Most of my maths is not boolean, which means to provide a true, false or null answer, everything in reality is made up of variables; where when more data is understood, the variable value increases or decreases.
This part is very interesting to me; I want to come back to it in another post.
So your images of the candle actually added to my case, yet not sure how much you are aware of the shape of the the cannabis plant, and leaves design; it is the same sacred geometry found in the vein systems, and cannabis plants shape.
The idea we can show the Holy Anointing Oil, the Tent Meetings with incense from history would then imply to me it is a logical symbolism; though there maybe still more data.
What I think needs to be said is: "It's not an argument based in scripture."
I'm going to watch it. Thank You!
Like a key to the doorways of our own perception found in many religions globally as one, where the key symbol is placed on the alter unlocking the mysteries.
This ( and the other comment about inspiring poetry ) is why I thought that the claim was made : "The Prophets Were Getting High". If that is not what you intend to communicate; maybe, it would be helpful to avoid phrases like "doorways of perception". Its connotes mind altering hallucinations.. see below:
"The Doors of Perception is a book by Aldous Huxley. Published in 1954, it elaborates on his psychedelic experience under the influence of mescaline in May 1953" - (
source )
Did you read the anointing rituals, generally before a Crown is placed the head is anointed (
2 Kings 11:12,
2 Chronicles 23:11).
From a scriptural perspective, It really is a 1 to 1 perfect equivalence.
Zecharia states explicitly, the dream is about Joshua the High Priest. Exodus 30:30 says the anointing oil is used to consecrate the High Priest.
Here's Exodus 30:30 from sefaria.com.
Here's Zecharia 3:1 from sefaria.com
From these verses one can be 100% certain: A priest is anointed, and, Joshua was a priest.
Here's what you provided to support your claim:
Please note: It's the method that's flawed, I'm not trying to criticize you. See below:
Thus in Zechariah 3:3-5 where a crown is placed, the person would be anointed first; though you are right it does not state it specifically in Isaiah 62:1-3 or Zechariah 3:3-5 contexts is expected from the ritual... Crown is spelled similar to our name (Zaniph - צניף).
Thus for me it appoints a person by the name of Yehoshua as Messiah by high authority from God, in other words the Lord stands there and decides this is the Messiah; so it is an account of the Daniel 7:9-14 meeting, where the Ancient of Days commissions the Messiah.
Now Rabbinically we understand they think Zechariah 3 was referring to after Babylon, yet the exegesis is off
Tzanif isn't a crown. If there is scriptural data you can provide to support this, please do. Here is scriptural evidence that tzanif is priestly attire.
It would be good to compare your evidence against what is below. This is an opportunity to quantify the accuracy of your methods.
The tzanif is described starting in Exodus 28:4. See below: ( also sourced from sefaria )
In verse 39, it's described individually including the material ( H8336, a material for curtains, ref Exodus 36:8 see below )
Here is Exodus 28:39 which describes the tzanif made of shaish. shaish is a fabric used for curtains, H8336.
Here is the example of h8336 confirming that is it fabric. Crowns aren't made of fabric.
And it continues describing the attire of the
priest thru to verse 41 where it concludes that a priest is anointed.
For clarity for other readers, here is your quote:
Thus in Zechariah 3:3-5 where a crown is placed, the person would be anointed first; though you are right it does not state it specifically in Isaiah 62:1-3 or Zechariah 3:3-5 contexts is expected from the ritual... Crown is spelled similar to our name (Zaniph - צניף).
Thus for me it appoints a person by the name of Yehoshua as Messiah by high authority from God, in other words the Lord stands there and decides this is the Messiah; so it is an account of the Daniel 7:9-14 meeting, where the Ancient of Days commissions the Messiah.
Now Rabbinically we understand they think Zechariah 3 was referring to after Babylon, yet the exegesis is off
Wiz, what is listed above is not scriptural. Compare the derivation I provided to what you said. One is literal quotes from the text, and one is conjecture. Are crowns made of the same material as curtains? If not, then a tzanif is not a crown according to the text. You may be correct about a whole host of things. But most often, in your posts, when you say it's scriptural and your source is Hebrew scripture... I'm sorry to report they're almost all flawed like this. I'm going to leave it there, because, It makes me sad to say it this way; because, in a way I'm rooting for you. I want you to be successful.
Here's the remaining bit you provided about Zecharia.
...as it isn't saying the Messiah was covered in waste from iniquity back then.
The iniquity happens because of Simon the stone prophesied in Zechariah 3:9, and when Yeshua rebuked Simon the stumbling stone (peter) as satan (Zechariah 3:1-2), because he called him "Christ son of the living god" which is a Pharisaic concept (Matthew 16:13-23).
