one goddess in the pantheon who retains her independent position despite and throughout all changes that the Babylonian-Assyrian religion undergoes. Even when Ishtar is viewed as the consort of some chief - of Marduk occasionally in the south, of Assur more frequently in the north - the consciousness that she has a personality of her own apart from this association is never lost sight of. With Adbeel may be identified Idibi'il (-ba'il) a tribe, employed by Tiglath-Pileser IV. ('l33 B.c.) to watch the frontier of Musri (Sinaitic peninsula or Northern Arabia). This is suggested by the fact that Ashurbanipal (7th century) mentions as the name of their deity Atar-Samain (i.e. "Ishtar of the heavens"). We may reasonably assume that the analogy drawn from the process of reproduction among men and animals led to the conception of a female deity presiding over the life of the universe. The extension of the scope of this goddess to life in general - to the growth of plants and trees from the fructifying seed - was a natural outcome of a fundamental idea; and so, whether we turn to incantations or hymns, in myths and in epics, in votive inscriptions and in historical annals, Ishtar is celebrated and invoked as the great mother, as the mistress of lands, as clothed in splendor and power - one might almost say as the personification of life itself. But there are two aspects to this goddess of life. She brings forth, she fertilizes the fields, she clothes nature in joy and gladness, but she also withdraws her favors and when she does so the fields wither, and men and animals cease to reproduce. In place of life, barrenness and death ensue. She is thus also a grim goddess, at once cruel and destructive. We can, therefore, understand that she was also invoked as a goddess of war and battles and of the chase; and more particularly among the warlike Assyrians she assumes this aspect. Before the battle she appears to the army, clad in battle array and armed with bow and arrow. In myths symbolizing the change of seasons she is portrayed in this double character, as the life-giving and the life-depriving power. The most noteworthy of these myths describes her as passing through seven gates into the nether world. At each gate some of her clothing and her ornaments are removed until at the last gate she is entirely naked. While she remains in the nether world as a prisoner - whether voluntary or involuntary it is hard to say - all fertility ceases on Earth, but the time comes when she again returns to Earth, and as she passes each gate the watchman restores to her what she had left there until she is again clad in her full splendor, to the joy of mankind and of all nature. Closely allied with this myth and personifying another view of the change of seasons is the story of Ishtar's love for her son and consort Tammuz - symbolizing the spring time - but as midsummer approaches her husband is slain and, according to one version, it is for the purpose of saving Tammuz from the clutches of the goddess of the nether world that she enters upon her journey to that region. In all the great centres Ishtar had her temples, bearing such names as E-anna, "heavenly house," in Erech; E-makh, "great house," in Babylon; E-mash-mash, "house of offerings," in Nineveh. Of the details of her cult we as yet know little, but there is no evidence that there were obscene rites connected with it, though there may have been certain mysteries introduced at certain centres which might easily impress the uninitiated as having obscene aspects. She was served by priestesses as well as by priests, and it would appear that the votaries of Ishtar were in all cases virgins who, as long as they remained in the service of Ishtar, were not permitted to marry. In the astral-theological system, Ishtar becomes the planet Venus, and the double aspect of the goddess is made to correspond to the strikingly different phases of Venus in the summer and winter seasons. On monuments and seal-cylinders she appears frequently with how and arrow, though also simply clad in long robes with a crown on her head and an eight-rayed star as her symbol. Statuettes have been found in large numbers representing her as naked with her arms folded across her breast or holding a child. The art thus reflects the popular conceptions formed of the goddess. Together with Sin, the Moon god, and Shamash, the Sun god, she is the third figure in a triad personifying the three great forces of nature - Moon, Sun and Earth, as the life-force. The doctrine involved illustrate, the tendency of the Babylonian priests to centralize the manifestations of divine power in the universe, just as the triad Anu, Bel and ha - the heavens, the earth and the watery deep - form another illustration of this same tendency. Naturally, as a member of a triad, Ishtar is dissociated from any local limitations, and similarly as the planet Venus - a conception which is essentially a product of theological speculation - no though of any particular locality for her cult is present. It is because the cult, like that of Sin and Shamash, is spread over al Babylonia and Assyria, that she becomes available for purposes of theological speculation. source: http://www.crystalinks.com/astarte.html Offerings: honey, beer, wine, incense source: http://www.spiralgoddess.com/Astarte.html

