It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Yahweh really the prime creator?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by bogomil

Two interesting websites concerning Melchizedek, who is also mentioned in the Second Book of Enoch
This will all be worth studying …

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:05 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by semperfortis]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:06 AM

Additions from other apocrypha:
In the Hypostasis of the Archons [18] is written that Yaldabaoth said: “‘It is I who am God; there is none apart from me.’ When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to Incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from Incorruptibility, saying, ‘You are mistaken, Samael’” Samael is another name of Yaldabaoth that means “god of the blind”. He is blind to all that is above him. Also here the archons wanted to “defile” Eve. It was forbidden to Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Therefore the female spiritual principle came as a teacher in the shape of a snake and said: “…it was out of jealousy that he said this to you. Rather your eyes shall open and you shall come to be like gods.” They ate and recognized that they were naked, but not in the sense of being unclothed, but “naked of the spiritual element”, i.e., they discovered that a spiritual element was missing. Also in this text it seems that possible Cain was the result of the “defilation” of Eve by the archons, but not Abel. Is that supposed to explain the difference between them?
In The Apocalypse of Adam [19] is written that Adam said to his son Seth: “Then the God who created us, created a son from himself and Eve, your mother.” Similarly as above.
In The Origin of the World [20] is written that the blood of the female principle Pronoia (Barbelo) flowed like light into the world. Out of this blood Eros arose, and with him the “pleasure of the flesh”. Here, too, the archons “cast their seed” upon Eve, and out of the seed of the first archon (Yaldabaoth) Abel was born.

17. (in German), in English and

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by semperfortis]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:30 AM
reply to post by memyself

Not a bad lay out of what many have thought about for years and years.

Wanted to add some things, but first wanted to bring some clarity.

Its very easy to assume 2 different words are the same thing if a root word is similar ect. I would caution you to not take leaps in these assumptions. Not saying there cant be a connection between some words (of different languages mind you) but you stated something that is not a fact (or proven fact).

You stated that El had 70 sons (some say 72) and that 1 of those sons was Yahweh. The word Yahweh is not use in the Canaan language in the stories of El and his sons. There was a son named 'ya' but one should be careful to fully say this son was Yahweh. Sure I have wondered the same thing, is this son 'ya' where the 'yahweh' had his beginning. Maybe...but you cant say for sure that El had a son named Yahweh. There is no text that supports the full name Yahweh in the land of Canaan as a son of El.

Using sources like Wiki will lead one to not know that the word 'ya/yah' is as close as we get for saying El (the Bull God of Canaan) has a son with a name that does has one of the roots for Yahweh.

What I see with all the beliefs of those lands, is not so much facts to go on that these deities and creators were real....but the words that are used really explains a 'understanding' of man that 'evolves' through time, through gaining knowledge in other lands, and combining different histories together to end up with one final book explaining bits and pieces of the history of man and mans beliefs amongst many lands.

Melchizedek does seem to be a important figure, and does seem to be connected to tying El and Yahweh together as 'one god'. Some like to say then, that Melchizedek is Jesus. Again , this would be a great leap in faith.

What you may find really interesting though is in the OT there is a scripture that talks about 'El' giving 'Yahweh' HIS inheritance....which IS Israel. I think this is one of the most important things in the OT. IF El and Yahweh are one and the same.....WHY does EL give Yahweh....a inheritance? Inheritances are passed on to children....father to son. Something else of Interests in the Canaan God 'El's' stories is that Bal was a son of El. You see Yahweh and Bal constantly at battle against eachother in the OT....Bal's followers and Yahweh's followers were against eachother..and eventually we see Yahweh (at least in the Bible) have more power over Bal. Note though....Its not ever 'El' who has the problem with Bal...its Yahweh. Yahweh is also the one that 'IS A JEALOUS GOD'.....Why would a ALMIGHTY ABOVE ALL jealous over another deity? If there are no other gods.....and Yahweh is 'the most high'.....why would he be jealous over something trying to 'be god'? Makes no sense. Then in the NT Jesus teaches God is love and love is not Jealous? Makes one wonder.

And one more note you might find interesting since you were working on the verse about 'created' in the Bible.

The word used for 'created' in the Hebrew Bible is 'bara'. 'Bara' in Hebrew does not represent created as in 'something came from nothing' Bara in Hebrew means more along the lines of 'filling/fattening'. One could actually say 'The Gods filled and fattened the heavens and the earths'.

