ever considered the possibility that jesus might be a sham?

yeah but the problem is that you have no idea what you are saying.

first B doesn't mean ben ben is word b is a letter, ben is just a word I assigned to the letter.

you see this is esoterics... I can spin in and do what the F I want with it - like you are doing.

bara doesn't mean to fatten, it simply doesn't, you are making this up or just not aware.
Hebrew for to fatten is lefatem.

sonic code my ass, you have no idea how to use it, and you are just making stuff up.


I know how to use the sonic code, and I showed it. you don't.

I just did so as an example to show you why esoterics and that level cannot be used to prove anything!
but I can prove what I did because I CAN ALSO SHOW YOU THIS IN PSHAT.

as for the word barashit, yes it is the most complexed word in the bible, most hidden meanings etc, but this is not our topic.

but I want to show you something cool.

bara(created) shit... yeah shit... no need to translate, just shit lol.



when you reach the end of the rabbit hole you go in a second time! (cause the rabbit eats his dung)

sorry, the most complexed word in the bible with most hidden meaning is ofcourse the name of G-d.

barashit is probably the second.

You sound almost frantic.



The word "bara" does not mean, "create" (Hebrew actually has no word that means "create" in the sense of something out of nothing) but "to fatten". If we take the literal definition of "bara" in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. What does this fattening of the heavens and earth mean? This verse is not showing the creation of the heaven and earth, but rather the fattening or filling up of it. Therefore, Genesis 1.1 is a condensed version of the whole creation story.


[link to www.ancient-hebrew.org]





The first thing to remember when researching the original meaning of a word is that you need to find the "concrete" meaning of the word. Since "create" is an abstract it would be a foreign concept to the ancient Hebrews. We find the concrete meaning in 1 Samuel 2:29 which are "fat". The actual word in this passage is lehavriyackem (LHBRYAKM). The L means "to", the H makes the verb causative (make), BRA is the root, Y (placed between the R and A is also part of the causative form and the KM is "you" (plural) or yourselves". Literally this word means "to make yourselves fat".

Now let's see how this meaning applies to the other verses listed. In Genesis 1:1 it does not say that God "created" the heavens and the earth, instead he "fattened" them or "filled" them. Notice that the remaining chapter is about this "filling" of the heavens with sun, moon, birds and and the "filling" of the earth with animals, plants and man.

The "Create in me a clean heart" of Psalms 51:10 would better be translated as "fill me with a clean heart".

The passage in Ecc 12:1 translates this verb (which is in the participle form meaning "one that fattens/fills") as "Creator" but the truth is that this word is in the plural form and they should have at least translated it as "Creators". This is often a problem when relying on a translation as the translator will often "fix" the text so that it makes more sense. But as this word means to fatten or fill, this should be understood as "fatteners" or "fillers". I believe this verse is speaking about the "teachers" (ones who fill you with knowledge) of your youth.

[link to www.ancient-hebrew.org]


The word bara’ is at the heart of any study of the account of creation in Genesis. But as is often the case in critical discussion, more is made of the word than usage warrants. The assumption is often made that the word means “creation out of nothing” (creatio ex nihilo). It is one thing to say that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing, and that this word could be used in such statements; but it is another thing entirely to say the word means that. It is therefore important to survey the etymology and usage of the word to determine its range of meanings.

The verb occurs in the basic verbal stem (qal) and its passive stem (niphal). There are a few cases where the word seems to occur in a different stem (piel) with the meaning “to cut down” (e.g., a forest [Josh. 17:15]), or “cut out” (Ezek. 21:24). There is insufficient data to determine how this idea could be related to the verb “to create.” It is possible that “cutting” was a way of “creating.” But it is more likely that we are dealing with separate words entirely, even though the older dictionaries list these meanings under the one root. Holladay lists these as separate roots.
There is another verb bara’ which the dictionaries list as a separate root, “to be fat.” It occurs in the causative stem (hiphil) with the meaning “to fatten” (1 Sam. 2:29). This would mean then that there were three separate words spelled bara’ (as Holladay lists in his dictionary).


[link to www.christianleadershipcenter.org]



So the guards were fattened and those from outside who made it inside were fattened - very complex - sleeping now - ninite. zzz xxxx

bara - to create.

lefatem - to fatten.

lehavrihechem - to make you healthy.

know the word abracadabra?

abra - I will create.
cadabra - as I speak.

livro - create ex nihilo.
litzor - create out of something.

mmm I must concede... you make sense.

but bara doesn't mean to fatten up. because no 2 Hebrew words mean the same thing.
and we already have a word for fatten up - lefatem.

but bari that is written the same as bara minus yod, means healthy... I can sort of see how to fatten something up is to make it healthier.