10 notes · View notes

johnlharrisr-blog · 4 years

Text

Infections, Diseases, and Plagues

By Prof. Pinchas Shir - May 8, 2020

Fear over the current global pandemic has sent many Bible-believers to seek answers in Scripture. While consulting biblical verses is not a bad thing, sometimes these verses are misunderstood or manipulated to suit various presuppositions. More, a contemporary reliance on translations (rather than the original Hebrew text) and ignorance of ancient views on sickness can lead to serious confusion. Ancient Israelites did not have the same type of faith in medicine as most modern people. In their worldview, the sickness was not something people could manipulate, control, cure, or even prevent. Thus, it is a mistake to read the Hebrew Scriptures solely through a modern scientific lens. We must allow the original biblical language to impart meaning to us, not the other way around.

In light of our current context, we might be drawn to verses that mention infection or medical treatment. For instance, Leviticus states, “When the infection of leprosy is on a man, then he shall be brought to the priest” (13:9 NASB). The NASB translation mentions the “infection of leprosy,” but ancient people did not have designated terms for infectious disease–nor did they know about bacteria or viruses. That, of course, does not mean that the terrible effects of lingering diseases (what we call “pandemics”) were absent in antiquity. But it will be hard to find the language of “infection” or “outbreak” in ancient Hebrew.

The biblical term for “infection” or “ailment” is usually נֶגַע (nega), which literally means a “strike” or “blow.” In the term’s verbal form, נָגַע (naga), it means “to touch.” The mysterious affliction in Leviticus 13 that is most often rendered “leprosy” (צָרַעַת; tzara’at) is, in fact, a “blow” in Hebrew (נֶגַע צָרַעַת), and “infection” is a modernized English translation. Furthermore, translating the condition as “leprosy” makes it a common bacterial disease that can be treated with a course of antibiotics. Such translation is misleading because tzara’at is not a pathogen with its own biological agenda, but rather a condition brought on by God and under divine control. In other words, God is the one who does the striking, not the disease.

Another English translation that may be misleading is that of “disease.” For instance, Genesis 12:17 reads, “But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai” (NIV). The “diseases” (נְגָעִים; negaim) in the NIV translation is the plural form of נֶגַע (nega) – a “blow.” The modern temptation is to associate “disease” with something contagious, like a virus, but the above verse begins, “The LORD struck” (וַיְנַגַּע יהוה). A נֶגַע is not a naturally-occurring contagion, but a purposeful act of God.

The use of the term “plague” in English transitions makes things even worse. In light of past outbreaks in human history (such as Bubonic plague), the word carries ominous associations for most people. The English insertion of “plague” appears in the ESV rendering of Exodus: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Yet one plague more I will bring upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt’” (Exod 11:1 ESV). Here is the surprise, the same exact noun (נֶגַע; nega) in this verse of ESV is translated as “plague” and not “disease or “infection”. Most modern people would associate a plague with some sort of pandemic, but that is not what the Bible communicates.

Now we have seen the same simple term translated quite differently into English from one verse to another. I deliberately used three different translations (no translation is perfect) and they can all be misleading. To ancient people, a “strike” or a “blow” from the LORD is not a disease, nor an infection, nor a pandemic. A biblical “strike” may make one sick, and there may be ways to alleviate the symptoms, but God is both the source and the cure in ancient Israelite thinking. The Bible presents spiritual realities from a perspective that embraces the supernatural as a norm, so as long as we allow our scientific thinking to influence our interpretations, the actual meaning of biblical texts will continue to evade us.

BEGIN YOUR JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY

Journey further on Tumblr JohnLHarriSr-Blog

https://paper.li/JohnLHarriSr/1580930605#/

0 notes

seekingheavenlymother-blog · 5 years

Link

“And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me, Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.” -1 Nephi 3:46 RAV, 11:8 OPV

Within the Latter Day Saint movement, there are a number of theologies regarding the nature of God. In the Fellowship, and within Mormon Kabbalah, we accept all of them. It’s about how God reveals Himself, or Themselves, to us as individuals. We build, as it were, our own religions.

