Hiya! I'm new to the guild but...

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

It's my understanding from information I've read to date, that Elohim is in fact always plural.

Etymologically, you'd be correct. Grammatically, not so much.

Hebrew grammar places it in a singular form.

It would have been more accurate to say "deity" or "divinity" over god.

Okay, done some more digging smile The Wikipedia entry is actually not half bad... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim Links to other sources and info are useful too.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Or do we have variant forms of the term?

It would appear to be endless!

When I have time (and can find my notebook) I'll type up a handful of the different meanings and applications of El.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

The word God is in fact Germanic, and is indeed originally designating the divinity of the ancestral deities of the Germanic peoples. Hence it would make sense that when the Germanic Folk were converted, that the term God would simply (as with many terms and symbology) be modified to what the Christians wanted it to mean.

However- if there was an accurate cultural parallel, god, like Elohim would not be edited in such a way.

Dropping of letters to protect the name is not applied universally to titles.

I certainly agree. I was more specifically pointing to the origin of the term God, and how it was in fact co-opted from the Germanic peoples. Hence it shouldn't realistically be used to refer to a deity which is of the Judaic peoples, even though it currently is. I think I'd rather let people still call upon God, as lets face it, they are using the Germanic form, and through the simple process of the nature of the word, I am certain that it's usage is keeping the old ways alive as much as we whom are Heathen are reviving it in the world. And lets face it, any benefit we might gain from such a process, I'm happy to have twisted

Naturally, I also like the term Lord, as for we Germanic folk, it's most common usage was Frey, and yes, there's a bit in there that I can see a fertility diety enjoying the referenced at times wink

Ver thu heil  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Dristinia

If I ever do meet the christian god I wanna ask him why he started a religion that is highly sexist against women. Seems like throughout the entire book women are constantly being blamed for the crap that happens.

Couple flaws with this approach.
1) You're ignoring all the crappy things that men did to support your position that women are victims.
2) It assumes that the sum total of the religion is found in the scripture you have read. I'll bet 500 gold that you haven't read the other gospels or the bulk of the works of the Saints.
3) It holds YHVH accountable for the errors of the Church.

Quote:

Though I will admit some stories there are actually female "heros" but not many. sweatdrop

Ummmmm... like the whole book of Ruth?

Within Christendom, both Men and Women are fallen. And I think that if we remove personal bias- this comes through very clearly.

Heilsan Tea ok Allir,

Yeah, but that in and of itself is one of my personal beefs with the whole thing. In their belief system we are all fallen, and are essentially required to be good, obedient children.

For the Germanic Folkway, we are gifted by the gods with our very life. This process sees us as being descended from them, and indeed, as having the divine energies granted to us through this process. In essence, we are, if only to a small degree, divine. We have never fallen. We are always working from a position of potentiality, where what we do, and what we strive for, creates the world.

As far as I can tell, Christendom/Judaism, states that we are fallen, and that we must return to the divine state, and so our goal is to follow a particular set of behavioural patterns because said patterns are proscribed by the diety.

It may seem like splitting hairs, as the end result which is desired is for a 'good' world to be achieved and to exist within, but the roadmap is greatly different between the two processes.

This is one of the big reasons that Christendom holds no interest for me, what-so-ever.

And yes, many of the hundreds of other gospels, and the works of the saints are well thought out and intelligent, and yet, they get very little air time. Why is that? And some of the 'saints' were rather nasty pieces of work...

Ver thu heil  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Dristinia

What I'm saying is that it seems to me that the entire book gives off the whole theme that women are supposed to be submissive to a male instead of his equal.

No. Different =/= Unequal.

The fact of the matter is that in the culture of the Bible they acknowledge that a woman can be feminine and maintain the duties of womanhood without sacrificing what makes one a woman.

I mean- Deborah in Judges 5:1-31, Shiphrah and Puah's acts in Exodus 1:14-21, Huldah of 2 Kings 22- Esther, Ruth, Judith!

And that's just the OT. I mean, Phoebe of the book of Romans was a deconess.

These women served their god and their men.

Myself I am proud that I serve my husband. I am able to love him and met his needs and believe me, scripture is by no means short of examples as to how a husband serves his wife.

Quote:

Somewhere it says that priests can't marry because it's unholy. I don't get it. Why can't a priest be happy and devoted to a god?

Would you be kind enough to cite this.

