Daniel

I learn a lot from opposition.

@Cobie See above and look at #3. Now see below. I rest my case.

Cobie, you asked me to explain in terms that a 4 year old would understand. So I employed a technique which would be acceptable by a four year old. At the time you appreciated it. Your disdain is misplaced. Yes, I had a plan and it's a good technique. My very next reply incorporated this idea about questioning in a completely original manner. I challenge you to find anyone who has brought together those ideas in the way that I did. Here is a link to my post in case anyone would like to read it themself and check to see if anyone else anywhere has written anything like it. I haven't heard of any of these motivation speakers before. But, I like Myron Golden, PHD. You might like him too.

Questions Are The Answer - Myron Golden PHD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyuC1GaOltY ( there is a discussion of names starting around 18:30 ) https://biblehub.com/proverbs/2-4.htm " ... and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure ... " " ... then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/centers-initiatives/mit-leadership-center/our-people-mit-leadership-center

His books and memorabilia are rare and collectable? https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=j+douglas+edwards&_trksid=p2334524.m4084.l1311&_odkw=sales+closing+power&_sacat=0

Can we see the "J. Douglas Edwards" quote? Are we wrong?

Important preliminary questions: What are the attributes of YHVH? Which sources are best suited for this for collecting of attributes? I choose King David as a reliable source. Which sources would you choose and why? I agree. It depends. I'm not intending to equate Thor with Aphrodite, for example. What I meant is that there will naturally be an equivalence, not just correspondence, because all humans are alike in certain key aspects. We are all born, we all have parents, we all experience forces of nature which are beyond our control. We all experience some form of corruption, some form of salvation, some form of trickery, some form of revelation, some form of comedy, some form of tragedy, etc... these common human experiences and the natural reactions to these events in the human heart-and-mind are the origins of "Gods". I prefer to use the word spirits, or even better forces. This is because the mechanism is perfectly normal and natural. It's not super natural. The God is produced like a recipe. The God has no choice in the matter. No will of its own. It's almost like an insect, a moth to the flame or an ant seeking a honey-pot. Calling one of these forces is nothing more than creating a honey-pot for it. It cannot resist. In these cases, it's not like a dream, because, the question is the answer. Interpretation sabotages the technique. The first step in dream interpretation is to isolate significance from the other flotsam and jetsam which is concurrent in the streaming of consciousness. These questions are not like that at all. Everything is significant in such a way that the question cannot be answered without undermining the question itself.

Not those. The best example are the Shasu. Although there are others. YHVH is formless. So, I vote no unless you're referring to a different Pan. However YHVH can take any form, and can reveal itself to whomever however it chooses. If so, then it's theoretically possible, but unlikely. There would need to be a very good reason for this subterfuge. See Psalm 18 particularly verse 31, but , the entire Psalm would be good to consider for answering your question. האל תמים דרכו אמרת־יהוה צרופה מגן הוא לכל החוסים בו׃ As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is proven; he is a shield to all those who trust in him Does this sound like Pan to you? What about the entire Psalm. Is King David writing about Pan? I think once the word "God" is defined properly I think you'll agree with King Solomon: "There's nothing new under the sun". - Ecclesiastes 1:9 All the other Gods are the same, they just different names. It's how it was then, it's how it is now. But there's only one YHVH. There cannot be any others. It's impossible. The reason people get confused is because they don't understand what that name means. Usually the individual is coming from a Christian background which stifles, obscures, and discourages any cognitive exploration that doesn't begin and end with a God in-the-flesh. Islam attempts ( and does a good job, imo ) of correcting this misconception and vigorously asserts none can be compared to Allah, the one and only God lacking all partners. Thank you for asking. I firmly believe that every question is an opportunity, not only for the questioner, but also for the one who attempts to answer. In my culture we call our learning still a chavrusa, from the root, chaver, "friend". We're friends. Working together. Cooperating. Sometimes I'm the teacher? Sometimes I'm the student? No. I'm simultaneously learning while I'm teaching AND I'm simultaneously teaching while I'm learning. The same is true for questioning. Most simply stated: The question is the answer. Asking questions is, imo, the key to an intellectual attachment to the divine in all of its forms. This is why you'll find great Jewish Prophets posing questions to themselves as part of a necessary component to their communion. If you look at Psalm 18, it's there. Isaiah does it. Jeremiah does it. It's a very good technique. The question is the answer.