This said, it is clear there is a female aspect of deity. This may be, as the trinitarians would say, the female aspect of a gender-less parent God. Or, it could be as other believe, multiple Gods. Elohim, the name for God in the first chapter in Genesis, is a Hebrew word meaning “gods,” plural. It is a combination of the masculine singular with the feminine plural.

The “Evolution” of God

Many look to the Bible to understand the nature of God. However, the idea of divinity met with a number of radical changes as the Israelites developed the Ancient Hebrew religion. In the 7th to 6th century BC there were major modifications made as the Kingdom of Judah fell into Babylonian captivity. It was around this period, likely due to their loss as a nation, monotheism emerged. This idea was solid as doctrine by the time of Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century AD.

We can still “travel back in time,” so to speak, by looking at the Torah. In the creation story, Genesis 1:26, Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” and created them, male and female (Genesis 1: 26-28). Some claim that this is referring to a God the Father and a God the Mother―our heavenly parents. In Kabbalah this first chapter is seen as the spiritual creation. Is there a Mother God? Or a Divine Feminine side to Deity?

In traditional Kabbalah, which is normally seen as monotheistic, there is a mother goddess, Shekinah. She is also known as Sophia in Gnostic scriptures. She is known in the Old Testament as the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 44:17). Some Latter Day Saints and Mormons believe, as some Kabbalists teach, that this female deity is the Holy Spirit. Other Latter Day Saints see Her as God the Mother, wife of El, with flesh and bone, equal in all ways to the Father. Some call her Asherah. Who is correct? This is a mystery.

Heavenly Mother

Regardless of one or multiple deity, in order to understand Chokhma, we must see our Heavenly Mother as a Goddess in Her own right. This may be as a part of the Trinity, or as an independent being acting as one with Avinu, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, even if one sees Her as the Holy Spirit. We know the Divine Feminine is real. Joseph Smith reportedly did see our Heavenly Mother in vision.

“One day the Prophet Joseph asked [Zebedee Coltrin] and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot, Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm, and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the earth. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group.” -Abraham H. Cannon (Wilcox, Linda P. (1987), “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven”, in Maureen Ursenbach Beecher; Lavina Fielding Anderson, Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 64–77.)

To those new to this concept, there are some commonly asked questions:

How do we know this?

What should we do with this knowledge?

Why don’t we worship Her as we do God the Father?

Is She even doctrinal, or merely a logical conjecture based on hints in the scriptures?

Really Real?

Let’s start with how we know there is a Divine Feminine. She is mentioned in the scriptures, in a variety of places. Let’s look at one of the clearest examples:

“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” – Jeremiah 7: 18

It really doesn’t get much plainer than this―“Queen of Heaven.” This term was also used by either Joseph Smith Jr. or W.W. Phelps who’s lyrics stated “Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen” (History of the Church 5 p. 254). (There is some confusion as to where the idea came from in the poem.) This scripture actually answers many of the above questions. Yes, she is real. Jeremiah also talks of her later in chapter 44: 15-19. However, in both accounts he speaks of the sin of worshiping Her alone.

Why don’t We Worship Her?

It must be made clear that we do not worship the Divine Feminine. She will not save us from sin, and neither will the Father. Elohim sent the Son, Jesus Christ, and it is through Him we are saved. Yes, in the trinitarian notion of deity they are all the same person. However, the scriptures are still clear on this point, for whatever reason.

We worship YHVH/Jesus Christ, as we were commanded in the Law (Exodus 20:2-5, Deuteronomy 5:6-10, Mosiah 7:113-114 RAV, 13:12-14 OPV). Christ is our emissary. We worship the Divine Masculine and Feminine, or our Heavenly Parents, through Him. It is their divine attributes of Love and Compassion we strive to emulate. We can only do this as we follow the example set for us by Jesus Christ in His earthly ministry.

When we pray, we pray to Elohim as one. The Divine Feminine/Heavenly Mother hears, and either through or as the Holy Spirit answers our prayers. If one wishes to clearly address “Elohim,” one is directly addressing both Masculine and Feminine deity. This term is plural and thus more deliberate in speaking to God the Father and Mother. And, there are those that pray to both directly by name, and those that pray to the Father, as Jesus taught, understanding that both are listening and answer.