Even though there are many threads based on these ideas, I dont think there can really be enough of them. I think there are many people that just dont question what they accept as a religion or belief, I dont think they are really serious in learning the evolving of their 'religion' to see where it came from. ALL of the practices and rituals in the OT are from a former land, they are nothing new, nothing special.

I see one cultures 'beliefs/understandings' emanating into another cultures 'beliefs/understandings' and again and again....emanating, flowing from a former into a new, and again, from that former, into a new. I think most of it represents allegorical meanings, man trying to understand the mysteries of the world around them.

My best

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:56 AM

Yahweh is a false god

..but so are all the other deities presented in the religions we know.

You can gather this from the fact that the ancient religions present the wrong shape of our planet in their texts and explain all the natural phenomena, like thunder & lightning, and the movement of the celestial bodies, including sun and the moon all wrong ..the abrahamic religions have all this all wrong and so it is in the Hindu/Veda religions also.

There are also many human –life cycle models presented ..some cultures believe ‘re-incarnation’ exists, some believe we only live once on this “physical dimension”, some believed it is only the royalty who get to go to the ‘after life’

..if the ancient humanity would have been shown by the True Creator how the universe and even our solar system and home planet is shaped, I’m sure it would have been accurate and not like it was all made up by a human.
If humanity would have talked to the real God/Creator, I’m sure the human-life cycle models would be more consistent to each other ..but they vary quite abit from culture to culture, like the ‘cosmography’ or the believes on the shape of our cosmos and planet does also.

There exists a Creator to all of this, but all the religions present a false god(s) ..there also exists a ‘spirit world’ that communicates to humans, but that seems to be “only” the human-spirit world, the one where we find ourselves after “physical death” ..but it seems to exist on this same planet Earth, so the cosmos seems to be multi-dimensional.

I believe the religious scriptures were “channeled” or received from the ‘spirit world’, but it was only the human-spirit world that “dictated” and gave this information to “physical” humans. I believe it was human-spirits only for the reason all the natural phenomena and celestial movement (extra-planetary information) is all wrong in all the scriptures ..even the most basic fact as the shape of our home planet, so if these spirit would live some where else than on this planet ( say in the sun as some cultures believed), then they would have known the planet is a sphere shaped and not a flat disc like it is many times presented in many scriptures ..see what I mean with all this.

so in short ..No, Yahweh is not the creator of this planet, or even a real entity, but only a character that humans (or spirit-humans) made up.


posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by cee420

Hi there

I like how you worded some things...

there also exists a ‘spirit world’ that communicates to humans, but that seems to be “only” the human-spirit world, the one where we find ourselves after “physical death” ..but it seems to exist on this same planet Earth, so the cosmos seems to be multi-dimensional.

I have witnessed one NDE and it does seem that there is a very Earthly plain that one dwells in at first, having all the themes of culture that Earth has. It seemed at least through this NDE that there were what I can only call 'portholes' and it seemed that there was always a guide taking the person from one dimension to the next. The highest dimension this particular person experience was 'a rive to cross' and then ' a gate' and it was their choice to 'walk through' the gate or not.

I believe the religious scriptures were “channeled” or received from the ‘spirit world’, but it was only the human-spirit world that “dictated” and gave this information to “physical” humans.

This would explain why the 'gods' were so human like. Needing Earthly things to be god and claim a people (at least the yahweh that this thread speaks of). Even to the final part of the Bible where a 'man' is 'god'. But this again, was not new idea to mankind, for a 'god to be man'. We have Egypt pharaohs as 'gods' we have many stories from other cultures of 'gods' giving birth to 'half man half gods' there for making them 'higher then' regular men. I find it ironic that as much as the NT speaks of knowing the difference between things of flesh and things of Spirit, it makes a man god.

But....I do think all of these stories and faiths are very important to mankind. It shows us many many archetypes, of humans. It shows us trying to evolve as a thing of flesh, to a thing of Spirit. As we are on this long path of emanating ourselves, we must learn everything there is to learn from Earth, from the flesh, even our most deepest possible ideologies about our archetypes.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by memyself

Nice copy and paste, friend. How about posting a link? Here, I'll do it for you.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by autowrench

Nice catch there auto

Here was one of the things I thought was from the OP's own wording and thinking was this...

Recent discoveries of ancient texts and inscriptions [2] show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god ’El ’Elyon (the sign ’ is in transliterations used for the Hebrew letter ’aleph and ‘ for the letter ‘ayin), who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort ’Asherah, i.e., a goddess.