I get the sinking suspicion that you're citing Paul's issues with Chastity.
And 1Ti 3:5 addresses that clergy need to be able to take care of their own house.

Quote:

Not sure which gospels you're talking about but I will be honest and say that the old testament was enough to annoy me.

Wait- are you judging Christians by the OT? eek

Well, yes, for the most it would appear that the Old Testament is the basis for Christianity to some degree in most breeds of Christianity. It ain't like they haven't just published the New Testament by itself. Often sermons and the like refer to the Old Testament as much as the New. So, in real terms, we are talking about Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to pure Christianity. Hel, there's even debate as to how much stock and store is placed in Christs references to the Old Testament as opposed to statements which are supposedly over-riding the Old Testament. Then of course there's the whole debate as to whether or not Christ existed at all. If much of the evidence is to be believed, it would seem that he's pretty much a metaphorical personage, but then that can be argued both ways, albeit, I am of the opinion that the evidence for his existence rather thin.

Ver thu heil  

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

...I think I'd rather let people still call upon God, as lets face it, they are using the Germanic form, and through the simple process of the nature of the word, I am certain that it's usage is keeping the old ways alive as much as we whom are Heathen are reviving it in the world. And lets face it, any benefit we might gain from such a process, I'm happy to have twisted

Naturally, I also like the term Lord, as for we Germanic folk, it's most common usage was Frey, and yes, there's a bit in there that I can see a fertility diety enjoying the referenced at times wink

Ver thu heil

So would it be fair to say that in a sense, every good Christian who calls upon God is not addressing YHVH in your eyes, but the Germanic Deities? eek gonk blaugh

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Tea ok Allir,

Yeah, but that in and of itself is one of my personal beefs with the whole thing. In their belief system we are all fallen, and are essentially required to be good, obedient children.

I think this might be a bit of an oversimplification. The contract that YHVH held with his people through National Revelation (amazing concept that is!) is that for his protection, people are expected to follow the laws.

The OT is basically a history of the Jewish people following the laws and being blessed, falling away from their contract, YHVH acknowledging they broke contract and withholds protection, the Jewish people realize the flubbed and then follow the laws, and YHVH restores their protection.

And the nature of being "Fallen" within Jewish Mysticism is just a fact. We are in Malkuth and not Kether or even AIN. After all, the Tree of Life is a clear depiction of decent, not ascent.

Quote:

For the Germanic Folkway, we are gifted by the gods with our very life. This process sees us as being descended from them, and indeed, as having the divine energies granted to us through this process. In essence, we are, if only to a small degree, divine.

Which within Jewish Mysticim is true for everything. From AIN to Malkuth, it all stemmed from one place- which is AIN and beyond AIN. (I really don't see why people view Judaism as monotheistic. It's clearly pantheistic.)

Quote:

And yes, many of the hundreds of other gospels, and the works of the saints are well thought out and intelligent, and yet, they get very little air time. Why is that?

For the Saints? Largely due to the Protestant Reformation. For the gospels? In part due to some notion (poppycock in my opinion) that because there are four directions, there should be four gospels and Mathew, Mark, Luke and John held the lowest teachings.

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

It ain't like they haven't just published the New Testament by itself.

The double negative confused me. Just so I understand- can you rephrase?

Quote:

Often sermons and the like refer to the Old Testament as much as the New. So, in real terms, we are talking about Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to pure Christianity.

However- Yeshua's teachings make allowances for this in Mat 5:18. At this point I would rant about Paul, but we'll save that for another thread.

As to if Yeshua existed or not- I'm of the personal opinion that he did. Even if things that are attributed to him are faulty, the dating of the gospels and the like are close enough to imply it is based on a real person.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

...I think I'd rather let people still call upon God, as lets face it, they are using the Germanic form, and through the simple process of the nature of the word, I am certain that it's usage is keeping the old ways alive as much as we whom are Heathen are reviving it in the world. And lets face it, any benefit we might gain from such a process, I'm happy to have twisted

Naturally, I also like the term Lord, as for we Germanic folk, it's most common usage was Frey, and yes, there's a bit in there that I can see a fertility diety enjoying the referenced at times wink

Ver thu heil

So would it be fair to say that in a sense, every good Christian who calls upon God is not addressing YHVH in your eyes, but the Germanic Deities? eek gonk blaugh

Hel... why not smile If we work on the presupposition that words have power, then, for example, the term Gay, whilst in our modern parlance invariably brings to mind a male homosexual, still has it's initial sense of being happy. Lets face it, if the Christians want to refer to the deity as something, then YHVH is much more appropriate than God. Hmmm, I think that line of thought process could be interesting to pursue in ED smile

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Tea ok Allir,

Yeah, but that in and of itself is one of my personal beefs with the whole thing. In their belief system we are all fallen, and are essentially required to be good, obedient children.