Scriptural Evidence

There are a number of scriptures that hint to the Divine Feminine, such as Roman 8:16-18 or Genesis 1: 26-27. Nephi’s vision explaining his Father Lehi’s vision of the tree of life in the Book of Mormon may be one of the best examples, however. The tree is called “the tree which is precious above all” by the Spirit of the Lord (1 Nephi 3:49 RAV, 11:9 OPV). In Nephi’s day, trees were used to represent the Queen of Heaven in the Jerusalem temple. When Nephi asks what the meaning of the tree is, the tree turns into Mary, the mother of Christ (1 Nephi 3:49-53 RAV, 11:11-13 OPV). She is said to be, like the tree, being “exceedingly fair and white.”

This idea of Mary being “white” is an interesting play on words, as while the color of the bark of the tree of life was white, the term “white” in Joseph Smith Jr.’s day was used to denote something was pure, wholesome, or good. We see this use many times throughout his translation of the book (though some have taken the term out of context to denote race). Mary the mother of Christ was obviously not Caucasian. She was not white in reference to the color of her skin. Rather, Nephi, seeing her in a vision, would have known that she was purified from sin; a sanctified young woman.

In Lehi and Nephi’s vision, Mary represents the Divine Feminine, being the emissary of the Mother much the same way Christ represents the Father. Mary is even known as the Queen of Heaven. This idea of the tree becoming Mary would have made perfect sense to Nephi.

The Divine Feminine

The Divine Feminine/Heavenly Mother is as real as the Divine Masculine/Heavenly Father. Regardless of one’s view of deity, they are one either literally or spiritually. She is not hidden by the Father, as some might claim, nor is She a fragile thing in need of protected as some mythologies claim. Rather She is a living part of our worship and our lives as we worship the Father through the Son, even Jesus Christ. We should remember Her as we pray in Jesus name.

#essay #david first elder #seeking heavenly mother #heavenly mother #heavenly parents #lds #mormon #the church of jesus christ of latter day saints #tumblrstake #friends of other faiths

1 note · View note

bern33chaser · 6 years

Text

Grams and Telegrams

This post lists and defines words derived from the Greek term gramma, which pertains not only to a small weight, as in gram and compound words in which gram is the base, but also to letters (hence telegram) and writing (hence grammar).

Words That Begin with Gram gram: a metric unit of weight equivalent to one one-thousandth of a kilogram, the base unit of weight in the metric system; gram is also an unrelated term for any of various legumes, such as chickpeas, and an informal variant of grandma gramarye (also gramarye): magic, enchantment, or necromancy (likely from the Old French term gramaire, which initially referred to any book written in Latin and came to pertain to a book of grammar or of magic) gramercy: an obsolete construction derived from “grand mercy,” a Middle English expression of gratitude or surprise based on the Anglo-French phrase grand merci (“great thanks”) grammar: the study or system of word classes and their inflections, functions, and interrelationships; the application of rules of grammar in speech and writing; a grammar textbook; and, by extension, principles and rules of a particular practice or technique, or a set of such guidelines grammar checker: software that evaluates grammar in writing used in electronic documents grammarian: one knowledgeable about grammar grammatical: pertaining to grammar grammatist: a strict grammar expert grammatolatry: worship of letters and words, especially in the context of devotion to Christian scripture Grammy: one of a number of awards given for excellence in recorded music (derived from gramophone; see gramophone, below); the plural is Grammys gramophile: one who collects or otherwise enjoys phonograph records gramophone: a former trademark for a brand of phonograph, or record player grimoire: a manual for calling demons and spirits (from an alteration in Old French of the word gramaire; see gramarye, above)

