SEEING WITHIN GILGAMESH

 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.

Gilgamesh

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.