the god of the bible is an evil god

Originally posted by dr goodrich
you guys have forgotten the most important EL in the O.T.
EL o him.
yes boys and girls, that's plural for yaweh. congratulations! you are both right!

What I find interesting about Elohim, is that it is likely the plural of Eloah.

Elohim is a masculine plural.
Eloah is a feminine singular.



Edit: I clicked on Evilbible.com and read their list of contents, their derogatory use of a word to describe a person with special needs placed their credibility level someplace below 0% for me. So I fear I couldn't read anything they had to say and take them seriously. So, I didn't.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by dbrandt
In one of bad kitty's posts she mentioned that the oldest gospel was written in 70 AD and that was 708 years after Christ's death and resurrection. Without getting into a debate about that the calender could be off about 4 years, how does 70AD minus 33 AD equal 708 yrs. It's only 37 years.

dbrandt - First, the "708" was a typo - it should have been merely 70. (note the 7 is directly next to the 8 on your keyborad?) However, you are correct in that 70AD does not equate to 70 years after the death of Jesus (if the biblical recounting is accurate) - it is equivalent to roughly 37 years after his death. But even still - could you imagine any world leader that believed they had a purpose not writing a single thing in their life about their mission or even having his associates write of him while he was alive or at minimum immediately after his death? I can't. Just about every political, scientific, philisophical and even religious leader that has ever lived has documented their thoughts, ideas and teachings because they wanted to accurately portray them to the world through history. So how much more important would it be for the messiah to document his words? Why would he not do this?

Originally posted by badkitty
But even still - could you imagine any world leader that believed they had a purpose not writing a single thing in their life about their mission or even having his associates write of him while he was alive or at minimum immediately after his death? I can't. Just about every political, scientific, philisophical and even religious leader that has ever lived has documented their thoughts, ideas and teachings because they wanted to accurately portray them to the world through history. So how much more important would it be for the messiah to document his words? Why would he not do this?

Jesus spent his time on earth teaching. Afterwards, his disciples went out and taught as well. Who did they teach? Everyone willing to listen and learn. They travelled so that they could teach many people. When one travels to teach, one often does not have time to do much else besides travelling and teaching.

Who would learn from written words? Those who could read. Think back to who those people were. The wealthy, and the religious leaders. Would this serve their purpose?

The first writings were the letters written to the churches they had already established. They were written to men who could read and would teach those who could not read what they had learned. These letters were written to reaffirm and clarify what had already been taught.

It was not until the disciples were likely "too old to travel" that they took the time to write down the gospels.

.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I am really suprised they didn't mention the stories found on those tablets. Well. no I'm not as they would date pagan Caanite beliefs 400-600 years after Abraham (depending on who is doing the counting). Any anti-Bible/anti-catholic person can tell you how much of a mess cannonical beliefs can become in 400 years.

Uh. The Tablets might have been written then, but there is lots of evidence that El was worshipped way before Abraham came on the scene.
Saying that the tablets mean that the religion is newer is like buying a brand new Bible and saying that Christianity and Judaism only started in 2004.

As for your assertion that Abraham came from Ur? Yes, but he didn't live there for long. His father took the family to Harran when Abraham was a child and he lived there for 75 years before he got the call from his god. This would mean that he probably spoke Akkadian.

What I find interesting about Elohim, is that it is likely the plural of Eloah.
Elohim is a masculine plural.
Eloah is a feminine singular.

El was married to Ashteroth. The Hebrews may have amalgamated his wife into the concept of their new deity. They did so with his son, Ba'al.


Your assertion that the disciples didn't write things down simply because their followers were illiterate is also probably false. All religions have recorded their historys. Egypt and Sumeria made extensive writings about their faiths and it is likely that the majority of their populations were illiterate too. The writings weren't just teachings - they were records. Why assume that the early Christians were any different. Doesn't the fact that the Old Testament (which is a record of Judiac history) show that this method of preservation was a familiar one to them?

Finally. Although you haven't read my links, it doesn't even look like you've read the ones you've posted yourself.

"There are distinct similarities between this culture and the myriad others that developed at a similar time throughout the ancient near-East; many of these are linked, and were borrowed or evolved from each other. Judaism is one such religion, and though it was a later developer, it still existed concurrently with the Ugaritic religion. No-one is sure as to how much influence the one mythology had on the other, but some similarities between El and Yahweh, and indeed Baal and Yahweh, are too marked to be coincidence."






[edit on 21-7-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
Uh. The Tablets might have been written then, but there is lots of evidence that El was worshipped way before Abraham came on the scene.
Saying that the tablets mean that the religion is newer is like buying a brand new Bible and saying that Christianity and Judaism only started in 2004.

