Niqnaq

jhvh is the enemy of god and man

with 37 comments

I disagree with Tariq Ramadan here, and so, I fancy, does the Qur’an.

Muslims around the world, and especially western Muslims, should clarify their position. While refusing to turn the Israeli-Palestinian war into a religious conflict, they should not deny its religious dimension, and thus formulate an explicit stand. From an Islamic viewpoint, it should be clear that their resistance is not against Jews (antisemitism is anti-Islamic); to target innocent civilians must be condemned on both sides; and the objective should be for Jews, Christians and Muslims (with people of other religions or no religion) to live together with equal rights and dignity.

- Tariq Ramadan, Grauniad, Jan 2 2009

Written by niqnaq

January 2, 2009 at 11:21 am

Posted in Uncategorized

37 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “jhvh is the enemy of god and man”

    You thereby grant him recognition and power?

    yaron

    January 2, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  2. absolutely. JHVH is not merely an imaginary, ideological construction on the mundane human mental plane. It is, as the kabbalah makes clear but as can be seen in retrospect to have always been the case, a system of spiritual commerce with higher planes of being. In many respects, all such systems resemble one another, in that they recognise the existence of spiritual realms of cleanly and good beings (‘angels’) and filthy and evil beings (‘devils’). However, the distinctive aspect of the JHVH cult is that it incorporates a great deal of demonic rather than angelic material, and this can only be due to ‘Ezra’ – it is not something added in recent times by e.g. the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, it has always been there – at least since the JHVH material was added to the original Elohim material, much of which appears to have been suppressed or altered. For instance, We only have Ezra’s word for it that the revelation to Moses came from this JHVH entity as well as or instead of coming from Elohim – look at the Biblical texts and you will see how the confusion has been sown in them. The Talmud, the kabbalah, etc. merely expand this confusion.

    niqnaq

    January 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  3. Our understanding of our Gods in in large part gleaned from our ancestors.
    There is a wide pre Judaic, pre Christian “canon” from which we have obtained our views as well as later revelation.
    Consider the debt we owe the Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Sumerian etc cultures and traditions in forming our own contemporary views.

    moonkoon

    January 2, 2009 at 11:46 pm

  4. …is in large part… sorry.

    moonkoon

    January 2, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  5. The ‘devil’, in Christianity, is far more pious than any living human is or was. The problem for me at least was that I imagined, at one point, this ‘devil’ through the spectrum of my own worldly failings.

    Anonymous

    January 3, 2009 at 4:31 am

  6. precisely so, anon: satan sometimes comes as an angel of light, as the song says it, especially nowadays when we actually DO know (not just THINK we know) so much about social psychology that we can indeed construct artificial ‘humanist’ religions to order. ‘Holocaustianity’ is quite clearly designed as an artificial, global, secular humanist religion, but with emotional dynamics borrowed from Christianity: martyrdom and redemption.

    niqnaq

    January 3, 2009 at 6:21 am

  7. Sorry, I did not enter my name.

    Alex Friday

    January 3, 2009 at 6:51 am

  8. This craft is so fascinating to me. I am young and have so much to learn. One of my dearest family friends told me many years ago regarding religion, that, “I was blinded by the existence of an idea fashioned from nothing more than myself”, I am only just beginning to understand what he meant.

    Off Topic,

    How familiar are you with the church of the LDS? Are you familiar with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I am interested in learning more about the foundations of Mormonism; unfortunately there is much rubbish to have to wade through. If you have a line on anything not bogged down by dogma I would greatly appreciate it.

    Thank you and a happy lap around the sun to all.

    Alex Friday

    January 3, 2009 at 7:22 am

  9. I don’t know that I would start with Mormonism.

    Poetry.
    The Epic of Gilgamesh.
    The myth of Eros and Psyche.
    The exploits of Brahma and Vishnu.
    Fairy tales.
    Nursery rhymes.
    I like this one

    Little drops of water
    Little grains of sand
    Made the mighty oceans
    And this pleasant land.

    The New Testament.
    Daniel (I like Daniel for some reason).
    The Qur’an.
    The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
    James Joyce (just to keep yourself humble). :-)

    Not necessarily in that order or one after the other.

    History -I recommend dabbling in a little revisionist history.
    You need to be able to put things in context.

    This is not a definitive list.
    Ask around.
    I used to get a lot out of Batman comics.:-)

    The truth turns up in the oddest places.

    moonkoon

    January 3, 2009 at 8:56 am

  10. Thank you Moonkoon. I chose Mormonism because I have suspicions that need to be addressed and have friends which I am afraid of loosing to it. The world of spiritual warfare is quite new to me, any input is happily received.