Nungali, are you aware of the archeological principle "terminus ante quem"? ( TAQ ) It's a very important concept when interpreting the dates associated with archeological evidence. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103148443 When an archeologist finds an arrowhead, for example, and determines that the arrowhead was crafted in 300 BCE, they do not conclude that they found the first arrowhead of that kind. Therefore the date is recorded 300 BCE TAQ ( terminus ante quem ). Arrowheads of that kind originated some time prior to 300 BCE. That's the archeological evidence. YouTube atheists almost always omit thus detail because they're less concerned with accuracy and more interested in generating clicks. Further, the viewer can find many YouTubers making the same mistakes, repeating the same exaggerated conclusions, and this produces an illusion of consensus surrounding the error. This is not the first time I've posted about this. See below from 2023 - LINK

"...Not exact­ly. The prob­lem might be that Adler’s def­i­n­i­tion is too nar­row, pre­clud­ing beliefs and prac­tices that can’t be shown to direct­ly relate to the laws found in the Torah. Indeed, in the final pages of the book, Adler dis­miss­es evi­dence of Judean prac­tices from the Iron Age and Per­sian peri­od — includ­ing cir­cum­ci­sion, ven­er­a­tion of YHWH as the deity, cul­tic wor­ship of YHWH, and the cel­e­bra­tion of Passover at Ele­phan­tine — as Judean cul­tur­al norms rather than Judean adher­ence to “some kind of Torah law.” A def­i­n­i­tion of Judaism that pri­or­i­tizes the Torah to the exclu­sion of cul­tur­al and eth­nic com­po­nents of Judaism, how­ev­er, is too lim­it­ing if we want to tru­ly under­stand the devel­op­ment of Judaism through­out history. " Chad Spigel, Ph.D. Professor , Religion

For those who appreciate reading as opposed to watching YouTube: https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-origins-of-judaism-an-archaeological-historical-reappraisal Adler nar­rows his focus to a spe­cif­ic def­i­n­i­tion of Judaism, one that empha­sizes prac­tices over beliefs. Adler homes in on “when and how these Judeans, as a well-estab­lished col­lec­tive, first began to adopt the Torah as the cen­tral reg­u­lat­ing prin­ci­ple of their shared way of life. he works back­wards in time, look­ing at the archae­o­log­i­cal remains and lit­er­ary sources until there is no evi­dence of a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice. Such a method is known as a ter­mi­nus antes quem - "the latest beginning"

That's what she does.... to men. It seems Lilith is more often needed for women as a source of strength and independence in a predominantly masculine power structure. You're very welcome.

None. It's not written anywhere. It's literally prohibited to write about it in the Talmud. The only written works I'm aware of are total rubbish. I only recently rec'd permission to write about it in May. Apologies. I've never seen or heard this word before. I don't know. My struggle with this is, I cannot imagine there being any rigid progression that doesn't have beaucoup outliers and exceptions. And if that's the case, I find very little use in adopting anyone else's individualization progression for myself or others. On the other hand, people who are raised in the same cultural context, who have weathered the same "storms", perhaps not in magnitude, but in general form? Yes, maybe, that collective group would all generally benefit from a similar progression. Again, I don't know. It seems to me it's better to set aside any and all preconceived notions in these matters other than remaining focused on the desired outcome. To be complete?... And for some people? Lilith is exactly what's needed for that individual in that place and time. I hope you agree. It's best known in ( I think? ) the akkadian dialect: Leviathan. Technically: לויתן נחש ברח ו'לויתן נחש עקלתון "LeevyahSAHN NaCHaSH BahREEach V'LeevyahSAHN NaCHaSH ahkahLAWsohn" Isaiah 27:1 Psalms 74:14 Psalms 104:26 Job 3:8 Job 40:25

No.