"To make healthier" works even better for my understanding. Of course as i say words evolve and change in meaning.

Essentially what we are talking about - what I am talking about - is a code which crosses people between two places - inclusion and exclusion - a code which measures your rightful place - and the complex method of organisation and sustem for the operation of the code - culminating in organised exodes (plural) and armageddons - the code is cyclical and will continue to operate - so the reason i was also skeptical about translating that here is because - in the beginning - the whole system was in its least evolved phase - so what is being described here has to be done through the least evolved version of the sonic code; even as words evolve - there was evolution within the sonic code as the code continued the develop the operation of the system.

As the system developed - lots of things evolved and developed and changed and continued to do so - the symbols - the language - the law - the understanding - the duty - the form of housing building - the types of incarceration etc etc etc - the types of inclusion the methods of exodus - as communities became big cities - as armies grew etc - the code was evolving - so when we go back to basics the code is most encoded -and when you interpret it is important to point out the timeframe being referred to with respect to the next time frame etc - the time prior to adam and eve etc - but then that is a whole other story too.

No because he isn't, and you aren't he Messiah you have a God complex dude.

I do not want to come across as though I know Hebrew better than you or anyone else - I absolutely do not - I gave it a brief study some years ago so see how the sonic code runs through it and it runs very well - it shows new meanins from which current ones are derived - just as it does for other languages and that is because the same system has been in place since the beginning.

I made a lot of notes on both the hebrew and ancient hebrew which i have lost and it would have been easier for me to have those notes on hand when discussing the hebrew and ancient hebrew - but the meaning we can still compare. I even uploaded a lot of my work to hotmail to keep it safe but i was locked out of my account by microsoft and they would not let me back in even though i proved it was my account etc - so go with me here for a minute and try to understand without deliberately creating barriers.


In the beginning the orchestrating of the code was done by "the highest" - then as time went by - the highest trained others to orchestrate certain aspects of the code - including the teaching of law - and these people came to be the messengers or the prophets or messiahs - but in the beginning it was not them - it was those who had the highest intelligence - the ring of defence were the next group to have to learn and it is through the naming of this group that the word "father" is derived - but they were not the father in the sense the word is used in today - this is simply how the word derived - it would be fair to say "they were of the father with respect tot he current understanding of the word".

You see it is hard because here I have said "of the word" - referring simply to one word - and not to the "word" as it appears in the script we are referring to.

ba - we can say means "father" or those who came into being first - by being i mean - those who had the intelligence to form and secure a sustainable community in settlement. For this they needed a continued source of food without following a nomadic lifestyle and also defence - they did not have guns annd ballistic missiles and submarines etc - this is a very long time ago.

ra - raises from the beginning

ba - into being - from the beginning

ra - raised from the beginning/ to raise from the beginning

sh - authority to choose / through authority - chosen


as i explained on another thread (it would make things easier to keep all this together in one place) - the R/r can mean to raise and also to send down - just as the t/T can mean to protect but also to cross from one side to the other - this works both ways - from exclusion to inclusion and also from inclusion to exclusion - you need to study the word to see the order of the letters to find the meaning and reason for the subsequent derivations of meaning

i - is the risen self - you can cross or be chosen to become i or you can be i and be crossed away from inclusion

hence - the the beginning are raised to the father from the place of beginning - raised from the beginning with and through authority and chosen as those to cross - but also then who choose those who will cross - the meanings evolve and become derived

aba - to the father

If you see the circle as the place of inclusion or original encampment - then this too can make things difficult - it is better to see a spiral - a set of circles one on top of the other - depicting the movement through time - the evolution and development of the circle - one circle will have a different type of defence system to the next - a different number of defenders - a different type of defence etc.

Imagine if you will a community which has been chosen through its adherence to a certain set of rules and this community is well defended and may not be entered. Then imagine if you will that there are those outside the community confines or boundaries who do not abide by these rules, but who may wish to know them as they perceive life within the community as easier: the community cultivates its own food and is self-sustainable; those outside must hunt and kill and steal and follow the foodchain through the seasons and defend themselves individually or in small packs - or they are in some other way excluded - for example they are prisoners or slaves kept outside the compound.


