It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yahweh is not the Most High God, Israel in ancient Canaan and henotheism

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360All Your doing is proving you don't know anything. The flood story is Babylonian in origin. Egypt is where Yahweh did infanticide and Canaan where he ordered genocide. Your boring me with your lack of knowledge, I'm out.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid




Some say that Gnosticism was considered to be the Scientology of the Second Century, and I completely agree.


I would say that modern christianity to be alike to Mormonism and I agree with myself...a bit of masonry, virgin births, magic, and resurrection -

Lets not forget your christianity wouldnt be where it is today without the help of the Roman emperor Constantine turning it into a state sponsored belief system.



www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



In Rome, it was attributed to the goddess Ceres and the Mysteries were also practiced by men via Mithraism, which included a symbolic washing in the blood of the sacrificial Bull. The principal sacrament of Mithra, similar to Dionysus, the god of wine was that of the consumption of the flesh and drinking the blood of the sacrificial animal before rebirth. These Mysteries likewise matured afterwards into religious worship inside early Christianity where Christians received the Eucharist in secret rituals including the rites from Dionysus, including the concept of Heaven and Hell, turning water in wine, and eating the flesh of the Son, and drinking his blood prior to his death.

To Christians, this was based upon the necessity of a human blood sacrifice, rather then animal, which was to atone for the sins of the world.
As Tertullian and early Christian theologians echoed "the seed of the church was built upon the blood of the martyrs". Afterwards, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, these sacraments then became much more mainstream and public. Individuals such as Celsus the Platonist criticized the Christian piety in the 2nd century for impiously gossiping about god while trying to arouse the awe of the illiterate, and thus pretending to behave like guardians of the Bacchic (Dionysus) Mysteries.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius alike accused them as being misconceived exhibitionists. Hippolytus, one of the early prolific ecclesiastical writers went as far of stating that,
"it is said that they were all initiated into the Mysteries of the Great Mother, because they found that the whole mystery of rebirth was taught in these rites".
To the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus, Christianity was seen as nothing but a new depraved and deadly superstition. The Sophist historian Eunapius of Sardis who was instated into the Eleusinian Mysteries even described the destruction when literalist Christians came to power and actually recorded that the Empire was being confounded by a "fabulous and formless darkness mastering the loveliness of the world."




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: areyousirius360All Your doing is proving you don't know anything. The flood story is Babylonian in origin. Egypt is where Yahweh did infanticide and Canaan where he ordered genocide. Your boring me with your lack of knowledge, I'm out.



Yhwah did not want to destroy Egypt. He gave the Pharaoh every opportunity to repent. The children of Egypt and Canaan would have been raised in a cult of child sacrifice. As the Creator of all the Universe, Yhwah has the right to destroy His own creation.

That isn't the same as the child sacrifice of Canaan.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




They are not specifically war crimes.

Name the war and the court or retract your assertion as unfounded.


Well seeing as to how Yahweh is missing in action it would be hard to indicte the war monger. Well maybe not missing in action, maybe sanitized into a loving trinity.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
It's so obvious it's too bad you don't understand religion, I wish I could help you but I am getting sick of your idiocy.


You claim to have no religion, yet you also stated that El Elyon is your God.

You also troll (and I am not using hyperbole here) the "Religion, Faith and Theology" forum.

I'm detecting a bit of cognitive dissonance there.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest





Unlike the Canaanite gods, Yhwah forbade child sacrifice.


So then he becomes all Canaanite again in the New Testament and kills his own son...yeah that makes sense



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest





Unlike the Canaanite gods, Yhwah forbade child sacrifice.


So then he becomes all Canaanite again in the New Testament and kills his own son...yeah that makes sense


His Son chose the path of sacrifice in our place. The Canaanites did not offer such a choice to the CHILDREN they murdered.

Hardly the same.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
Egypt and Canaan smartass and you wish your bible said Elohim . That's a borrowed from Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh story.


The Genesis text infers that the Creation and flood stories happened well before Babylon.

There are those who would point out that the dating of the complete Babylonian creation tablets (the Enuma Elis) places them as having been created in the 18th to 16th centuries BC, or even as late as 1100 BC. The Epic of Gilgamesh has been dated earlier (@ 2100 BC) and contains the flood account but actually originated from Sumer.