Believe it or not, the Bible also says God was also worshipped long before Abraham came on the scene. In fact, Judiasm teachs that Adam and Eve and Noah were all Hebrew. So the question really is, which "Bob" is this evidence referring to?

The tablets do not prove the religion was older either. In fact, that web page uses it as proof as it did. As they claim "monotheism" started in 700 (and something) BC. They claim the Hebrew language didn't even start until then. While the shape of the letters changed, the language was around long before that.

The link I gave said the religion was potentially older. There was an old joke that teaches the difference between potentially and realistically that ends in a punchline similiar to "potentially we are sitting on 2 million dollars, realistically we are living with a couple of 'ho'es." If you heard the joke, you know what I mean. If you haven't simply put there is a difference between potentially and realistically. And in order to bridge the gap between the two requires more evidence. Evidence that the writers of the article obviously didn't have, thus there use of the term. However, I do allow that religions generally don't "spring up" over night, although some "spring up" faster than others. But this doesn't prove that El (polytheism) existed before El (monotheism). For that matter it doesn't prove the opposite either.

As for your assertion that Abraham came from Ur? Yes, but he didn't live there for long. His father took the family to Harran when Abraham was a child and he lived there for 75 years before he got the call from his god. This would mean that he probably spoke Akkadian.

What was I thinking! All people who move to a new area that speaks a different language automatically discard their old language.

You can't be serious, right? Let's do a reality check.

This would be like saying no one in the US speaks anything other than English.

El was married to Ashteroth. The Hebrews may have amalgamated his wife into the concept of their new deity. They did so with his son, Ba'al.

Or it may have been an attempt to describe God. Male, female, singular, plural. Which is why I find it interesting.

Your assertion that the disciples didn't write things down simply because their followers were illiterate is also probably false. All religions have recorded their historys. Egypt and Sumeria made extensive writings about their faiths and it is likely that the majority of their populations were illiterate too. The writings weren't just teachings - they were records. Why assume that the early Christians were any different. Doesn't the fact that the Old Testament (which is a record of Judiac history) show that this method of preservation was a familiar one to them?

You miss my primary assertion, they were too busy to write them down because they were too busy teaching and travelling to teach. When someone travels for their job, they have little time for anything else. This is true today, and was even more evident 2000 years ago, when travel time was much higher.

Finally. Although you haven't read my links, it doesn't even look like you've read the ones you've posted yourself.

"There are distinct similarities between this culture and the myriad others that developed at a similar time throughout the ancient near-East; many of these are linked, and were borrowed or evolved from each other. Judaism is one such religion, and though it was a later developer, it still existed concurrently with the Ugaritic religion. No-one is sure as to how much influence the one mythology had on the other, but some similarities between El and Yahweh, and indeed Baal and Yahweh, are too marked to be coincidence."

Doesn't "later developer" really depend on perspective. You argue that the Monotheism began with Moses (~1496 BC with a biblical timeline). The existance of the tablets tends to support that the beliefs written on the tablet were existant prior to this date. However, these tablets to not support the beliefs were existant prior to Abraham leaving Haran (~1926 BC with biblical timeline)

"No-one is sure as to how much influence the one mythology had on the other.." I do not dispute this.

What we are really debating here, is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."

Of course, this chicken/egg problem is much easier to solve.

Which came first is asked while considering a chicken and a chicken egg.

Biblically speaking, the chicken came before the first chicken egg.
Scientifically, I have been unable to disprove this answer.

Scientifically, it is safe to say that a chicken came from an egg, but the first chicken egg came after the chicken.

The "proto-chicken" that layed the egg from which the chicken came from did not lay a chicken egg, it layed a proto-chicken egg. We can not be sure of the state the proto-chicken/chicken embryo is in until it is observed. When what is in the egg is finally observed, we know we have a chicken, and thus can call the egg from which it came a "chicken egg". But until the chicken was observed it was a "proto-chicken egg". Thus a chicken egg can not come before the chicken.

Although it could be argued that the embryo existed in both states, both a chicken and a proto chicken until observation. Although I would counter by saying this is rather like taking the modern chicken egg and saying that it was a "duck-chicken egg". Because the egg is layed from a chicken we have no reason to suspect it would produce a duck. Thus saying it was a "duck-chicken egg" is rather silly.

but I digress...

.

Awesome post mutehalo, this is the reason i was attracted to ATS in the first place, "Creative thought", btw i agree with most of everything you stated and have felt this way since i was a wee lad.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Believe it or not, the Bible also says God was also worshipped long before Abraham came on the scene. In fact, Judiasm teachs that Adam and Eve and Noah were all Hebrew. So the question really is, which "Bob" is this evidence referring to?