    Alex Friday

    January 3, 2009 at 10:04 am

  11. I think the best thing we can do for our friends is to give them good example.

    moonkoon

    January 3, 2009 at 11:02 am

  12. Mormonism would seem to me to be an example of the effects of undiluted JHVHism and stripped down evangelic Christianity on the early settlers. They seem to have concluded (as many south African Boers did, on the basis of their Lutheranism) that they were the new Israel, and deserved to live like ‘patriarchs’, with multiple wives and tyrannical power over multitudes. The reason that such cults are treated with such reverence in the USA is precisely that they seem to capture some of the conditioned longing, brought on mainly by Jewish Hollywood, of US ‘Christians’ to be Jews, but of course on their own terms.

    niqnaq

    January 3, 2009 at 11:52 am

  13. (as many south African Boers did, on the basis of their Lutheranism) – well it’s certainly good the C of E straightened them out.

    Rdog

    January 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  14. do I mean calvinism? I could always look it up, but it hardly matters. All JHVH-based faiths are ultimately worthless and destructive.

    niqnaq

    January 3, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  15. Look, to give you an idea of what I mean, and how deep it goes, take the King James Bible, the ‘Authorised Version’. Now, every time it says “the LORD”, that corresponds to the name JHVH in the hebrew. Every time it says “God”, that corresponds to Elohim in the hebrew. Every time it says “the LORD God”, that corresponds to “JHVH Elohim” in the hebrew, i.e., the claim that JHVH and Elohim are one and the same, a sort of compound, two-named being. That’s how deep the interweaving of these two deities goes.

    niqnaq

    January 3, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  16. Sorry about the delayed response I am finding it difficult to find time to sit and type at the moment.

    So, two antiquated puzzles that resolve individually and even intersect with each other at several points but make no sense when taken as a whole. This suggests to the observer that each puzzle is indeed separate. Separation is the antithesis of one. Yet these two sets of dogmatic principles claim their God is everything and everywhere. Have they confused themselves?

    Anonymous

    January 4, 2009 at 6:11 am

  17. Anon is me.

    Alex Friday

    January 4, 2009 at 6:11 am

  18. The Globalization of spiritualism, it seems, in the long run, has produced a kind of Golem effect. Not only that the more you try to undo the damage done the more violent the Golem becomes.

    Alex Friday

    January 4, 2009 at 6:34 am

  19. But I really feel that if you read the Jewish Bible attentively and with an open mind, you will be able to confirm, rationally, that whenever JHVH appears some bloodthirsty demand is about to be made. This is I suppose why the so-called Christians find the Jewish Bible so useful: it is utterly terrifying. JHVH eclipses Elohim, like an evil black body cutting off the sun of light.

    niqnaq

    January 4, 2009 at 7:48 am

  20. Some facts and figures.

    The Hebrews had three common names for God, El, Elohim, and Eloah; besides, they had the proper name Yahweh.
    Yahweh occurs about 6000 times in the Old Testament, …
    The name Elohim is found 2570 times; Eloah, 57 times ; El, 226 times (Elim, 9 times). …

    Lagrange infers … that El replaces Yah in proper names, … that El was at first a proper and personal name of God.
    Its (El) great age may be shown from its general occurrence among all the Semitic races
    Elohim is not found among all the Semitic races …

    If Elohim be regarded as derived from El, its original meaning would be (variously)
    “the strong one” …
    “the foremost one”, …
    “to be in front” …
    “the mighty one”, …
    “to be mighty” …
    “He after whom one strives”, ..
    “Who is the goal of all human aspiration and endeavour”,
    “to whom one has recourse in distress or when one is in need of guidance”,
    “to who one attaches oneself closely”, …

    If we have recourse to the use of the word Elohim in the study of its meaning, we find that in its proper sense it denotes either the true God or false gods,..

    According to Renan … the Semites believed that the world is surrounded, penetrated, and governed by the Elohim, myriads of active beings, analogous to the spirits of the savages, alive, but somehow inseparable from one another, not even distinguished by their proper names as the gods of the Aryans, so that they can be considered as a confused totality.
    Marti …, too, finds in Elohim a trace of the original Semitic polydemonism;..
    F.C. Baur … and Hellmuth-Zimmermann … make Elohim an expression of power, grandeur, and totality.
    Lagrange … urges against these views that even the Semitic races need distinct units before they have a sum, and distinct parts before that arrive at a totality.
    Moreover, the name El is prior to Elohim … and El is both a proper and a common name of God.
    Originally it was either a proper name and has become a common name, or it was a common name has become a proper name.
    In either case, El, and, therefore, also its derivative form Elohim, must have denoted the one true God.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 11:18 am

  21. A more simplistic view is that El might have started off as the generic name for the “Gods” and gradually became the sum of the parts, the all encompassing God.
    I think we identified lesser Gods first and then worked on up the scale.
    It is the nature of things, so to speak.