It was the duty of "man" - both male and female in the modern sense to teach or show those outside the rules of their community so they may enter; those not included were the "woman/ women". It was imperative that the rules be adhered to and also imperative that the numbers of the tribe continued to increase - therefore it was imperative for those inside to bring others in - it was imperative that "man" choose a "woman". In ancient times - there was no depiction of the man or woman being of one sex or the other, however there obviously came a time, no doubt because women were such a valuable commodity that the female was enslaved for the purpose of reproduction - kept separate to the males until such a time as she was brought to understand the rules or laws of the community - at which point - the females were then led into the group where they might mate; and so the words evolved in meaning.
Once accepted into the group - you were accepted as being a human being.
Even in late old English the terms wimman and wifman were not synonymous with any particular gender.




adam was not one man and eve was not one woman - the the beginning the tribe of eve were those who were part of the original circle or settlement who understood the laws and ways of the highest - they were the highest

the tribe of adam - were those without law...


If you apply this same concept to the story of Adam and Eve - you might come to understand that "Adam" was the term to denote one not yet of law, while "Eve" denoted those (both male and female) who had come into law - and so when Adam gives, what has been mistranslated as his "rib" to create Eve - what in fact happened if you look at the Hebrew work which was trnslated here as "rib" - but which in fact was "from his side" - you will see that someone was taken from the side of those without law (adam) - given law (through eve) - that they might go back and assist those others without law (adam) - and so on.

The word Adam however implies a time when one from outside has succeeded in learning and has become a recognised person - a recognised self with the law and the tribe.

AD-AM

E-V-E

create - the secret code C raises R the free E from the beginning A and crosses and protects T them in freedom/ with the free/ with that which has already evolved into being E

similarly part of creation also is destruction - or loss of energy if you will

the secret code - sends down from the free CRE - to the beginning crossed from protection of the free ATE


the sonic code when understood transcends all language and all time - it it even highly accurate when applied scientifically to non-human aspects of creation and evolution - hence the theory of evolution and nuclear theory are also encoded into the ancient writings



It would be good if i could find someone who did well understand the hebrew - who could then see and understand what i am saying - and then see about passing the information on through this understanding. It would bring about some awesome enlightenment - but the person would need to remove the barriers in their mind created by previous conditioning and subsequent derived notions of truth.

It is also interesting to note that people read things as eve having been given to adam as a "helper" - from the hebrew word often translated as "wife" and that people have implied from this the woman having a subservient role to the man - all this is rubbish - adam was neither male nor female an eve was neither male nor female -


a person was taken from the side - from the tribe or group of people referred to as adam - those outside the law - and this person was taught law and made into an eve - of the tribe of eve - this person was the given to adam - to those outside - to show them the way in - thus adam became eve - but this is hidden in the text - deliberately.

when eve is said to say to adam to do not eat of the tree of wisdom - it means - do not eat the fruit of the tree as in do not eat the law-abiders - but the whole story has many many other deceptions in it - and tells secretly of the first exodus also - not the exodus a long time later out of Egypt by the way - this is IN THE BEGINNING.

The personality currently known as "Jesus" was simply a buddhist monk. No more, no less.

The pictures you have in your head were drawn more than 1000 years after he died and are fantasy.

The stories you repeat are made up by Constantine, Pizo and some flunkies.

Wake up and think for yourselves!

If you want to be like "Jesus," read "The Three Pillars of Zen." Better yet, go live in Tibet for ten years.

Don't bother me until then :P

Joshua Ben Gamla, probably the mentor of Josephus. That is Jesus.

DREAMILY Sodomite brown circumcised head you dumb azz

What we experiencing people is the ten toes of clay and iron mixed. Here we have two of the toes fighting because one toe is Judaism and the other toe is Christianity Both cults but same antichrist power that both colaborated to kill Christ. The Sanhedrin and Rome are debating. Lol lol

If you missed anything the Sanhedrin is ahead on points not because he is right But he came better prepared than Rome I will be watching and updating every 5 minutes. Babylon vs babylon the battle of the two toes if Daniels prophecy


Why are you gentle men and women still trying to convince that stinky imposter Jew piece of doo doo.

You guys are crazier than the op

No because I know he's real

I hope you know him someday so satan doesn't destroy you

will you shut the fuck up you prick?

all the metal kingdoms are trying to destroy Judaism... yeah its time to grow up little boy, the book is about the chosen people.

the clay is islam.

as for jesus... he is the son of rome, he empowers her.

Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

this talks about rome!!!
it cast the truth to the ground - the holy tanach which it had convinced you to be obsolete.
and it made its own truth! chrasatanity!
and it practiced it! as the Vatican!
and it prospered by it!

fuck you and your jesus.

He doesn't go by Jesus this time around.

well, after waiting 2,000 years now, he's sure looking very good...