Time for a little reflection of our viewpoints of ourselves. Using Nimrod's vison of himself as the hero, Gilgamesh might help, and to aid in your self-appraisal consider the image of Gilgamesh below. Study it for quite some time and maybe you can see more than what is pictured for it is just a shadow of the real thing: (This comes from one chapter of my book about The Arks of Tubal-Cain.
PICTURES AND OTHER IMAGES
The picture in figure
#9 is someone’s image of Gilgamesh/Nimrod cut in stone. It may not be a
true representation, but like Plato’s shadows on the cave wall, it represents
what chained prisoners imagined the real things to be.
In Plato’s “Allegory
of the Cave,” images of men passing behind them were imagined by the shadows
cast by light onto the walls within a dark cave. The shadows were as real to
them as the bodies behind them. For them, the shadows were a fragment of the
real thing. For some, the shadows were the real thing! They saw tall shadows of
men behind them and perhaps thought the men were tall. What we picture in our
minds can become real, as with some of the chained men. Was the picture of
Gilgamesh him, or was it the shadow he cast in the minds of his admirers?
To understand the truth,
we must look at the cave from which Noah emerged and what he saw.
Terah with all his household were then the
first of those that served gods of wood and stone. And Terah had twelve gods of
large size, made of wood and stone, after the twelve months of the year, and he
served each one monthly, and every month Terah would bring his meat offering
and drink offering to his gods; thus did Terah all the days. And all that
generation were wicked in the sight of the Lord, and they thus made every man
his god, but they forsook the Lord who had created them. And there was not a
man found in those days in the whole earth, who knew the Lord (for they served
each man his own God) except Noah and his household, and all those who were
under his counsel knew the Lord in those days. And Abram the son of Terah was
waxing great in those days in the house of Noah, and no man knew it, and the
Lord was with him. (Jasher 9:7-11)
Everyone except
Abram was wicked; so was Terah and so was Nimrod. Each man would have wanted a god
as each imagined him to be. As it turned out Nimrod was king and Terah his
magistrate who made idols to look like each person wanted their god to look.
Therefore, Nimrod
would have commissioned Terah to make an image of God like Nimrod saw
him. Of course, the king saw his god, meaning that he would look like God was perceived
in his own mind’s eye.
That Terah was the
magistrate of the king would mean that Terah would make sure that people saw Nimrod
as majestic. The image that Terah, or someone else, cut was majestic
Nimrod — Gilgamesh. That was what the engraver was commissioned to do. A frail,
short God would not be acceptable, so the cutter imagined what Nimrod thought
of himself, as any artist might do for a regal person.
Think now of King
Charles XIV of France in the painting:
The king looked like a weak, effeminate man, but the artist made him look like a proud male peacock.
Surely, the stone cutter who cut the picture of Gilgamesh used the same
deceptive way to perceive our Hero, Gilgamesh.
Was Gilgamesh a true
heroic great hunter or is that what he wanted us to believe when he
commissioned Terah or whoever it might have been?
Think also of Napoleon
who would come later; a short Corsican man who became king of France and Emperor
of the Napoleonic Empire. In his most famous picture, Napoleon’s hand was placed
on his bosom perhaps to indicate that his was the House of Napoleon that would
rule as it turned out to be after so many republics failed. That one gesture
made Napoleon and much as the look and red shoes made the “Sun King,” Charles
the XIV.
One gesture or prop
can define who a person thinks he is. Look at Gilgamesh; that lion in
his bosom was his vision of himself — “Gilgamesh the Hero King and God” — tamer
of the lions and as Luciferin as can be!
Now for a moment,
jump back to the beginning of the beginning. God commissioned Adam to be
like Himself, “in His Image” and the hand of God — Jesus — formed Adam in His
own divine image.
Because glorious
Adam had dominion over the other animals, his substance was God’s substance as
Adam “crumbled” from the Image of God for which “dominion” implies. If God was
phantom and He was, He was real as well. So, Adam was the spittin’ image of
God, both in spirit and reality.
In like manner, Nimrod
would have commissioned Terah to make an image of himself that Nimrod imagined
God to look like. Perhaps Terah made for Nimrod the image of Gilgamesh on stone
and called him “Hero.”
When I told my wife
that Gilgamesh was twelve to eighteen feet tall, she expressed shock, asking, “Was
he really that tall?”
That was a great
question; Was Gilgamesh really that tall?
Gilgamesh had met
giants or at least had seen them in his mind’s eye. They were the going thing
before the flood, and perhaps Noah told Nimrod about the giants of old, or even
giants that still existed he had seen in his travels.
Figure #9 is
how Gilgamesh imagined himself as a god and king. He could have been a
tall, tall man, or he could have been a short man with the little man Napoleonic
complex.
Terah was the
magistrate of King Nimrod. Magistrate means to administer; to minister
to his majesty. Many artists have been killed for failing to provide a picture
of what was in their kings’ minds. It would not matter if Nimrod would really
be small and humble; it was Terah’s job to create a king and a god from whatever
real image he looked upon. With that said, the graphic of Gilgamesh would not
have been the real Nimrod, but “The Hero” Gilgamesh, and Nimrod’s goal was to
make a name for himself. That much he did!
In other words,
what is pictured is not the real thing but how Nimrod imagined himself as “The
Great Hunter.” My wife was onto something!
Think now Facetune ®.