+1 Welcome back, @Shadow_self

I was wrong. Again. Sorry. Gee whiz. I played around with the pronunciation of Y'hoshua Ben Nuhn. I am so sorry. It is not y'HOshoe-uh. The final vowel is wrong. y'HOshu-ah, not "-uh", it's "ah" it's called a patach. The difference is minor, but important. The jaw is lower and relaxed for "-ah". It is contrasted with "-eh" "-uh" and "-aw". Sorry. All this talk of masculine and feminine made me realize the mistake. y + glottal stop + HO + shoo + ah "HO" is masculine and distant. "ah" is feminine and proximal. both are needed. "eh" and "uh" are masculine, not feminine, that's a significant difference in the pronunciation of the true name.

No. King David spoke to Him. Hannah spoke to Him. Spoke, but didn't see. Because He is distant. The one with the clearest vision, so far, is Moses who saw the chariot carrying "Glory in the feminine form". Moses got the closest to it, by going up on the mountain. But he was still earth-bound. That's why he's the best example in regard to how earth-bound individuals will encounter the chariot ( Metatron-and-Shechina, in my culture it is abbreviated Z"A, we say it like this: "The Zah" or mor formally the "mercavah" ) Got it. ~thumbs-up~ I don't see a question here, but, it sounds like you're asking about the necessity for sending away the trickster? Sure. If they're literally flip-sides of the same coin, one would need to flip the coin over to see the other side. All angels and demons are like this. They're conjoined twins. But not at all identical, they're nested inverses. Like a Russian doll? The wooden ones? That come in a set? Each one nesting in the next? If you take one of those dolls? The outer dimension is a conjoined twin of its inner dimension. Each and every angel has a conjoined twin, it's complimentary inverse which is commonly referred to as a demon. Calling an angel is calling a demon and vice versa. Seeking a warrior-healer will also bring it's inverse. Calling for Eve will also bring Lillith, etc... And, for the reasons I wrote about earlier, when a person is seeing Eve, their odds of encountering Lilith increase dramatically. I call that one: Loki. From the norse pantheon. There's a Hebrew equivalent, but "Loki" captures it for me. Good question. The only way to deal with Loki is to ignore him. You're basically using his own tools against him. In Hebrew scripture, Loki is known as the twin-serpent "Chaos-and-Void". "Void" is self-defeating. That's how to deal with Loki. ~nods~ Whatever works, bro. Any port in a storm...

Ah. Remember what I mentioned about the complimentary inverse? It will also resonate with the traveler if they are inclined to the direct correspondence? Remember how I mentioned that the fault condition happens often? I think this is what you're observing. There's a one to many relationship between a direct correspondence to a divinity and the inverse complimentary divinity ( "spirit" ). Think of it this way? You're walking on a street headed towards your home. When you get to your house, how many other homes did you pass along the way? There are many other homes in relation to the one house that's yours. That's the one-to-many relationship. The dark trickster is everywhere, in everything, to a degree. It's a fundamental motivating influence, arguably one of the most virile. Because of this, an individual is much more likely, by many orders of magnitude, to encounter many various and repeating forms of tricksters before they encounter a warrior-healer to emulate.

No. Nothing like that. It's a chariot. A train car on a circular track. If you miss the train ( or reject it ) just catch the next one. It's on a looping schedule. See below. good guess That's the relationship between Nachash and Metatron-and-Shechinah. Nachash is the opposite of Metatron-and-Shechinah. Nachash is the opposite of The, capital T, chariot. Bingo. The opposite of a chariot is stuck or.... going nowhere fast. Riding around in circles, or chaotic nonsense, or running out of gas at random intervals, while simultaneously making little bits of progress here and there in order to evade any desire to get off the train, look at a map or ask for directions from the locals. That's Nachash, a trickster, con artist , snake-oil-salesperson. However sometimes Nachash is useful. It's takes a their to catch a thief. The best example is probably Robin Hood. Many From that valence, though , it's not Nachash, it's Dan ( pronounced dahn, like dahn-tien ).