I think this might be a bit of an oversimplification. The contract that YHVH held with his people through National Revelation (amazing concept that is!) is that for his protection, people are expected to follow the laws.

The OT is basically a history of the Jewish people following the laws and being blessed, falling away from their contract, YHVH acknowledging they broke contract and withholds protection, the Jewish people realize the flubbed and then follow the laws, and YHVH restores their protection.

And the nature of being "Fallen" within Jewish Mysticism is just a fact. We are in Malkuth and not Kether or even AIN. After all, the Tree of Life is a clear depiction of decent, not ascent.

Yes, it's a fact from a cultural worldview of a particular people, which gets applied to all peoples by those peddling the 'Good Book' as being a catch-all for the whole world. In other words, whilst it may be very appropos when one is specifically addressing the culturally relevant folkway of the Judaic/Israelite folk, it's a very long stretch to apply it to Judeo-Christianity in the sense that it is in our modern society, the majority of whose believers whom engage in proselytisation seem to be of the opinion that it applies to everyone the whole world over.

It's interesting that many people like to draw parralels with the Judaic Tree of Life and Yggdrassil, given that the Tree of Life is a descent metaphor and Yggdrassil is both descent and ascent.

So, if we're being culturally specific, then sure, it makes perfect sense, but in the mish-mash that is what we know as generalised 'Christianity' as it's predominantly expressed in our modern society, we see that the extension of the concept is indeed an oversimplification and gross generalisation.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

For the Germanic Folkway, we are gifted by the gods with our very life. This process sees us as being descended from them, and indeed, as having the divine energies granted to us through this process. In essence, we are, if only to a small degree, divine.

Which within Jewish Mysticim is true for everything. From AIN to Malkuth, it all stemmed from one place- which is AIN and beyond AIN. (I really don't see why people view Judaism as monotheistic. It's clearly pantheistic.)

Yes, that's Judaic Mysticism, and indeed, it's very much pantheistic.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

And yes, many of the hundreds of other gospels, and the works of the saints are well thought out and intelligent, and yet, they get very little air time. Why is that?

For the Saints? Largely due to the Protestant Reformation. For the gospels? In part due to some notion (poppycock in my opinion) that because there are four directions, there should be four gospels and Mathew, Mark, Luke and John held the lowest teachings.

Reformation did it for the saints, very much so. Albeit, some of them should have kept their traps shut as they let the cat out of the bag at times wink The four Gospel thing, if memory serves me correctly, was more a function of the early Church deciding what was, and what was not going to be Orthodox, and after all, they had to put together a relatively consistant story to keep things from getting too out of hand, and allowing people to actually read things which might not agree, and them having to make up their own minds, rather than defering to the higher authority.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

It ain't like they haven't just published the New Testament by itself.

The double negative confused me. Just so I understand- can you rephrase?

New Testament is published with Old Testament in the majority as far as I am aware.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Often sermons and the like refer to the Old Testament as much as the New. So, in real terms, we are talking about Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to pure Christianity.

However- Yeshua's teachings make allowances for this in Mat 5:18. At this point I would rant about Paul, but we'll save that for another thread.

Indeed, but there are those whom argue that Yeshua, also made statements that the Old Testament should be thrown out, albeit I haven't delved into such things too much as I am busy enough with other matters. As for Mr Paul... well, I very much conur with what I think your opinion upon him would be biggrin

TeaDidikai

As to if Yeshua existed or not- I'm of the personal opinion that he did. Even if things that are attributed to him are faulty, the dating of the gospels and the like are close enough to imply it is based on a real person.

There are many issues I have with the existance of Yeshua in the format that exists in the Bible, including the stories and time frames within which the actions took place, and the historically verifiability of such situations from external sources. There is also the synoptic problem which may just be put down to the 'fact' that the three Gospels were just basically relating the same thing, but there is too much commonality of style for me to accept that they were penned by different people.