Then I blamed Wiki

Now I see other sites are taking one the use of 'Yahweh' the 70 sons of the 'El' Canaan God...when the word Yahweh is not ever found there. Its a jumping assumption being made on the net that 'yahweh' was a son of 'El' outside of Biblical texts, that 'yahweh' is found to be one of the 70 sons of El and his consort.

Now saying that this does not have some truth, in that we see man emanating former gods to new ones, through different changes of cultures ane histories....which could even be where the wording in the Bible 'sons of god' comes from....I do think that there is some deep Canaan ties to the Hebrew 'beliefs' with the root word 'yah' in Hebrew to the word 'Ya' as a son of El in Canaan. Hence the inheritance in the OT between Yahweh and El.

But to say out right without text calling the full name of 'yahweh' as one of the sons of El in Canaan's beliefs is a leap, not a fact.

Stressing though there defiantly could be a link between them. Its important I find to stress that the sons of El in Canaan does not have the name 'yahweh' on the list. A root word of yahweh, yes...which is the ya.

Again, nice catch...I guess this was not the OP pure opinion then

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by memyself

Well, what you cannot bear will interest many others ... so that will be your problem.

How will it be my problem? This is your thread. Your blood pressure.
Instead of "interest", though I think it is an interesting topic myself, a better word here might be "instigate" or "inflame"...and then I'm afraid it will be your problem.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by autowrench

Well, regardless of this being a copy and paste, it's still a fascinating topic. I see some parallels between some talking points in this discussion with some things I have recently read and am TRYING my best to understand about a *new* scientific perspective on the nature of the universe, namely that it is holographic in nature. Or at least the part in which our awareness dwells is a holographic construct. I'm unfortunately neither well versed in religion or science enough to hold up my end of a discussion on these subjects. I'm purely a creature of intuition and strange life experiences that leave me mystified. I'm at my best remaining largely silent and reading what others who are better educated than I am have to say.

*New* new as in new to me.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by SheeplFlavoredAgain]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by memyself

Im confused. Your thread topic implies out of many other "creators" (whom according to your statement obviously must have created other things) that Yaweh is the PRIME or primary creator(out of all the others).

Perhaps you should have stated is he the one and only, or original, or lone creator. Not the primary one of many others. "Out of" all the others maybe, but the PRIME one?

And while informative, I do see some tend to ramble at lengths as tho trying to convince the readers to their point(s) of view.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:00 PM
Comments to a few posts above:

“For God's (yhwh) portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.’ This passage appears to identify Elyon with Elohim, but not necessarily with God. It can be read to mean that Elyon separated mankind into 70 nations according to his 70 sons (the 70 sons of El being mentioned in the Ugaritic texts), each of these sons to be the tutelary god over one of the 70 nations, one of them being the God of Israel, Yahweh. Alternatively, it may mean that Elyon, having given the other nations to his sons, now takes Israel for himself under his name of God. Both interpretations have supporters.” []

"'I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah' (or perhaps '... by YHVH our guardian and His Asherah', if 'Shomron' is to be read 'shomrenu'). Another inscription, from Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: 'Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!'" []

I may further refer to this excellent collection of contributions to a scientific colloquium about the history of religions held in Freiburg (Switzerland) in 1993:
Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte [“One God alone? YHWH Worship and Biblical Monotheism in the Context of the Israelite and Ancient Oriental History of Religion”], 13th Colloquium of the Swiss Academy of Spiritual and Social Studies, ed. by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, Universitätsverlag, Freiburg (Switzerland), 1994 – several contributions are in English

“Bara … (1) to cut, to carve out, to form by cutting …(2) to create, produce … (3) to beget …(4) to eat, to feed, to grow fat” [Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, transl. by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, W.M. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, no year – preface dated 1846]

So my identity has been revealed by a link … see for direct access.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by mysterioustranger

My thread shows evidence that Yahweh is NOT the prime creator. The prime creator may be called El Elyon, Apsu/Tiamat, Bereshijt or what have you - depending upon the mythology (and the name it uses). But all mythologies will in the parts in which they are true converge to one and the same.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:35 PM
Isn't this really ridiculous!
I only now discovered that due to new unbelievable rules in the US which forbid the use of "dirty" words Bereshijt was replaced by Bere#!!! So I had to insert the "j" to have it accepted!!! And then I discovered that this happened in some of my earlier posts, too... What a sh-t...

So wherever you read Bere#, know that what is meant is Bereshijt without the "j". (Actually, as explained in one post above, the spelling with a "j" is also a valid transliteration.)

I wonder when Microsoft will revise the spell checkers in the same manner...