Words That End with Gram aerogram: an obsolete term for an airmail letter, one specially designated for shipment on an airplane at a time when mail was usually sent by sea anagram: a word or phrase formed by transposing another word or phrase angiogram: an X-ray or gamma ray photograph produced by injecting a substance into blood vessels that is visible in the image cardiogram: a tracing of movements of the heart centigram: a metric unit of weight equivalent to one one-hundredth of a kilogram cryptogram: a message in cipher or code, or a figure or symbol with hidden significance dactylogram: a fingerprint diagram: a drawing, or a chart or plan, that explains or shows parts of an object or an organism; as a verb, to explain or show something with such a representation electroencephalogram: a tracing of brain waves hexagram: a six-pointed star (a similar figure is called Solomon’s seal) histogram: a visual record of frequency of occurrence hologram: a three-dimensional image, or the pattern producing the image derived from a laser beam or similar beam ideogram: a picture or symbol used to represent a thing or an idea rather than a word or phrase; also, a synonym for logogram (see logogram, below) kilogram: the basic unit of weight in the metric system, roughly equivalent to 2.2 pounds lipogram: a piece of writing deliberately written so that a particular letter of the alphabet is never used logogram: a sign such as an ampersand (&), or a dollar sign, that represents a word mammogram: a photograph of breasts using X-rays for medical examination, or the procedure for producing a mammogram milligram: a metric unit of weight equivalent to one one-thousandth of a gram monogram: a sign that combines a person’s initials into one symbol pentagram: a five-sided star used as a symbol of magic or the occult phonogram: a character or symbol that represents a sound, syllable, or word pictogram: an ancient drawing or painting on rock, a symbol in a graphic system using pictures, or a representation of data using pictures (also called a pictograph) seismogram: a record, produced by a seismograph, of a tremor spectrogram: a diagram or image of the spectrum of light telegram: a message sent by telegraph tetragrammaton: the four Hebrew letters, usually represented by YHWH (Yahweh) or JHVH (Jehovah), constituting the name of God

Gramineous and graminiverous, meaning, respectively “pertaining to grass” and “having a diet of grass,” are unrelated.

You are subscribed to the free version, which is delivered only twice per week, contains ads and doesn't include exercises. Pro subscribers receive our tips daily, with no ads and with interactive exercises. Click here to activate your Pro subscription today!

Publish your book with our partner InstantPublisher.com! Professionally printed in as few as 7 days.

Original post: Grams and Telegrams from Daily Writing Tips https://www.dailywritingtips.com/grams-and-telegrams/