The Bible says a lot of things, but it is irrelevant where Adam, Eve and Noah are concerned. Did you really expect it to say any different anyway? And what about the old Babylonian texts? The Story of Creation and The Epic of Gilgamesh? These clearly predate the Biblical story and clearly form the foundation on which it was based. Not only that but the Babylonian stories are thought to actually be based on Canaanite literature and they on Sumerian!!! You are making the claim that the first myths were based on Judaism even though they are documented as belonging to and originating with other religions.

The tablets do not prove the religion was older either.

Maybe not. But there is plenty of other evidence that it was. The tablets are only a piece of what was out there. What about engraved pottery and other discovered artifacts? Admittedly, there is not much evidence but that is a sly point to bring up on your behalf. How does something older prove that the younger is false when the younger is in charge of the pen? Physical evidence is all that is available - but it is out there. There is evidence that Canaanite belief was older, but because it is older there was nothing else to document it against. If it were younger, surely Judaism would have pounced on this fact? It certainly wastes no time in the OT pouncing on any discrepancy in all other religions - either real or imagined. I would have thought that by it's very silence on the subject that it can be condemned as being the junior. I believe that the lack of condemnation shows that there is an acknowlegement or a certain respect for one of it's mother religions. Instead of condemning, the pre-Mosaic biblical literature positively revels in the links with Canaanite literature, history and myths. It doesn't contradict them at all.

The link I gave said the religion was potentially older. There was an old joke that teaches the difference between potentially and realistically that ends in a punchline similiar to "potentially we are sitting on 2 million dollars, realistically we are living with a couple of 'ho'es."

That depends on wether you can see humour in the link. I certainly don't see any there. What I do see is a credible assertion based on logic.

What was I thinking! All people who move to a new area that speaks a different language automatically discard their old language.

You can't be serious, right? Let's do a reality check.
This would be like saying no one in the US speaks anything other than English.

Yes, let's do a reality check. Normally when you move to a new country as a small child, the first thing that you do is learn the language. That language becomes your first language. Why? Well, because it is the language that is put into practice for every-day use. The old language never entirely dies out, but it does become secondary. Maybe people in the US do speak their original languages but do they use them as their primary means of communication? No. The vast majority speak English. To suggest otherwise is false. Some may isolate themselves in small communities and try to cling onto their old languages and customs but they are a minority. But in Abraham's case, his father was a businessman. He would have needed the language to be able to trade. You don't make money by isolating yourself and even his career as a maker of idols shows that he immersed himself into Harran's culture. It is more unthinkable to suggest that Abraham would have moved to a town as a young child, speaking a foreign tongue and would not have adapted to the new one. When in Rome........ Not only that, but don't you even wonder how Abraham would have managed to communicate when he left Harran and headed even deeper into Akkadian speaking country?

Or it may have been an attempt to describe God. Male, female, singular, plural. Which is why I find it interesting.

Could have been. Or it could have been a throw back to the polytheism of earlier religions on which Judaism was founded.

You miss my primary assertion, they were too busy to write them down because they were too busy teaching and travelling to teach. When someone travels for their job, they have little time for anything else. This is true today, and was even more evident 2000 years ago, when travel time was much higher.

Not a very good argument there. Even accounting for the poor "I don't have time" excuse and the fact that other religions had travelling teachers who did manage to write their words down, there are major reasons why this argument is flimsy. Judaism and Christianity make claims that even Moses had time to write the first five books of the Bible and he would have been far busier than Christ's disciples. The evidence points to most of the Gospels not even being written by the disciples anyway. It's a common assertion that they are the words of the disciples and not their actual writings. This would mean that they were either dictated or taught to others who put them down. I would imagine that the disciples would have also travelled with an entourage. It also seems unimaginable that amongst them would not have been a scribe.

Doesn't "later developer" really depend on perspective. You argue that the Monotheism began with Moses (~1496 BC with a biblical timeline). The existance of the tablets tends to support that the beliefs written on the tablet were existant prior to this date. However, these tablets to not support the beliefs were existant prior to Abraham leaving Haran (~1926 BC with biblical timeline

My argument is not that monotheism began with Moses. There is some evidence that there was at least one monotheistic cult active in the area before the Jews escaped from Egypt. My argument is that mainstream Judaic monotheism began with Moses. Before this time, at the very least, they would have been henotheistic.
As I have stated - there is other evidence even if you doubt the credibility of the tablets. Canaanite belief was documented prior to that date in Egypt. The Egyptians even amalgamated some of their gods as they were wont to do with other religions.