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:08 PM
I would like to note that I am posting this for all to see rather than for any individual, memyself included.

memyself, I commend you for a rather unbiased and unreserved analysis and release of your information.

In particular, your first post's analysis of the first sentence of the Bible was impressive.

I would like to see your mind jogged and skills of analysis put to use by offering you the following spark if you will. I would like to know what you and others like you have to say about this conclusion, ending from the beginning.

The last paragraph of your first post speaks of a peculiarity in the sentence. Consider that beautiful things may have multifacted meanings. Consider the difference of our perception of time, and the difference between "in the beginning" and "in a beginning." What if someone told you that the first sentence of the Bible refers to an event that occurred quite recently. That the "first one" and his/her creation actually occurred recently. Considering the perception of time, and the flaws thereof, how much more appropriate would it be to refer to this event as "a beginning" rather than "the beginning"?

And now, how much sense would it make if the ancient civilizations knew that they were speaking of an event that was yet to come? Not just stopping at the text's they wrote, but also considering what you know about their perceptions of time and the world.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by metalore]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:36 PM
All one has to come to conclusion that the sumerian culture is not the first, and what ever existed, atlantis and lemuria were before sumeria. What ever created us was there before. There is evidence to support the claim that humans walk the earth long before the summerian culture, there are remains in eastern europe that sugest that as well as africa that are older than sumerian findings. These are not our creators.

The oldest modern human remains in Europe were discovered in the "Cave With Bones" in present day Romania.[18] The remains are approximately 42,000 years old and as Europe’s oldest remains of Homo sapiens.

The researchers dated mineral crystals in volcanic ash layers above and below layers of river sediments that contain the early human bones. They conclude the fossils are much older than a 104,000-year-old volcanic layer and very close in age to a 196,000-year-old layer, says Brown.

"These are the oldest well-dated fossils of modern humans (Homo sapiens) currently known anywhere in the world," the scientists say in a summary of the study.

Old Sumerian Period (c. 3000 BC - c. 2340 BC)
So how can this be the oldest and the starting point ?
This aliens that came are not our creators, something happened along the way and we got wiped out.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:19 AM
To metalore:
Thanks for your post and good words. My understanding is that “bereshijt” refers to “The First One” and not to a/the “beginning”. Of course, we don’t understand time properly, but if “a” creation is recent: how recent? It suppose that it would have been more than 2 millennia ago… and how come that the world then has become so much worse (as it seems) after that? Wars, bloodshed, power struggles, misleading and abusing people, inquisition, terror etc. etc.? A kind of backward “creation”? It seems difficult to get something positive for humanity out of it, unless the new creation is yet to come at or after 2012… Even though we don’t understand time properly, that doesn’t mean that there is no time (as some want to suggest) nor that there is no “before” and “after”, no causality, no cause and effect along a time scale that will probably be there even if it isn’t exactly the way we understand it now.

To pepsi78:
The Sumerian texts are about the first written records we have, but they may very well reflect what they knew about earlier events and the history of peoples who were there before them. That is all we have to go with.

Everything else about time and still earlier civilizations can at present only be speculation.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:31 AM
From what I understand, according to the Christian Gnostics, the "prime creator" is beyond definition and comprehension. As you would imagine any trans-conscious entity existing outside time and in a multitude of dimensions. Actually, you can't imagine it, which is the whole point.

And that's why it's foolish to pray to it or try to deal with it on any level, and why rather than spend a lot of useless energy focusing on something incomprehensible to begin with, it makes more sense to concentrate on existence as it is (a horror, likely to end badly) and try to make it as pleasant as possible while we're here. Be nice to people. Don't try to screw other people over. Don't make it worse than it already is.

It's the only kind of "Christianity" that makes any sense to me at all, even without the whole deity thing thrown in on top.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by Blue Shift

The Christian Gnosticism is NOT the Church but is a form of Christian Kabbalah. As described in one of my posts, the Church was formed to replace the true Christ with a fake one in order to establish and maintain power over people. Of course we can not really understand creation and its prime creator, but since that is from where we come, we try as well as we can to understand a bit of it, as little as it may be.

The miserable condition of this planet to day is to a large extent the result of abusing religions as power tools to control us and telling us lies about ourselves and our origin. So isn’t it worth while to try the best we can to find a bit of the truth they want to conceal for us?

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:25 AM
Yahweh is the creator of physical reality. But you are right, he did not create himself, and he existed aswell as did other dieties before he took over. He learned how to create physical reality from the choas realms, and eventually became supreme Godhead.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by xynephadyn]

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in