Perhaps Terah face-tuned Nimrod and the picture of Gilgamesh is Nimrod with
his face and body-tuned. In that regard, the picture should have been called “Vanity”
because that is what face-tuning does; it takes a humble picture and converts
it to vanity.
Nimrod saw himself
as a giant. Maybe he was and maybe he was not. However, he surely saw himself
as 2/3’s god. The third part of him was added. Terah, if he was the artist,
added majesty to the picture of Nimrod. The lion is the symbol of majesty, so a
lion it was, and to make Nimrod more majestic, the lion must appear much smaller
to suggest the might of the mighty hunter.
The resultant
picture could have been the mental image of how Nimrod saw himself. In Jungian
psychology, mental pictures of yourself are three: the ego, the id, and the
superego.
The id is the corporate
needs of the mental state of a person. Nimrod may have needed to think of
himself as a giant to be a great hunter, and that means the hunted would look
small compared to himself.
The ego is the “I”
of the individual; how he sees himself in his mind’s eye. He would need to be “The
Hero” and to him the “Hero” he would be. He wanted to be seen as the man that
killed God… I did it!
The superego was not
Jung’s term but the “Over-I” and as such, the Over-I adjudicates the “I.”
The stone image would
represent his actual ego (he could do nothing), the id would be what he wanted
to be seen as (The Hero), and the over-I what he really was (just a small,
small person that wanted to look bigger than life.)
Gilgamesh would
have been two-thirds there: his ego and id, but an Over-I was missing.
Now for some elementary
stuff. The Hebrew letter bet can represent the image of stone for the
flesh, and the Hero the Power of thought, represented by the letter aleph.
What was missing? If he was lacking 1/3 of his whole, then the Over-I was
missing. He was missing the Hebrew letter gimmel. It is characterized by
the footprint of a camel, not the camel itself, as if something was there but
is no longer seen.
A camel in his bosom
would be humorous, and he would indeed be the idiot.
The footprint of a
camel would be almost unnoticeable.
Gilgamesh wanted
the animal to be noticed, so he picked a royal animal. Not by coincidence, it
was not the Lion of Judah of which we thought, but the devouring, roaring lion of
which we must be vigilant (1 Pet 5:8).
Gilgamesh would not
be holding the coming Messiah but the already come Lucifer, who appears
as the “Beast” (Rev 13:4). He had tamed the raging Beast, and they had become
one god in three images. He was made whole by the addition of the Beast to the
picture. It appears that Terah made Nimrod fully a god. Then Nimrod named that
one god “Gilgamesh”— the “Hero.”
The story of Nimrod
would me amiss without Abram. He broke all his father’s idols. Apparently, he thought
he did, but eventually it showed up on October 15, 2000. Abram missed one, but
that is a minor thing. Perhaps God hid it for this age.
One must study The
Book of Jasher to get the full impact of Abram’s transformation to “Abraham.”
He withstood the ovens of Nimrod in Ur whereas eleven of his compatriots did not.
Perhaps even Nimrod
recognized that Abram was more like Noah and God than himself. Perhaps, that
was when he turned away from God to Lucifer. He was holding “Satan” in his
bosom. That would have been derogatory, even blasphemous, to God.
Because of the
faith of Abraham in the fire, something changed about him; it was his seed that
would be the offspring and chosen people of God (Deut 14:2) and that would be
passed down to his progeny.
Abram, now
identified as “Abraham” would be the “father” of us peculiar people, but he was
merely a proxy until the second coming of Christ when any person might be God’s
chosen and peculiar people (1 Pet 2:9). That is not to say that Abraham is God
but was the “vav” of the Hebrew aleph-bet that was the “placeholder”
until the coming Messiah arrived.
Abram crossed over
the river into the Garden of the Lord (Gen 13:10) from the land of Ur in
Shinar. Because he had defeated Nimrod, or Gilgamesh, it was Abraham that would
act for God until God manifested His true self. Abraham had defeated the false
God and King Gilgamesh — the man whom Abram’s father had engraved “Hero.” No pictures
of Abraham exist but his inward image is in all who are Christians.
The Beast was engraved
into the bosom of Gilgamesh. However, Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom until
Jesus was glorified. The death and resurrection glorified Jesus (John 7:39),
and then Abraham became no more than a proxy, like Gilgamesh who was the proxy
for Lucifer.
Why was Gilgamesh
portrayed as tall. That was his mental picture of himself. He was the first Jungian.
Why else? Are there more reasons? His missing element finally arrived… Lucifer joined
the picture. Gilgamesh sought the way to eternal life, and that was through
himself. He had reached his peak experience by the end of the Epic,
being by then complete. It was himself that was the One God. With Satan in him,
Gilgamesh arrived at a conclusion: I AM Lucifer. Who is Lucifer? The being with
a vision of the future, and I repeat it:
You (Lucifer) have said in your heart, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isa 14:13-14)
When Nimrod finally
made a name for himself — “Gilgamesh” — he thought he had achieved that. He was
indeed holding a raging lion that he apparently had tamed for the picture he
wanted to portray, but acting the part paints a poor picture. Indeed, Gilgamesh
was not a picture of the true God.
Why waste so much
time on The Epic of Gilgamesh. It is another version of the same story
from a more distant location. There are many more stories like that epic because
there were survivors all over the world.
Because so many
have the same stories narrated differently each one validates that the flood
was real and many people, by their own devices, escaped the waters to higher ground.
Gilgamesh thought
himself 1/3 human and 2/3 gods. If that was true, then he was partly from Seth
through the man, Noah, and the other two parts Anunnaki.