So in Zechariah 11 the 3 foolish shepherds (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites) were cut off, and Zechariah 11:15-17 they become the anti-Christ's teachings over the world, blinded (Zechariah 12:4) by the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28:28-29), until the Messiah comes (Zechariah 12:8), and releases them with the keys of David's anointing (Zechariah 12:10).
Note that here the argument departs from Hebrew scripture and requires the New Testament to be introduced. As soon as that happens the argument becomes very weak if the audience is a Rabbinic Jew as stated in the title of the OP.
This is what I think you need to do if you want your arguments to be more convincing. Avoid using the New Testament. It's like using the X-Files as a source for evidence to support existence of aliens. It's fine to talk about MK-Ultra, but don't use X-Files as the source... If you want to be convincing. Instead, use declassified gov't documents... Do you understand the analogy? I can't go to Grant Morrison as a source for evidence of a multi-verse; or Neil Gaiman as source for evidence of magic. The authors of the New Testament were believers.... They believed in Salvation. They were hoping for Salvation. Can we agree there? Hoping is not objective. It inserts doubt in the reader if a source is biased. And that's what the NT in this discussion. It compromises your argument. Hence, it should be avoided in this context.
Because of this, would you please forgive me if and when I completely dismiss evidence from the New Testament that is intended to clarify and/or correct what is written in Hebrew in the Torah. The Torah is the primary written source for Rabbinic Jews. Since that is the topic of the OP, can we please agree that arguments that require The New Testament are weak at best?
Moving on to Cannabis...
When the holy anointing oil was ritually put on prophets, and the etymology of the word cannabis comes from the Bible (Kaneh Bosem - Kannabis - Cannabis), then they had it regularly in ceremony.
OK. This is not scriptural. Again. I'm sorry. You cannot show that it was used regularly in ceremony from the text. And that assumes that that Kaneh Bosem = Kannabis.
Please note that this argument is at best 50/50 scriptural/non-scriptural. It really isn't scriptural at all, it's based on the way the word is pronounced. If the conclusion is based on more than the way it's pronounced, then would you please show that in the text? Otherwise, would you please concede that the connection of Cannabis to the Torah is not scriptural?
Which aspect of it? Since you literally said you rejected my last answer, will assume for now it is the maths of other religious understandings from the Tanakh.
Song of Solomon 8:6 uses Flame of the Lord, which is a Zoroastrianism specific term for the fire that comes from Ahura Mazda, which means the Lord of Wisdom, and refers to the God Most High (El Elyon) in the Bible... Take into account Cyrus, and Solomon had no issue with Zoroastrian monotheism.
Yahavah Elohim means Lord of Creation of the Divine Council; often in Hindu texts it is written Lord Brahma, which is Lord of Creation, an Avatar (Elohim) from the Source (EL) Brahman.
There is only one religion of monotheism, what the Bible is condemning is not getting confused by Canaanite polytheism or the other tribes henotheism, where they'd made the Elohim into El.
Which is also what the Jews have done with Yahavah Elohim turned him into El due to bad comprehension of ancient theology, and it is stupid to wipe them out for being ignorant of their own texts (Deuteronomy 32:21-22).
Which is what this thread is appealing, to educate there is more to the picture, and it can be shown with evidence that there are errors in comprehension clearly for the data to exist.
My job as Sandalphon is documented in Revelation 10:11 that I'm 'to speak of many kings, nations and languages'; God is one, people are divided by being racists who don't read each others languages to understand, they look to accuse, so they miss the pictures being presented as One.
In my opinion. 
There's a lot here, my friend. The most important detail for you is:
Judaism is not syncretic. It really is that simple. If you go back and look at what you wrote, it was connecting Judaism to aspects of other nations and other gods and justifying it by saying nobody's perfect the Torah is flawed. That is anti-Torah.
If this was not intended, then I apologize for misunderstanding. But if there is a misunderstanding, it's similar to the "doorways of perception" reference I spoke about earlier. Syncretism = other nations/other gods = Anti-Torah. If you disagree, would you please provide scriptural evidence?
The other thing I will point out... Sandalphon is spelled with a samach, not a tzaddik. This means that Sandalphon is not at all related to Tzanif. And for all we know Zan is spelled with a Zayin??? It's the same thing with the connection between a Sandek and Zion that you made in another thread... Sandek is spelled with samach, Zion is spelled with a tzaddik, and if you ask me? Zander ( short for Alexander ) would be spelled with a Zayin.
So basically you need to decide if Zander is connected to Sandalphon or if Zander is connected to Zion. But...
It can't be both.
( Edit: One of the screenshots, Exodus 28:39, was missing.... it has been re-added. Sorry )
