Schmuel,

Thank for your post.

Theocrasia would have seemed to have societal goals when communities fused. In this context, I made remarks about the engineers of the divinities borrowing from each other. Sells the Silent, has previously acknowledged How OTHER gods exist. But, with his God, he does not wish to recognise component commonalities between HIS god and others of the period. Or, of does somehow seeing JC as a special case.

Moreover, super-added was cosmolopolitan Alexandria and its, "God factory" (Wells). He the manufacture of gods is pretty much known to history. And, Yehwah and JC appears undiffentiated from pantheons at an atomistic level.

Languages can also be adopted by castes/ranks and some lanaguage can be fashionable in certain periods. Herein, the times around the alleged life of Jesus inform. Jesus, if he were an intellectual, in a recently read Hellistic city-ste would likely have formed his thoughts in Attic Greek. Some commentary from the Bible takes this lean. Supports Quelle? The common languange would have be Arimaic. The official language Latin? Jews would have known Hebrew. Latter (1st-2nd century CE), (less eliquent) Koine Greek would have been adopted by the learned classes.

Was it always the case Hebrew did not contain vowels? Not, challenging you on this matter, but, I thought I had read with Yehwah, regarding, the vowels, all were used before the third century BCE?

Schmuel,

POST SCRIPT

I am having some of my research instruments translated into Chinese. A real challenge, even with post-grad. qualified language professionals helping: Some of the back translations support your remarks.

POST, POST SCRIPT

You seem to be an OT person. Would you see Yewhew evolving over time?
(A transition from henothiesm to monotheism seems to have occurred making OT divinity, perhaps, not a distinctive match with the NT's Jesus Christ.) Is there any hint of an NT trinity in the OT, acceptable to Jewish folk? Do you have a feel for what made monotheism stick in the OT? The exclusivity of the clans? ...

Monotheism (Aten) did not last in A. Eygpt. Herein, Tutankhamun's (sic.*) first birth name was Tutangkhaten (sic.*). Akenaten's monotheistic endeavours were thus short-lived.

* The Egyptians placed the God's name first.

Sells,

Still think it is a pitty you wont engage the topic, How God exists. Personally, I hold your choice of topic, fanscinating. If you work through the histographies involved, in dialogue, you might gain some new insights of how gods come to exist, including the Christian god. Herein, manufacture (theocrasia) of the Christian god can be decomposed in terms of construction (Alexandian et al.), content(Jewish), politics (Judeo-Roman) and philosophy (confused Greek).

All,

Seasons greetings.

Shmuel,
Ancient narrative literature makes clear that from birth to death the Hebrew woman belonged to men. They ruled her life. Biblical writings portray images of Yahweh in the form of the masculine as warrior, judge, and king.

For the Hebrews, God’s greatest victories were not cosmic but occurred on earth. God defeated pharaoh’s armies (Exod 15), battled the Amalekites (Exod 18:16), and discomfited the Amorites by stopping the sun in its course (Josh 10:10-15) – all masculine traits. As a bit of an aberration, at least six feminine references occur in the book of Proverbs where the individual/ person referred to is "a woman," a "prophetess," a "gracious hostess," "lady wisdom," and "divine." Pre-exilic collections from within proverbs closely parallel the Egyptian Amen-em-ope (or a non-Yahweh influence). Proverbs, Chapter 31 (On finding a capable wife) – was then, as is now, about as realistic as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. About 700 years later, however, the record is put straight with the Gospel according to John, reaffirming the masculinity of YHWH. All the references to Word/Logos in this prologue are to "him," "he" and "Son." – all masculine.

The Hebrew God was written with just four consonants—so Y[od].H[e].W[aw].H[e]— not because Hebrews vied with Poles and Czechs in owning unpronounceable names, but because the scribes of the regions could write whatever they wished without using vowels. The phrase ehyeh asher ehye remains enigmatic for it bears many translations. Presuming that the name is based on the verb hayâ, "to exist," we can render it as "I am who I am," "I am what I am," "I am because I am," "I am what I create," "I create what I am". No other culture was as intent on regulating the most personal aspects of lives, such as with whom to be intimate, what to wear, how to shave, and what to think. We find Israel practically alone in denying women direct access to God. We can say, however, that the idea of monotheism came to a rhetorical and ontological stability.

As with ‘dog’ you have correctly found my name :).

Relda,

Your last post, like others, was interesting.

My NY's resolution will be to spellcheck before I post.

O.

Part 3
*BrainDrain(1/12/06), since you picked up the difference between pint and point, please note that "rigor" is the U.S. way of spelling "rigour" (Australian).

In the psychoanalytic literature, Adler eventually broke with the master, a primary originator who probably found Kabbalah an intuitive source for later emergent ideas. While Carl Jung early on, associated with Freud, he is not so much linked to psychoanalysis as his Analytical Psychology, and important work on the collective unconscious, together with the concept of racial memory. Duane Vorhees, an American Red Indian, notes the influence Carl Jung had on Velikovsky (Aeon III:3 p86-91). Understanding collective amnesia plays an important role in re-assessing an understanding of how ancient myths were once seen and interpreted with relevance to the idea "How does G-D exist?" (Kronos=Saturn, Zeus=Jupiter, Ares=Mars,
Athene/Isis/Jesus=Venus...Mithra......ad infinitum...)

Pointing the way to ideas in these posts which then require individual effort, seems to me perhaps, to be the quickest way to expand info to help answer seemingly impossible questions.

In addition, it is also considered the Shekinah is a female aspect of G-D. However, investigations in this area lead to the Merkabah and Kabbalah, deep, dark subjects that are best left alone, when we humbly recognise that not every question neither needs, nor has an answer.

A similar grammatical construction to Isaiah is found in Malachi 2:10 -
“Have we not all one father
Hath not one G-d created us”
However, in this case the gender is masculine.

Cordially
Shmuel Friday 8 Dec 200