0 notes

whosoever-in-christ-blog · 7 years

Text

THE JEWISH ROOTS OF BAPTISM A Jewish man called Yochanan was baptising people in the Jordan River in first century Israel, including his cousin who would later become world famous: Yeshua of Nazareth. Many Jewish people responded to the call of this Jewish man to immerse themselves in the river as a sign of repentance, and a desire to get right with God. Some of the Pharisees were also among them. Did Yochanan invent baptism at this time? Or was it part of Jewish tradition and practice before that? Yes, yes it was. And the Hebrew word for an immersion pool built for this purpose, “mikveh”, also points us in the right direction in understanding deeper meaning in the practice. Immersion in Jewish Tradition The Jewish laws which had been passed down orally from generation to generation had several things to say about the need for ritual washing, and the most desirable places to do it.[1] There are six different options suggested that satisfy the requirements, starting with pits or cisterns of standing water as acceptable but least desirable, moving up to pits that are refreshed by rainwater as slightly more desirable, then the custom-built ritual bath, or “mikveh” with 40 se’ahs (300 liters) or more of water, then fountains, then flowing waters. But “living waters” (as found in natural lakes and rivers) which were considered to be the best possible situation. The Mishnah specifies what makes the water clean or unclean, and expresses a preference for a larger, fresher body of water, “For in it persons may immerse themselves and immerse others”. So Yochanan immersing people in the “Living waters” of the River Jordan was perfectly within Jewish law and practice at the time. The Essenes, a strict Jewish sect, were doing it too out in the Judean Desert. But why were Jewish people immersing themselves in water? Is baptism in the Jewish Scriptures? Well, sort of, yes. Ritual Bathing in the Bible “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base also of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. And you shall put water in it, for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in water from it. When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, lest they die. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, lest they die. And it shall be a statute forever to them– to him and his descendants throughout their generations.” Exod 30:17-21 The priests had to be ritually clean (tahor) in order to serve at the tabernacle, and Israelites who had become ritually unclean (tamay) had to restore their situation with the passing of time and bathing their whole body in fresh, ritually clean (tahor) water, according to Leviticus 15. Later, when the temple had been built, it was necessary for everyone to be immersed in a mikveh to become ritually clean before entering the temple. There are many ancient mikva’ot (plural of mikveh) to be seen in Jerusalem, and it is clear to see the two sets of steps for each one – a set of steps going down to the mikveh in an impure (tamay) state on one side, and on the other side, steps where the pilgrim will emerge fresh and ritually clean (tahor). What did it look like in the time of Jesus? Following the upheaval of the 1967 war, archaeologists were presented with the opportunity to excavate parts of the upper city of Jerusalem, giving a new window into daily life in ancient times. Many of the houses were grand and spacious, with their own water cisterns and ritual baths in the basements.[2] Some houses were found to have had several of these mikva’ot, since it is thought that as well as providing for the household (which could even be up to fifty people) they would have been able to welcome and host pilgrims arriving for the Jewish feasts, catering for many more. Many of this upper city aristocracy were among the priestly class, who would have to stay in a state of ritual purity as much as possible, and so would have to immerse themselves in a mikveh frequently. Archaeologists also believe that the pools of Siloam and Bethsaida could have been used for ritual bathing in the Second Temple period for those visiting Jerusalem for the high holy days. So immersion in a mikveh was quite common at the time of Yeshua, but the New Testament also describes baptisms taking place not only in rivers, but in any available body of water. In Acts 8, we read of a visiting pilgrim from Ethiopia, who came to believe in Yeshua as he read Isaiah on the way home: “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” (verse 36). By this point baptism had come to signify a decision to accept Yeshua as Messiah and Lord. The word “Mikveh” The Hebrew noun for a ritual bath (mikveh) can help us understand a bit more about the Jewish notion of immersion. Often the Hebrew language reveals keys in the Hebrew thought behind the words. The word mikveh shares the same root as the word for hope (tikvah), for line (kav) and alignment, and the concept of hoping or waiting on God (kiviti l’Adonai). Here is what Strong’s Lexicon has to say about the word: מִקְוֶה miqveh, mik-veh’; something waited for, i.e. confidence (objective or subjective); also a collection, i.e. (of water) a pond, or (of men and horses) a caravan or drove:— abiding, gathering together, hope, linen yarn, plenty (of water), pool. and the same root word: קָוָה qâvâh, kaw-vaw’; to bind together (perhaps by twisting), i.e. collect; (figuratively) to expect:—gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon). The ideas of binding together, or twisting together, of yarn, gives us a good mental picture of what it means to align ourselves with God, and wait for him. We gather ourselves and bind ourselves to his word and to him, we line ourselves up with him, and wait for him in confidence and hope. When you read that the Psalmist says he waits upon the Lord, this is usually the word he is using. The linked concepts of mikvah (collected pool of water) and tikvah (hope, confidence) are played out beautifully in Jeremiah 17:5-6, where the prophet poetically expresses the ideas through the metaphor of trees either rooted and flourishing beside water when we trust in God, or drying up for the lack of water when we put our trust in man. A few verses later, Jeremiah summarises: Lord, you are the hope (mikveh) of Israel; all who forsake you will be ashamed (or dried out). Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water. This is a word play – the text actually says “The Lord is the MIKVEH of Israel, and all who forsake him will be ashamed or dried out!” So it makes more sense now that Jeremiah continues, to say that when we turn away from this mikveh of water and hope, we will be ashamed, which can also be translated “dried out”. Through this word play, Jeremiah deliberately points us back to the analogy of the man who trusts in God being like a tree beside plenty of water, and the one who leaves God ending up in dry, dusty shame. A “Mikveh” of living water represents the bounty and resources of the new life that we can enjoy in God. Those who put their hope in God, choosing to align their lives with him, will never be dried out, but will always have fresh life in him. Next time you see someone being immersed in water to signify their new life in Yeshua, the hope of Israel, the mikveh of Israel, call to mind all that he said about being the water of life, the well of living water that springs up to eternal life… because that’s exactly who He is!

0 notes