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 11:28 am

  22. And some speculation on the rather more inscrutable Yahweh.

    The opinion that the name Jahveh was adopted by the Jews from the Chanaanites, has been defended … but has been rejected … It is antecedently improbable that Jahveh, the irreconcilable enemy of the Chanaanites, should be originally a Chanaanite god…

    It has been said … that the name Jahveh is of Indo-European origin…

    The theory that Jahveh is of Egyptian origin may have a certain amount of a priori probability, as Moses was educated in Egypt. Still, the proofs are not convincing:

    -Röth … derives the Hebrew name from the ancient moon-god Ih or Ioh. But there is no connection between the Hebrew Jahveh and the moon…
    -Plutarch tells us that a statue of Athene (Neith) in Sais bore the inscription: “I am all that has been, is, and will be”. But Tholuck …shows that the meaning of this inscription is wholly different from that of the name Jahveh.
    -The patrons of the Egyptian origin of the sacred name appeal to the common Egyptian formula, Nuk pu nuk but though its literal signification is “I am I”, its real meaning is “It is I who” …

    As to the theory that Jahveh has a Chaldean or an Accadian origin, its foundation is not very solid:

    -Jahveh is said to be a merely artificial form introduced to put meaning into the name of the national god … the common and popular name of God is said to have been Yahu or Yah, the letter I being the essential Divine element in the name. ..
    -Yahu and Yah were known outside Israel; the forms enter into the composition of foreign proper names; besides, the variation of the name of a certain King of Hammath shows that Ilu is equivalent to Yau, and that Yau is the name of a god … Again, the Babylonian pantheon is fairly well known at present, but the god Yau does not appear in it.
    -Among the pre-Semitic Babylonians, I is a synonym of Ilu, the supreme god; now I with the Assyrian nominative ending added becomes Yau …. Hommel … feels sure that he has discovered this Chaldean god Yau. It is the god who is represented ideographically (ilu) A-a, but ordinarily pronounced Malik, though the expression should be read Ai or Ia (Ya). The patriarchal family employed this name, and Moses borrowed and transformed it. But Lagrange points out that the Jews did not believe that they offered their children to Jahveh, when they sacrificed them to Malik … Jeremiah 32:35, and Zephaniah 1:5, distinguish between Malik and the Hebrew God.

    … The view that Jahveh is of Hebrew origin is the most satisfactory. …commentators … maintain that the name was revealed for the first time to Moses on Mount Horeb. God declares in this vision that he “appeared to Abraham . . . by the name of God Almighty; and my name Adonai [Jahveh] I did not shew them”. But the phrase “to appear by a name” does not necessarily imply the first revelation of that name; it rather signifies the explanation of the name, or a manner of acting conformable to the meaning of the name …. On Mt. Horeb God told Moses that He had not acted with the Patriarchs as the God of the Covenant, Jahveh, but as God Almighty.
    … At any rate, while it is not certain that God revealed His sacred name to Moses for the first time, He surely revealed on Mt. Horeb that Jahveh is His incommunicable name, and explained its meaning.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm

  23. Note ,
    Jahveh, the irreconcilable enemy of the Chanaanites,

    This is not a good start if you want to morph into the universal Spirit of Agape, which, as far as I can make out, is who Jesus calls His Father.

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm

  24. [...] The assumption that Yahweh is derived from the verb “to be”, as seems to be implied in Exod. iii. 14 seq., is not free from difficulty. “To be” in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is not hâwâh, as the derivation would require, but hâyâh; and we are thus driven to the further assumption that hâwâh belongs to an earlier stage of the language, or to some, older speech of the forefathers of the Israelites. This hypothesis is not intrinsically improbable—and in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, “to be” actually is hâwâ—but it should be noted that in adopting it we admit that, using the name Hebrew in the historical sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name. And, inasmuch as nowhere in the Old Testament, outside of Exod. iii., is there the slightest indication that the Israelites connected the name of their God with the idea of “being” in any sense, it may fairly be questioned whether, if the author of Exod. iii. 14 seq., intended to give an etymological interpretation of the name Yahweh, his etymology is any better than many other paronomastic explanations of proper names in the Old Testament, or than, say, the connection of the name Αρόλλων with απολοίων, απολίων in Plato’s Cratylus, or the popular derivation from απόλλυμ.