Yes. Implied.. Nachash and Moshiach are equivalent gematria. Think of it like the pony express? Shechina picks up the passengers and delivers any parcels ( blessings ) on earth from the HQ ( God ) that were received while the chariot is in heaven. Shechina is the feminine principle. Shechina is the will of God in the form of: welcoming, delivers blessings, miracles, healing, etc. Metatron is the will of God in the form of a masculine principle. Metatron delivers the passengers to the "foot stool of God" where they can petition the All-Mighty or plea their case before the divine authority. Metatron also receives directives of divine will from the God-head and distributes the orders ( law ) to the hosts. If those directives are blessings, healings, prophecy, miracles etc, Metatron delivers them, but not as Metatron. It's Shechina. Not because it's two different angels. That's just how it naturally appears when it is executing those tasks from the earth bound perspective. That's what the back side of the chariot "looks" like. But that's the only side that can be "seen" from earth. Imagine a giant VW mini van? Huge. The size of North America? The back half of it, like a UFO, is poking out of a cloud in the sky? From the ground, looking up, it looks like VW minivan. However, on the other side of the cloud, up above it? Beyond the range of vision of an individual on the ground? Guess what? It's a Ford F150. It's like that. The back half is Shechina. The front half is Metatron. No one sees Metatron from earth. They only see Shechina because that's the aspect which is operating in this realm. The other major distinction involves a somewhat bizarre concept known as the Ikahr. Pronounced Ee-car.

No. The chariot rolls in an orderly and predictable manner. Nachash is the opposite of this. But, care should be taken with this, because, the opposite of order is not always disorder. The opposite of order is sometimes orderly sometimes not with no discernable pattern. The opposite of order is oblivion or confusion. Once this is clearly seen, the dichotomy, the sharp contrast, between that which is orderly and its opposite another unity is produced. This pairing is also united! Just like Metatron-and-Shechinah, just like heart-and-mind, just like terror-and-awe. Just like life-and-death. Just like blessing-and-curse. There's one and only one exception: The Source.

If the spirit which is encountered is discordant ( not harmonious ) with the traveler then it is almost automatically rejected. On the other hand, if the spirit resonates ( vibration word choice intended ) then the spirit is accepted by the traveler. The longer the journey, the more likely the traveler will encounter spirits which resonate. The more isolated the traveler is, the more introspective is their journeying. The introspection encourages a sensitivity to noticing the sensations of resonance and discord within the traveler's heart-and-mind. Important note: However, again, it's important to include the complimentary ( inverse ) of the resonating spirit as readily assimilated into the heart-and-mind of the traveler. Even though the this spirit is opposite of the natural inclination, disposition, affinities, and aversions of the traveler, their heart-and-mind will attach very easily to these spirits because that's how the heart-and-mind operate. The opposite compliment defines the subject. Cognitive association requires both extremes. The traveler who is not aware of this natural consequence of their journeying may very well find themselves receiving precisely the opposite of their intentions, their true will. If that happens, and it often does, it's a big problem. This is why the primitive persistence hunter ( the scout / stalker ) was on the shamanic path. If they were naturally inclined towards indwelling animal, plant, water, fire, spirits, they had a natural survival advantage as well as a natural advantage for bringing nourishment to the tribe. It was dangerous work, the scout was sent alone on their quest initially as a practical matter. Too many never returned from their journeying. The tribe was cautious and careful limiting who and how many would be sent into the unknown. However, what they discovered was, the isolation naturally increases the odds for success. And that is the beginning of shamanism, the vision quest, or walk-about.

The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah. Imagine a chariot. It rolls forward ( Metatron ). It rolls backward ( Shechinah ). It's one chariot. But it looks very-very different depending on the point of view of the observer. My favorite analogy for this? Geometry. A cone. Imagine that you're standing on earth looking up. Above you is an enormous cone pointing down. From your vantage it looks like a point. Now, shift your vantage to the heavens. Now, look down on the cone. Instead of a point, you're looking at an enormous open circle. It's still the same cone. Nothing has changed about it. It's the same with Metatron-and-Shechinah. Now. You're not wrong about the trickster. There is a trickster in this construct. The trickster is "Nachash". The silvery, forked tongued, serpent, the most cunning of all the "beasts of the field" ( Gen 3:1 ). The opposite of Metatron is Shechinah. They are a conjoined pair, a unity: Metatron-and-Shechinah, the chariot. What's the opposite of a chariot?