Never was a Jewish exodus from Egypt

[rupol2000]

IDIOTS make an issue of
superficially similar SOUNDS in various different languages

No matter how stupid the shepherd is, he can hardly be more stupid than his flock. So you are right here, they not idiots.

The words
Divine, Devil,, and DEV have nothing to do with each other.

It is quite obvious that this is a common root, this is clear even to those who do not know grammar. The Zoroastrians did the same, they changed the places of the Devas and Assuras. And Div is just an inflection from Dev, these are old Indo-European root-inflections that in English remained only in irregular verbs

By the way, your method of conducting a discussion is just scholastic. Your reasoning comes down to the words "no" and "you are an idiot"

 

[rupol2000]

I am not a biologist lol

Before becoming a non-biologist, you have already changed your opinion twice.

 

[irosie91]

By the way, note that the word "divine" has the same root as "Devil" through Dev, which originally meant "heavenly" in Aryan and referred to the heavenly gods.
ask your priest how it turned out. However, he will most likely deny it.

you have a link for your idiot and imaginative take on ETYMOLOGY. DEV is derived
from a SANSKRIT word DEVIL comes from a latin term which comes out in spanish
as DIABALO Find a better teacher

 

[irosie91]

No matter how stupid the shepherd is, he can hardly be more stupid than his flock. So you are right here, they not idiots.

It is quite obvious that this is a common root, this is clear even to those who do not know grammar. The Zoroastrians did the same, they changed the places of the Devas and Assuras. And Div is just an inflection from Dev, these are old Indo-European root-inflections that in English remained only in irregular verbs

By the way, your method of conducting a discussion is just scholastic. Your reasoning comes down to the words "no" and "you are an idiot"

More nonsense

No matter how stupid the shepherd is, he can hardly be more stupid than his flock. So you are right here, they not idiots.

It is quite obvious that this is a common root, this is clear even to those who do not know grammar. The Zoroastrians did the same, they changed the places of the Devas and Assuras. And Div is just an inflection from Dev, these are old Indo-European root-inflections that in English remained only in irregular verbs

By the way, your method of conducting a discussion is just scholastic. Your reasoning comes down to the words "no" and "you are an idiot"

BTW your statement-----......old Indo-european inflections that in ENGLISH remained only
in irregular verbs..... IS GOBBLY GOOK

 

[rupol2000]

DEV is derived
from a SANSKRIT word DEVIL comes from a latin term which comes out in spanish
as DIABALO Find a better teacher

This is not true.
Both Sanskrit and Classical Latin appeared at about the same time.
At least 1500 years early than classical Latin and Sanskrit, it is already in the most ancient parts of the Rig Veda, the period of the Bronze Age and early Iron. This Vedic language was close to the Proto-Indo-European.
Latin also comes from him, it is heritage of ancient Latin and the Celts. There are no contradictions here. Christian ideologues changed the names of the gods, but they were not able to purge all vocabulary from the language.

 

[rupol2000]

As already mentioned, the concept of the Heavenly Father is also associated with this root, this is Dyaus Pitar, in translation is the Heavenly Father, hence the ancient Roman Jupiter

 

[irosie91]

This is not true.
Both Sanskrit and Classical Latin appeared at about the same time.
At least 1500 years early than classical Latin and Sanskrit, it is already in the most ancient parts of the Rig Veda, the period of the Bronze Age and early Iron. This Vedic language was close to the Proto-Indo-European.
Latin also comes from him, it is heritage of ancient Latin and the Celts. There are no contradictions here. Christian ideologues changed the names of the gods, but they were not able to purge all vocabulary from the language.

nope-----different times and different places----Latin actually did develope in and around Italy--
about 2500 years ago and Sanskrit----in and around the INDUS VALLEY more like 4000 years ago--albeit with northern european influences

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Just a colorful and intriguing story
It never happened
It’s just fable
Zero archeological evidence

Sorry

Prehistoric Facts Create a Detective Story of Myths (The Greeks Lost at Troy)

It was their exodus from the Caucasus to Sumeria. Just like the Indo-Europeans (Aryans), they had been driven out by a massive bloodthirsty Mongol invasion.