    A root hâwâh is represented in Hebrew by the nouns hôwâk (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. II) and kawwâh (Ps., Prov., Job) “disaster, calamity, ruin”. The primary meaning is probably “sink down, fall”, in which sense—common in Arabic—the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth). A Catholic commentator of the 16th century, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, seems to have been the first to connect the name Jehova with hôwâk interpreting it contritio, sine pernicies (destruction of the Egyptians and Canaanites); Daumer, adopting the same etymology, took it in a more general sense: Yahweh, as well as Shaddai, meant Destroyer, and fitly expressed the nature of the terrible god whom he identified with Moloch. [...]

    extract from 1911 Encycl. Brit.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Jehovah_(Yahweh)

    niqnaq

    January 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  25. “By their fruit you will know them”

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 1:29 pm

  26. Modern (if their is such a thing) false Gods also do damage to our well-being when they become an obsession.

    I’m thinking about things like “productivity” (reducing labour, increasing capital) and “efficiency” (which is often an excuse to dehumanise various aspects of our lives.)
    For example, the notion of “zero tolerance” seems to have had its genesis in the worship of efficiency.

    Both of the above gods appear to have an intimate relationship with our old friend Mammon.

    moonkoon

    January 4, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  27. All this wikipedia is mostly hog-wash. Even the pronunciation yahweh is incorrect as the vocalization for this god appears nowhere but is only surmised from its substitution.
    To be, the infinitive, is ‘l’hayoth’ as is known to anyone familiar with classical Hebrew grammar.

    yaron

    January 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  28. wikipedia is a legitimate place to begin. If you consider any statement you find there demonstrably incorrect, give details, but please don’t try to use this blog as a place to burble meaningless phrases like “mostly hogwash” or I shall ban you. There is incidentally a detailed discussion of the grammar of the word at the link, showing that JHVH is not derived from it by any rule of verb declension.

    niqnaq

    January 5, 2009 at 6:12 am

  29. Hog wash meaning a mixture of disparate opinions,even dating from 1911,I believe, as the source states.
    Wikipedia is legitimate, and I am greatly indebted to its existence.
    The ‘detailed discussion’ is itself rather a proof of the pudding as also the claim of the Arabic grammarians/Moslems that Allah is not a derived name,
    whereas in the academic world there would not be a shadow of a doubt that Allah is derived from ‘El’ and possibly Yahweh from some concatenation of the word ‘to be’ in Hebrew.
    Interestingly enough, in the Semetic languages there is no neutral and also the word ‘to be’ is assumed e.g.’ ha’ish chai’, ‘the man is living’.
    For a more detailed look at the metaphysical side of this see Fadlou Shehadi’s
    “Metaphysics in Islamic Philosophy” chap. 1 Arabic and “to be” 2 Logic, Grammar and the Copula, 3 Arabic and the Concept of being pp.1-45{can be download on the net.}

    yaron

    January 5, 2009 at 10:05 am

  30. If only discussions such as these were common place in the classroom. I hazard a guess that we may not be were we are now. Thank you most kindly to Rowan and Moonkoon for their vital insights. Great work.

    Oh and Rowan write a book for humanities sake will you.

    Bye for now.

    Alex Friday

    January 6, 2009 at 1:46 am

  31. sorry, Yaron, I thought you were being haughty. Someone named Mikhael has translated for me. I am an absolute Fortis devotee; as far as I know, the man can do no wrong. Also, for me he symbolises the important fact that Jewish Israelis didn’t ask to be born as such (at least as far as they know).

    niqnaq

    January 6, 2009 at 7:18 am

  32. “the important fact that Jewish Israelis didn’t ask to be born as such (at least as far as they know”

    The germane point here is the fact that nobody seems to have been asked how, what and where to be born, if at all to be born. A sort of “Divine Comedy’

    yaron

    January 6, 2009 at 8:23 am

  33. too true … but allah, or elohim, will guide us.

    niqnaq

    January 6, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  34. For a more sophisticated view on this see A.K.Coomaraswamy’s long article”The Darker Side of Dawn”.

    yaron

    January 12, 2009 at 10:37 am

  35. well, thank you for that suggestion, Yaron. I recall meeting Peter Fonda once; he spent almost an hour telling me that everything he was saying was itself “mere bullshit and intellectualisation after the fact”, quoting Krishnamurti.

    niqnaq

    January 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm

  36. well,thank you for your note. i guess we are all full of it!

    yaron

    January 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  37. I should have said, I know Coomaraswamy and Krishnamurti are poles apart – Krishnamurti was a sort of theosophical existentialist (a blavatsky-buber if you like) – Coomaraswamy was “a Traditionalist” as if Guenon and his followers had rediscovered some sort of pristine pre-christian european imperial order, somehow comprehensible to indians – but on the subject of “Traditionalism” let me tell you that I am a close student of Evola, so I know where all this is coming from and going to …
    check these out, they are absolute dynamite:
    http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/

    niqnaq

    January 12, 2009 at 1:30 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers