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.

 

Deuteronomy 32:8 Yahweh a Son of God (The Most High)

page: 24
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Monotheism didn't emerge until Rabbinical Judaism after Babylon and before Greece. That's even supported by the many lapses into apostasy recorded in the Bible. The very concept of Monotheism was taught them by the Mazdayaznians(Persian Zoroastrians).

All hints of polytheism were edited out. They didn't do a good job though, as one can find a Bible like the revolutionary 1966 Jerusalem Bible and read it. It even admits as much, as well as the many similarities between Mesopotamian myths and Biblical supposed history. But a crap bible like the NIV or KJV will leave you in the dark about everything.




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
...
The myth of a monotheistic Israel has been disproven by the facts of archeological excavations that prove El is a Canaanite deity....


Melchizedek's teaching of El Elyon: around 2000 BC
Abraham picks it up, goes to Canaan's land.
Canaanite Ugaritic texts about El: around 1500 BC

Common sense proves that Melchizedek's teaching (and hence Biblical teaching) about El predates Canaanite teachings.
In addition, we know that Israelites were monotheistic and are monotheistic to this day. I suggest you actually read the Hebrew Bible instead of spewing claims not supported with any evidence.
edit on 23-3-2016 by ilstar because: grammar



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ilstar

originally posted by: Mazzini
...
The myth of a monotheistic Israel has been disproven by the facts of archeological excavations that prove El is a Canaanite deity....


Melchizedek's teaching of El Elyon: around 2000 BC
Abraham picks it up, goes to Canaan's land.
Canaanite Ugaritic texts about El: around 1500 BC

Common sense proves that Melchizedek's teaching (and hence Biblical teaching) about El predates Canaanite teachings.
In addition, we know that Israelites were monotheistic and are monotheistic to this day. I suggest you actually read the Hebrew Bible instead of spewing claims unsupported by any evidence.


You totally ignore the FACT that Deuteronomy has Yahweh as a Son of El Elyon.

That's not monotheistic at all.

Or using common sense.

The ancient middle east was Henotheistic. Israel had one god while other regions had their own god. Israel believed in the existence of other nations gods. That's recorded in the Bible.

Those gods BECAME idols at the onset of Monotheism, but the ancient Israelites fully believed in the different gods of the other nations. Baal, Marduk, Ishtar were, to the ancient Israelites, real gods. They didn't worship them but they believed in their existence.

You only have to read the Bible to see this.

Yahweh being named as a Son of El Elyon and the subsequent obscuring of the passage that proves it is just icing on the cake.

And you are in denial, believing in a fictional history and I could not care less because I am happy to just not being one of the sheeple.

I have proven my case but I know the difference between proving something and convincing someone and you are one who refuses to be convinced because it is contrary to your formed opinion.

As long as I know the truth, it's all good. Idon't want to oppose your right to believe the moon is made of cheese.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Mazzini

So what you are showing is that before, ignoring Melchizedek's teaching, there was polytheism. And out of this polytheism, thanks for Melchizedek's teaching, sprang monotheism. Why do you keep looking in reverse? And why do you think that by stating the same claim under different accounts it should make it into a truth in the minds of others? It doesn't. We are past this kind of Nazi propaganda stuff. A lie that there is no monotheism ad infinitum is still a lie that there is no monotheism. In case you are struggling with understanding monotheism, I suggest studying the New Testament. Did you know that Jesus Christ brought a better monotheist teaching to the monotheist Jews?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

I said exactly what I said and nothing more or less. It isn't hard to understand if you drop the holier than thow belief that religion is perfect. It isn't. It is a product of humanity and naturally corrupt.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
...
And you are in denial, believing in a fictional history and I could not care less because I am happy to just not being one of the sheeple.

I have proven my case but I know the difference between proving something and convincing someone and you are one who refuses to be convinced because it is contrary to your formed opinion.

As long as I know the truth, it's all good. Idon't want to oppose your right to believe the moon is made of cheese.


The problem between you and me is that you accept primitive imagination of pagan polytheists, and I accept Melchizedek's and similar Christian teaching. Did you know that your thought exactly reflects those Canaanites who could only think in terms of fantastical stories to help them understand something they called "god"? Would you rather like to discuss science than your Canaanite fantasy? Don't underestimate my knowledge, unless you are lying to make it seem like I am more stupid than you are.

Anyway, by completely ignoring Melchizedek and Jesus Christ, you won't get anywhere with me, except by making me point out your own inadequacies. Using your flaky psychological projection on me is fun, heh? Except you need to wake up to the fact that we live in the 21st century, when people are smarter than mere "sheeple", as you paint them, and now they have many convenient tools to access knowledge in order to resist accepting your fixation upon Yahweh being a son of God or whatever. Did you know that there is the Internet and people don't really care about others' gods as much as they did before? Jews have one, so do Muslims, so do Christians, so do Canaanites and you, their dear friend. Big deal.

It's useless pointing out self-evident and obvious truths to someone with a hidden agenda like you. So let's see how you can spin your tale in other directions. Do you think The Book of Enoch is more ancient than Zoroastrianism? I am wondering whether you can prove that the Ancient of Days, as he was described there, is more concrete and hence different from "Boundless Time".



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

You see, the difference between us is you assume that the bible, which I have read cover to cover more than once and read every day of my life, is without flaw and a perfect record of the history of God.

Factually honestly intellectually that is not the case. It is an edited collection of priestly, Yahwistic, Elohistic and deuteronomistic tradition. That's just the Pentateuch.

You have prophetic and apocalyptic and Messianic prophetic traditions and they are combined as if it is one.

I suggest, if you REALLY want to learn the Bible, the only Bible that will tell you all this is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. You will have to pay for it, about 70 dollars and it's rare but I have two because I had a beat up one and I wanted a mint condition one, and I bought it.

The Oxford annotated bible is the next best.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

Ancient of Days is the Jewish version of Boundless Time.

It's a result of the Persian and Jewish mingling of religion after the captivity.




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar
If you are throwing out insults than I would say you have an agenda and Zoroastrianism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion in the world.

I love the Book of Enoch but it's irrelevant to the topic and dates to about 200B.C. Zoroastrianism is way older

I see what type of person you are. I don't agree with you so I have an agenda? What kind of crap is that?

You are trying to appear more knowledgeable than you are and it's obvious (at least to me) that you have an agenda to follow the official version of religious history.

I prefer the truth. To each their their own.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mazzini

It seems you care more about the Bible than I am. I've read the book once and moved on to other and more interesting and complex books. The Bible is like arithmetic and something like The Urantia Book is calculus in comparison. To those who are fixated on the Bible, this analogy won't make sense, since they simply ignore anything that is more complex than arithmetic.

I care not about versions or editions of Bibles, since, as you correctly stated, they are all man-made with semantic variances. They don't nearly reflect the heart-teachings of Melchizedek and Jesus Christ but with only one exception: the Gospel of John. That and his Revelation are the best parts of the Bible worth discussing. And even then they are not enough compared to what Melchizedek and Christ truly preached, but it's not all in the books. We learn as we evolve, just as all religious texts are evolutionary revelations, to borrow Urantia's term.

Concerning your quips about Ancient of Days and Boundless Time, I'd like you to provide solid sources. Or even, just a source. Otherwise, this is all seemingly coming from a black box, and, frankly, I don't know enough about religious concepts to simply critique an unidentified idea.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar
If you are throwing out insults than I would say you have an agenda and Zoroastrianism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion in the world.

I love the Book of Enoch but it's irrelevant to the topic and dates to about 200B.C. Zoroastrianism is way older

I see what type of person you are. I don't agree with you so I have an agenda? What kind of crap is that?

You are trying to appear more knowledgeable than you are and it's obvious (at least to me) that you have an agenda to follow the official version of religious history.

I prefer the truth. To each their their own.


The later found editions of The Book of Enoch are from 200BC. However, the full range of texts is 2800-200 BC ("Introduction"). Zoroastrianism of Zarathustra is from 600BC. The older version is from around 1500BC (or 3500 years old). So, to take the earliest and latest of the two, we have:
The Book of Enoch: 2800 BC -- 200 BC
Zoroastrianism: 1500 BC -- 600 BC

If you believe that Melchizedek was Shem, then you should believe that Enoch was even older, hence make him much older than Zoroastrianism.

Concerning my "agenda," if it can be termed so, it is purely for research and debate. The research part I stated in my first post on this thread, and the debate part should be obvious from my activity here.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar


You can Google and post whatever you want but I already know what you are saying is garbage. You have a desire for knowledge, that is good. But you let it morph into pride making you incapable of believing anybody but yourself.

I have no desire to communicate with someone who knows everything. Good luck



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

Nobody with any sense believes the Book of Enoch was actually written by Enoch.

It was only accepted as a communicated writing, never did anyone believe it was written by the hand of Enoch. If it was it would be in the Tanakh but it is only canonized by the Ethiopian church.

Now you are just talking foolish.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar


You can Google and post whatever you want but I already know what you are saying is garbage. You have a desire for knowledge, that is good. But you let it morph into pride making you incapable of believing anybody but yourself.

I have no desire to communicate with someone who knows everything. Good luck


So you are looking for "sheeple" who need no sense other than to trust your word?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ilstar

Nobody with any sense believes the Book of Enoch was actually written by Enoch.

It was only accepted as a communicated writing, never did anyone believe it was written by the hand of Enoch. If it was it would be in the Tanakh but it is only canonized by the Ethiopian church.

Now you are just talking foolish.


I don't care who wrote The Book of Enoch. I stand by the dates given to it by researchers.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

book of Enoch is no older than 200 bc



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonbet
a reply to: ilstar

book of Enoch is no older than 200 bc


Who told you that?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

Who told me is not important. What is important is that is pseudepigraphal and not written by Enoch.

But it's a valuable work nonetheless.

That is what all the scholars I have ever heard about say. It was written by hellenized Jews in Greek, and among the Dead Sea Scrolls in I don't know what language. Those are the oldest copies and date 200 BC - 70 AD roughly.

The other versions were from Ethiopia and are not as old.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ilstar
Don't take my word for it here is one link but all pretty much agree on the date.

Enoch
edit on 24-3-2016 by Jonbet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ilstar

I was just looking over some of your comments and then you mentioned the Urantia book. That is not a legitimate biblical text and nothing in it is reliable at all. If you are going to read books like that you should do it for fun. There is no truth to it regarding ancient religions. It might be one of the reasons you are so angry, someone probably cast a spell in it and you picked it up while reading it. Most people can tolerate disagreement but your comments show a hostility to those who disagree with you.

And you also act as though everything you say is fact beyond dispute. I am not trying to pick on you just a little advice. You won't be taken seriously if you bring up the urantia book in a biblical discussion and argue things that are not close to the truth. Melchizedek didn't teach anything in Bible, he is a brief mention. So there is no possible way you are following his teachings. He is dead. Jewish tradition is that Shem is Melchizedek, and he is definitely dead.

Enoch is not as old as you state and there was a time when Yahweh was seen as a Son of El. These aren't guesses or opinions, but documented historical facts.

It's actually been known to scholars for quite some time.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join