Moses, who is attributed with the writing of the book of Genesis, has was born in 1592 BC according to Jerome and 1571 BC according to Ussher. This actually makes Moses most likely contemporaneous with the production of the oldest tablets of the Enuma Elis. As we know, Moses and his tribe had been slaves in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12: 40-41) and had zero opportunity to collect Babylonian legends for generations.

So, I would suggest that the Babylonian and Hebrew flood accounts were two different accounts of the same event by two different groups and did not borrow at all from each other.


edit on 5/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: areyousirius360All Your doing is proving you don't know anything. The flood story is Babylonian in origin. Egypt is where Yahweh did infanticide and Canaan where he ordered genocide. Your boring me with your lack of knowledge, I'm out.



Gilgamesh is Sumerian in origin. It is just that the oldest records we have of the poem are Babylonian. Babylon defeated Sumeria and much of the culture was retained.

It would seem that YHWH caused the demise of far fewer that Elohim.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut

And for the 500th and last time, Yahweh IS Baal. That's why Yahweh doesn't show up in the Canaanite pantheon. Name change, easy to do. Damn you have to read things 5 times before you remember or what?


The noted personality attributes of YHWH and Baal were different. One was part of a polytheistic pantheon, the other was the monotheist "only true God". They did different exploits. They arose in different source groups who openly warred with each other. Their believer groups openly opposed each other (to the death).

For these reasons and all those stated previously, just NOPE!



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok genius. Yahweh is Baal. But keep worshipping the infantical, genocidal war criminal god of Israel. And keep thinking it's not sick. And keep thinking you're smart and correct.

But you aren't, El Elyon is not Yahweh, unless you're an indoctrinated Christian who hates knowledge. Or someone who makes money off them.

Genocide, infanticide, not good things to be so defensive of. If you think Yahweh, who makes Hitler look like Ghandi, is god, then you think god is evil. Or you don't think infanticide is evil and your evil. Or you think god is a murderous psychopath. Either way, pretty dumb ish on your part.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
And thank you for showing that you DO know that the Israelites borrowed most of their early and later stories from Babylon/Sumer which is the same region and why I didn't bother saying Sumer, because it doesn't matter. Either way they are borrowed stories, and borrowed gods.
Thanks for proving my point for me.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
Your entertaining, you think you know something, but are drenched in Christian ignorance. You admit they borrowed stories, but not gods. Contradictory and ludicrous of you. Yahweh is a complete invention from the minds of Israelites, based mostly on Baal (sorry, it's true). Naturally Yahweh evolved his own characteristics, but is still based off Baal(lord).
I find it utterly hilarious how little you know, more hilarious that you try learning something on the spot so you can argue your opinion and getting most of it wrong.
Christianity promotes stupidity, hell even glorifies it, trying to erase history to protect its doctrine which is a fallacy to begin with.
You are a living stereotype, logic has no place in your world or words. Fascinating.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
A perfect example is you thinking I need a religion to have a God, which I definitely don't. I don't have a church either, does that mean I can't believe in a good God?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriestAre you trying to justify infanticide!!? Really?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Whoever said Gnosticism was the Scientology of the second century, is ridiculous. The Nag Hammadi Library is Christian. Scientology is a cash scam self help " religion" that charges for its services, more and more as you move up, and was started by a science fiction writer.
Gnosticism, despite what their competition/enemies say (which is obviously not reliable and very bias) in the oh so reputable Catholic church, was about escaping evil, negative emotions, worldly desires. Nothing to do with secret knowledge.
What kind of moron listens to Iraeneus? Or thinks that Gnosticism is even a religion. It's a universal concept far older than christianity, and the Christian Gnostics were unfairly persecuted. You had Ophites and Sethians before you had Christianity. The only Gnostic writings you know of are the NHL, and what is so different from believing in Angels, fallen angels, Nephilim and demons that is so different from the Archon concept?
And what is so evil about not worshipping the war criminal Yahweh?
MURGATROID, that was the stupidest thing I have ever heard.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360


a reply to: Seede I'm afraid you are wrong and essentially doing what you accuse me of, guessing. What is obvious to some is foolishness to the fool.

I guessed at nothing simply because I know nothing for certain and I admit that I am not certain. What you have postulated is that you know exactly what an author wrote while not having the author's autograph (writing). That is a silly and untrue statement. You have neither the author's original text nor can you ever convince any scholar worth his/her salt that what you say say is fact. You are totally out of league with the truth in this matter. You should review your research and and face the facts that you are mistaken.

Also review my post and accredit my post as it was intended. The Enochian literature in the dead sea scrolls do confirm exactly what I did say and that was that sons of God were angelic and not terrestrial. Forget your word play because without the original autographs you have no idea of what you are trying to sell. The OT and NT as you have them today are not the autographs of the authors. You are simply guessing.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Let me make clear, Baal is depicted as the good God in all the accounts I have read. Not all are from the same nation either.
Israelites in ancient Canaan lived under a system of individual Gods over different nations, all being Sons of El Elyon. Who worshipped who is unsure but Yahweh did not even exist in this pantheon. Baal matches the good aspects of Yahweh today, but more often he resembles Baals nemesis Yam-Nahar sometimes just called Yam. Baal defeats Yam eventually. There are different versions from different areas but mostly the themes are consistent.
El Elyon coming from Canaan where he is father of the Gods, at a time when Israelites or Hebrews or whatever they were called existed shows the origins of El Elyon predate Yahweh by a long time, and that the Israelites couldn't be worshipping Yahweh so had to be worshipping someone under El Elyon, most likely Baal.
The fact that they believed in El Elyon at this time proves that they were not monotheistic, as El had sons who were considered Gods also.
The name revealed to moses translates as I Am who I Am, but he is called Yahweh, rendered lord in English , which I find deceptive, as well as the very name Yahweh. Ahayah (I Am) is the supposed source but it's(Yahweh) origin comes WAY after Moses. And as I revealed in my op, in Deuteronomy Yahweh is clearly revealed to have been considered a Son of God(El). The fact that most modern translations obscure this passage so it reads differently is evidence of deliberate subtle deception and of an attempt to hide everything I have brought to light.
The Masoretic texts go even further by changing Sons of God to sons of Israel even though it makes no sense. Israel is not God, so that's despicable and deliberate deception again.
Clearly they are trying to hide something, and it's clear what that something is. I would hate to be the guy who worships Yahweh, he was only the god of the Jews and never the Most High God. But they love it when you believe he is!! They also call non Jews goyim. Which means sheep. Nice huh? Sheep. And non Jews worship their god! How stupid is that?


edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Finally, the three most prominent usages in the English bibles are God, Lord, and the Most High God and:

God =Elohim (in Hebrew) which is actually a plural word meaning, essentially, Gods. The Elohim are El Elyon, Asherah and their 70 offspring. 72 is an important number in Judaism, specifically Kabbalah where it refers to the 72 chief spirits of the world (see lesser key of Solomon) and it is popularly called the 72 "names of God" to hide its true meaning from the profane or heathen.
How Elohim came to be used singularly is a mystery. Christianity claims it as proof of the trinity (nonsense, there has never been a trinity concept in Judaism) while Jews call it Majestic plurality or something equally ridiculous. It's used elsewhere in the Hebrew to refer to multiple gods, so if it's used in a general sense it isn't very Majestic. Something is amiss.
Yahweh=Lord but doesn't really mean Lord. But Baal does.
Last is The Most High God or El Elyon proving once again the accepted beliefs of the ancient Israelites were not monotheistic, as a Most High God needs lesser gods in order to be the Most High God.
So there you have it, if you have questions just ask, have a good day.

edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360




not a hypothesis, wasn't getting defensive just calling out your reason for complaining.


There was no complaining...I simply disagree with you and you take it personally....all I did was ask you for sources and you have yet to produce any...if what you are saying is true it should be quite easy to show it...





It's now in the realm of fact. So catch up with knowledge, or go ask the preacher man to tell you what to believe.


I get that you assert it is a fact. I am asking you to show why you think that to be the case....my thoughts are my own not some product of what I've been taught in a local church building...

Are you here to get applause for your views or actually have an honest discussion?




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join