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

The divine beings called sons of God in Enoch refer in this specifically the ones led by Semjaza ( I can't remember exact spelling) who where assigned to watch over the nations and mated with human women and led man astray and produced giant hybrid offspring called Nephilim. This group was imprisoned inside the earth until the end of time as punishment, a major part of the book of Enoch. Then came the flood.
So the Sons of God in Deuteronomy (Yahweh included) where not part of that group because that group called Igrigori, Gregori, or Watchers was imprisoned.
I hope that clears that up. I recommend reading the book of Enoch, it's excellent.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLambThat was yesterday quit being a b. We aren't talking about thoughts here, we are talking about history and the evidence that ancient Israelites were not monotheistic. A fact beyond legitimate dispute. Read my last 3 or 4 quotes and don't come here to air out your complaints. Deal with the truth or move on.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

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

1 Corinthians 15

“The first man Adam became a living being” the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.


Paul being a insanely devout Jew before his conversion was very familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures well.

Leviticus 25
47 “If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan, 48 then after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem him, 49 or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself.


Christ came to fulfill the law. Not to abolish it. His death was his way of redeeming what Adam had lost. A person choosing to die for someone they love, and a person being put to death for sake of appeasing a God are entirely different things.

a reply to: areyousirius360

I am not having a conversation with the thread. I am having a conversation with you. Now you say we are talking about history and evidence and but you haven't produced any of those things. I continue to plead for them but you simply make general statements with absolutely nothing presented to support your ideologies. I am sorry but saying the phrase "that's a fact" does absolutely nothing to show that it is indeed actually a fact. I think you may be a shill.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
None of that has anything to do with the topic. Christ is way beyond the period of henotheism, and doesn't really apply.

This isn't a thread about your religious beliefs, it's about the invention of the "god" Yahweh and subsequent blending of him with an ancient to them Canaanite Most High God. Even the bible has Yahweh as El Elyons son, read the op.
It's about a God who is kind and merciful being merged with a genocidal, infanticidal monster god
invented by Jews called Yahweh

a reply to: ServantOfTheLambYou are too indoctrinated to comprehend but if you read my last 7 posts I have provided all the information necessary to dispel your fallacious notions. Have a good day, hope you've had fun. I got better things to do than argue with fundies today.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: BELIEVERpriestAre you trying to justify infanticide!!? Really?

No, I'm simply confronting you with the truth.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: BELIEVERpriestAre you trying to justify infanticide!!? Really?

No, I'm simply confronting you with the truth.

LOL, Stop feeding the trolls!

originally posted by: areyousirius360
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.

No, I never admitted such.

As I noted, the physical separation of Egypt from Canaan and the inability of slaves to travel to foreign lands would make the 'borrowing' of a legend of Sumer, unfeasable historically.

The fairest and most reasonable conclusion is that the two accounts were the separate descriptions of the same earlier event.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
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.

I have, however, provided ample circumstantial and evidential support for my views.

Your turn.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
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?

No, you could, for example, hold totally contradictory views and beliefs.

There is no compunction upon you to order your thoughts and beliefs on a systematic or rational basis.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
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.

"Elohim" is a word that means 'God' or 'Gods'. The plurality of the word has been taken to be honorific i.e: 'God of all Gods' and similar to the word "Adonai" which means 'Lords' but when applied singularly denotes 'Lord of all Lords'. It is used throughout the Old Testament interchangeably as a title and as a name of God. When they are testing to see whether Baal is God, the specific wording is to find out if "Baal is Elohim". In this instance, we see the word "Elohim" is obviously a title.

El Elyon means "God most high" and first appears in the Genesis description of Melchizedek, who was the high priest of El Elyon. In Hebrew, when the word "Elyon" is used by itself (without the El part) it means 'separate', 'separating' or 'standing alone'. The epithet "El" is used for a god in the Ras Sharma tablets in Ugaritic, indicating its pre-Mosaic use. The Elyon component ONLY appears to have a Hebrew source.

YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, is the given name of God, revealed by God to Moses. The Hebrew interpretation of the four letters is 'I am who I am' but the Paleo-Hebrew meanings of the letters is 'behold' (the) 'nail or hook', 'behold' (the) 'hand & wrist'. (I suppose that some Christian time traveler dropped back a few thousand years and organized that, though. )

"Baal" means 'Lord', 'master' or 'husband' in Ugaritic and was used to describe human kings as well as deities. The Amorite god Hadad was often called Baal Hadad and over time this was shortened to just Baal. In the Old Testament Baals were truly plural, explicitly including "Asherah", "Astarte", 'Marduk (also called Bel)', 'Dagon' and other gods descended from the Ugarit pantheon.

I thought it was common knowledge that Yahweh was not El Elyon. It's rather obvious.

a reply to: chr0naut

You have a hard time with accepting El Elyon existed before Yahweh, which is a fact, and that the Jews merged the 2 at some point. It's a fact, Deuteronomy, as in the op, even says it, the bible says it.

Why argue against history when we have proof. Read the Ugaritic texts, that will fill you in on what your missing.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: chr0naut

You have a hard time with accepting El Elyon existed before Yahweh, which is a fact, and that the Jews merged the 2 at some point. It's a fact, Deuteronomy, as in the op, even says it, the bible says it.

Why argue against history when we have proof. Read the Ugaritic texts, that will fill you in on what your missing.

Marvin H. Pope in his 1955 book, "El in the Ugaritic texts," states, "Although Elyon is not mentioned in the Ugaritic texts,..."

Nowhere in the religious texts of Ugarit does the specific title "Elyon" appear. "Elyon" only exists in Hebrew texts.

When Rabbi Joseph Hertz in his 1936 book "The Pentateuch and Haftoras. Deuteronomy" he translated and quoted from the Ras Shamra tablets, inadvertently using "El Elyon" rather than just "El". It was a mistranslation based upon the Rabbi's strong Jewish background and how trivial the error was in regard to the topic of his work. Some translations of the Ras Shamra tablets have perpetuated this error.

Feel free to search the University of Chicago Ugaritic Studies Wiki for the word "elyon" or its Samaritan equivalent "illiyyon" or some other version of the same. I assure you, it doesn't exist. (You could also try searching for "El" to see how the search works).

When "El" is mentioned in Ugaritic texts, it is the NAME of the progenitor god in the Ugarit pantheon but also is used as a TITLE, where it has the meaning of "Lord" or "Master".

When "El" is used in the Hebrew Torah, it is as a TITLE and is usually paired with another adjective. For instance "El Elyon" which means "God most high", or "Elohim" which it the plural form of the word "God", or "El Shaddai" which means "God Allmighty".

The fact that the Hebrews used "El" as a TITLE and not a NAME is underlined by the phrase "YHWH Elohim" which means "YHWH (is) God" which is repeated more than 150 times in the Torah. Additionally, when Elijah challenges the priests of Baal, at Mount Carmel, he asks them to test if "Baal is Elohim" (Baal is God) or "YHWH is Elohim" (YHWH is God).

Should this not be enough to convince you, Exodus 6:3 says: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the title of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name, YHWH, was I not known to them".

originally posted by: Rasalghul
I thought it was common knowledge that Yahweh was not El Elyon. It's rather obvious.

It is neither common knowledge, nor "obvious".

The Jewish and Christian faiths (which represent the views of the majority) hold that El Elyon is one of many titles or descriptions of the "one God" YHWH.

Don't believe what you read on sites like Biblioteca Pleiades or those that quote it. It is a woo-woo site with low standards of documentary and academic integrity.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's not what I believe, im well aware of Canaan is the source of El Elyon. Then you got Deuteronomy which proves Yahweh was originally a son of El. No brainer.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not what I believe, im well aware of Canaan is the source of El Elyon. Then you got Deuteronomy which proves Yahweh was originally a son of El. No brainer.

Please tell me where in Deuteronomy it says that El was the father of YHWH (and don't quote Deut 32: 7-8 from the King James Version which mistranslates "ben Israel" (children of Israel) as "the sons of God").

a reply to: chr0naut

Read the op its right there. You see, many bibles have translations that obscure that passage beyond recognition, which is like the smoking gun because why would they do it other than to hide the truth. So if your bible doesn't say that get a new bible your reading a deliberately mistranslated edition.