Ver thu heil  

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Hel... why not smile If we work on the presupposition that words have power, then, for example, the term Gay, whilst in our modern parlance invariably brings to mind a male homosexual, still has it's initial sense of being happy. Lets face it, if the Christians want to refer to the deity as something, then YHVH is much more appropriate than God. Hmmm, I think that line of thought process could be interesting to pursue in ED smile

You have a point. If you make it- I'll look for it.

Quote:

Yes, it's a fact from a cultural worldview of a particular people, which gets applied to all peoples by those peddling the 'Good Book' as being a catch-all for the whole world. In other words, whilst it may be very appropos when one is specifically addressing the culturally relevant folkway of the Judaic/Israelite folk, it's a very long stretch to apply it to Judeo-Christianity in the sense that it is in our modern society, the majority of whose believers whom engage in proselytisation seem to be of the opinion that it applies to everyone the whole world over.

I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and if in conversation- ask them about their understanding of such things.

Quote:

It's interesting that many people like to draw parralels with the Judaic Tree of Life and Yggdrassil, given that the Tree of Life is a descent metaphor and Yggdrassil is both descent and ascent.

You could argue that while the Tree of Life unto itself is a descent metaphor, the human condition for seeking enlightenment is an ascent metaphor.

Quote:

Yes, that's Judaic Mysticism, and indeed, it's very much pantheistic.

I have to correct myself. I think it is more Monistic than pantheistic.

Quote:

Reformation did it for the saints, very much so. Albeit, some of them should have kept their traps shut as they let the cat out of the bag at times wink The four Gospel thing, if memory serves me correctly, was more a function of the early Church deciding what was, and what was not going to be Orthodox, and after all, they had to put together a relatively consistant story to keep things from getting too out of hand, and allowing people to actually read things which might not agree, and them having to make up their own minds, rather than defering to the higher authority.

But the Early Church had several attempts to make a unified canon. The end justification as to why Mathew, Mark, Luke and John make the core canon now was mentioned above. It makes me giggle a little now and then.

Quote:

New Testament is published with Old Testament in the majority as far as I am aware.

Currently, yes. But it wasn't always the case.

( Tea = heart History of the Canon)

Quote:

Indeed, but there are those whom argue that Yeshua, also made statements that the Old Testament should be thrown out, albeit I haven't delved into such things too much as I am busy enough with other matters. As for Mr Paul... well, I very much conur with what I think your opinion upon him would be biggrin

Their argument is flawed. Yeshua never said anything about throwing out the Old Law- until his work was completed. Which it hasn't been.

Quote:

There are many issues I have with the existance of Yeshua in the format that exists in the Bible, including the stories and time frames within which the actions took place, and the historically verifiability of such situations from external sources. There is also the synoptic problem which may just be put down to the 'fact' that the three Gospels were just basically relating the same thing, but there is too much commonality of style for me to accept that they were penned by different people.

Hmmmm... not sure I agree.
Is there a particular source you base that upon?  

[Chocolahime]

I thought Silver Ravenwolf was a guy >_>  

[TeaDidikai]

Chocolahime

I thought Silver Ravenwolf was a guy >_>

Nope.  

[Ulfrikr inn Hrafn]

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Hel... why not smile If we work on the presupposition that words have power, then, for example, the term Gay, whilst in our modern parlance invariably brings to mind a male homosexual, still has it's initial sense of being happy. Lets face it, if the Christians want to refer to the deity as something, then YHVH is much more appropriate than God. Hmmm, I think that line of thought process could be interesting to pursue in ED smile

You have a point. If you make it- I'll look for it.

Oh, I've opened my big yap, so invariably I will make it... some time in the future smile

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Yes, it's a fact from a cultural worldview of a particular people, which gets applied to all peoples by those peddling the 'Good Book' as being a catch-all for the whole world. In other words, whilst it may be very appropos when one is specifically addressing the culturally relevant folkway of the Judaic/Israelite folk, it's a very long stretch to apply it to Judeo-Christianity in the sense that it is in our modern society, the majority of whose believers whom engage in proselytisation seem to be of the opinion that it applies to everyone the whole world over.

I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and if in conversation - ask them about their understanding of such things.

Invariably I also too do such where the opportunity presents itself, however, often, one isn't given the opportunity due to the sheer bloody mindedness of the individual(s) concerned.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

It's interesting that many people like to draw parralels with the Judaic Tree of Life and Yggdrassil, given that the Tree of Life is a descent metaphor and Yggdrassil is both descent and ascent.

You could argue that while the Tree of Life unto itself is a descent metaphor, the human condition for seeking enlightenment is an ascent metaphor.

Indeed, the seeking of 'enlightenment' can indeed be seen as an ascent metaphor, and as such, one would presuppose that the method to gain ascent would be the reverse of the process of descent. That said, from my understanding of the actual character of the Tree of Life, it is far more complex in character than Yggdrassil, albeit many attempt to place Yggdrassil in a similar format and frame to the Tree of Life (Edred Thorsson aka Dr Stephen Flowers for one). I find that the characteristics of the Tree of Life, being tied so intimately in Western Esoteric Tradition with numerology, astrology, etc, over-complicates the matter. For me, the metaphor and imagery of Yggdrassil is far more simple, and effective in carrying the ideas that it is expressing.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Yes, that's Judaic Mysticism, and indeed, it's very much pantheistic.

I have to correct myself. I think it is more Monistic than pantheistic.

I am of the opinion that it's originally polytheistic, and that it moved through stages, one being panthism, and from the concepts of the Kabbalah, I consider the Kabbalah to be pantheistic in concept. But then I'm looking at such from the outside.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

New Testament is published with Old Testament in the majority as far as I am aware.

Currently, yes. But it wasn't always the case.

( Tea = heart History of the Canon)

And unfortunately, it's the current system that predominates.

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Indeed, but there are those whom argue that Yeshua, also made statements that the Old Testament should be thrown out, albeit I haven't delved into such things too much as I am busy enough with other matters. As for Mr Paul... well, I very much conur with what I think your opinion upon him would be biggrin

Their argument is flawed. Yeshua never said anything about throwing out the Old Law- until his work was completed. Which it hasn't been.

Well, that depends on whom one speaks to now smile Thankfully, I have my hands, and mind full working on my own ancestral tradition to get too deep into such matters, but it makes for interesting watching from the sidelines every now and again smile

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

There are many issues I have with the existance of Yeshua in the format that exists in the Bible, including the stories and time frames within which the actions took place, and the historically verifiability of such situations from external sources. There is also the synoptic problem which may just be put down to the 'fact' that the three Gospels were just basically relating the same thing, but there is too much commonality of style for me to accept that they were penned by different people.

Hmmmm... not sure I agree. Is there a particular source you base that upon?

Various bits of reading, discussion with others whom are intersted in such things. A good site for an encapsulated view is www.jesusneverexisted.com which one can tell is baised smile , but, never-the-less, I've come across enough information from other sources which substantiate what they're saying.

Ver thu heil  

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Indeed, the seeking of 'enlightenment' can indeed be seen as an ascent metaphor, and as such, one would presuppose that the method to gain ascent would be the reverse of the process of descent. That said, from my understanding of the actual character of the Tree of Life, it is far more complex in character than Yggdrassil, albeit many attempt to place Yggdrassil in a similar format and frame to the Tree of Life (Edred Thorsson aka Dr Stephen Flowers for one). I find that the characteristics of the Tree of Life, being tied so intimately in Western Esoteric Tradition with numerology, astrology, etc, over-complicates the matter. For me, the metaphor and imagery of Yggdrassil is far more simple, and effective in carrying the ideas that it is expressing.

I think this might be a bit of guilt by association.

While Western Esoteric Tradition can be complex- like Yggdrassil, so called "simple" concepts can take a lifetime to master.

Most studies are far more diverse however- thus spawning complicated webs of attributes.

Quote:

I am of the opinion that it's originally polytheistic, and that it moved through stages, one being panthism, and from the concepts of the Kabbalah, I consider the Kabbalah to be pantheistic in concept. But then I'm looking at such from the outside.

I'd agree if AIN was actually the sum of the Tree- as it exists beyond it, I think we have to go Monistic.

And I also think we can only draw these conclusions by speaking of Jewish mysticism, rather than the Mystical and Theological evolution of what we now call the Jewish People.

Quote:

Well, that depends on whom one speaks to now smile Thankfully, I have my hands, and mind full working on my own ancestral tradition to get too deep into such matters, but it makes for interesting watching from the sidelines every now and again smile

Keeps me entertained as well.

Quote:

Various bits of reading, discussion with others whom are intersted in such things. A good site for an encapsulated view is www.jesusneverexisted.com which one can tell is baised smile , but, never-the-less, I've come across enough information from other sources which substantiate what they're saying.

Ver thu heil

Hmmmm... strikes me as a bit of argument from ignorance. But meh. Not like we have to worry about it ourselves.