 

[irosie91]

As already mentioned, the concept of the Heavenly Father is also associated with this root, this is Dyaus Pitar, in translation is the Heavenly Father, hence the ancient Roman Jupiter

sanskrit does not include a "HEAVENLY FATHER" and no Jupiter either

 

[rupol2000]

Christians, although they incorporated this concept into their religion, did not like the heavenly theme in itself, the Abrahamic scriptures ignore the theme of heaven like no other religion, they have no astrological research, their other negative pseudonym is Lucifer, a fallen star, in translation it is the Lightbringer
They hated "polytheists" because they comprehended heaven and nature and did not accept the creator. This is in the New Testament as well.

 

[Indeependent]

Christians, although they incorporated this concept into their religion, did not like the heavenly theme in itself, the Abrahamic scriptures ignore the theme of heaven like no other religion, they have no astrological research, their other negative pseudonym is Lucifer, a fallen star, in translation it is the Lightbringer
They hated "polytheists" because they comprehended heaven and nature and did not accept the creator. This is in the New Testament as well.

Jews live in this existence and God takes care of the next phase.
The most violent religions on earth are obsessed with heaven and hell.

 

[Indeependent]

This is not true.
Both Sanskrit and Classical Latin appeared at about the same time.
At least 1500 years early than classical Latin and Sanskrit, it is already in the most ancient parts of the Rig Veda, the period of the Bronze Age and early Iron. This Vedic language was close to the Proto-Indo-European.
Latin also comes from him, it is heritage of ancient Latin and the Celts. There are no contradictions here. Christian ideologues changed the names of the gods, but they were not able to purge all vocabulary from the language.

it is already in the most ancient parts of the Rig Veda

Are there extant examples?

 

[rupol2000]

they had been driven out by a massive bloodthirsty Mongol invasion.

The Mongol campaign took place around the 12th century, before them Attila had already managed to crush Rome, what kind of circus is this?
The Mongols' campaign was not "bloodthirsty"; they liberated the east from the slavery of the caliphs. The Chingizids enjoyed great authority in the east, later the Timurids pretended to be Chingizids in order to gain power in the Golden Horde, the people did not accept any other clans there.

 

[rupol2000]

Jews live in this existence and God takes care of the next phase.
The most violent religions on earth are obsessed with heaven and hell.

In fact, in Christianity there is no place in heaven for the righteous, and souls, this is a common myth. There is supposed to be an uprising of the righteous dead on earth.
I don't remember exactly, but it seems this thought is already in the Tanakh. The fact that everything is material there is no difference with Christianity, in Christianity heaven and soul are just the legacy of "polytheism", and this is essentially denied by the priests themselves.

 

[irosie91]

In fact, in Christianity there is no place in heaven for the righteous, and souls, this is a common myth. There is supposed to be an uprising of the righteous dead on earth.
I don't remember exactly, but it seems this thought is already in the Tanakh. The fact that everything is material there is no difference with Christianity, in Christianity heaven and soul are just the legacy of "polytheism", and this is essentially denied by the priests themselves.

when you post "priests" ---to what "priests" do you refer?

 

[Indeependent]

In fact, in Christianity there is no place in heaven for the righteous, and souls, this is a common myth. There is supposed to be an uprising of the righteous dead on earth.
I don't remember exactly, but it seems this thought is already in the Tanakh. The fact that everything is material there is no difference with Christianity, in Christianity heaven and soul are just the legacy of "polytheism", and this is essentially denied by the priests themselves.

The New Testament is geared towards the Aristotelian mind…very concrete.

 

[rupol2000]

when you post "priests" ---to what "priests" do you refer?

Orthodox Christians also deny this, but with caution. All ideas about the soul and the kingdom of heaven are mainly contained not in scripture, but in accompanying literature like the psalms, so they have no right to deny this complitelly, but they try to bypass this paradox via complex sophistry. Moreover, Christianity specifically emphasizes that Christ ascended not in soul but in flesh.

 

[rupol2000]

The New Testament is geared towards the Aristotelian mind…very concrete.

I don't see the connection. By the way, Newton, being a Christian priest, did everything possible to destroy Aristotelian physics. I do not know if there is a connection with Christian cosmology, but obviously there is.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't see the connection. By the way, Newton, being a Christian priest, did everything possible to destroy Aristotelian physics. I do not know if there is a connection with Christian cosmology, but obviously there is.

The TNT has a Black & White mentality...You're either going to heaven or hell.
Judaism does not share that simple point of view.

 

[irosie91]

The New Testament is geared towards the Aristotelian mind…very concrete.

??????