What we are really debating here, is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."
Of course, this chicken/egg problem is much easier to solve.
Which came first is asked while considering a chicken and a chicken egg.
Scientifically, it is safe to say that a chicken came from an egg, but the first chicken egg came after the chicken.

It might be a chicken and an egg problem to you, but there is evidence out there to solve this problem. I don't find it half as confusing as you seem to. From what I can see, you are claiming that even though the evidence points to Canaanite belief being older and there being absolutely no evidence to the contrary, other than a few passages in the Bible, Judaism is the older of the beliefs. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and state that the undocumented Jewish monotheistic belief did exist before Canaanite belief, it almost certainly did not exist as it is portrayed in the Bible. One could also lay a claim (dubious though it may be) that the early Hebrews founded their older religion on monotheistic beliefs and then forgot them only to return to them later. But in the time in between, they practiced well documented henotheism and polytheism - and in that case, one can't even say that the underlying religion remained pure or even continued to exist. When it was picked up again at a later date, what proof is there that it was reinstated in it's original form?
Even if we make all those stretches of imagination, the evidence points to Hebrew monotheism being, at the very least, a passing fad until Moses came along and consolidated it. Incidentally, a consolidation that was on very shaky foundations as witnessed by the continued worship of other polytheistic religions by his descendants.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Believe it or not, the Bible also says God was also worshipped long before Abraham came on the scene. In fact, Judiasm teachs that Adam and Eve and Noah were all Hebrew. So the question really is, which "Bob" is this evidence referring to?

The Bible says a lot of things, but it is irrelevant where Adam, Eve and Noah are concerned. Did you really expect it to say any different anyway? And what about the old Babylonian texts? The Story of Creation and The Epic of Gilgamesh? These clearly predate the Biblical story and clearly form the foundation on which it was based. Not only that but the Babylonian stories are thought to actually be based on Canaanite literature and they on Sumerian!!! You are making the claim that the first myths were based on Judaism even though they are documented as belonging to and originating with other religions.

The point I was making here, is that the word El carved on in stone dating back to whenever (I can't find verification, but I seem to recall the earliest dating back to ~2200 BC), does not prove if this was talking about the El of Abraham or the El of the canaanites. Without more evidence, such at the stories told in the ugarit tablets, dating further back I do not think you would be able to prove which came first.

The tablets do not prove the religion was older either.

Maybe not. ... Instead of condemning, the pre-Mosaic biblical literature positively revels in the links with Canaanite literature, history and myths. It doesn't contradict them at all.

Belief requires a certain level of evidence. This is different from person to person. My belief in one God was not founded in the words of the bible. But I did study the bible to see if it taught what I knew. And when I saw that it did, I embraced it. Do I believe everything in the bible literally? 6 days? But these things do teach a concept.

It's this concept that I believe will never be disproved. When science has a unified theory of just about everything, I believe when asked "What started all this in motion." The answer will be a shrug.

I believe there are "spritual entities" which were given free will by God and decided not to love God with all their being. Call them "Fallen Angels" if you will, but these things want man to worship them for they believe they as great as God. These things are not God and do not compare. With the same certainty I know God exists, I know these things exist. You can see them for what they are simply by recognizing their pride.

But what I beleive is not what is at issue here.

Just as I do not believe a unified theory of just about everything can explain what set everything in motion. I do not believe archaeology will be able to say "which came first the belief in one god or the belief in many?"

That depends on wether you can see humour in the link. I certainly don't see any there. What I do see is a credible assertion based on logic.

I see humor whenever someone sees the word potentially and considers it to be fact. Based on the arbitrarily large size of the universe, there is a arbitrarily high probability that there is life on at least one other planet other than earth. It could be be said, the universe has the potential to sustain intellegent life on more than one planet.

So does intellegent life exist on other planets? Based on the factual evidence collected thus far, the answer is no. But, there is a high probabilty that answer will change.

Yes, let's do a reality check. Normally when you move to a new country as a small child, the first thing that you do is learn the language. That language becomes your first language. Why? Well, because it is the language that is put into practice for every-day use. The old language never entirely dies out, but it does become secondary. Maybe people in the US do speak their original languages but do they use them as their primary means of communication? No. The vast majority speak English. To suggest otherwise is false. Some may isolate themselves in small communities and try to cling onto their old languages and customs but they are a minority. But in Abraham's case, his father was a businessman. He would have needed the language to be able to trade. You don't make money by isolating yourself and even his career as a maker of idols shows that he immersed himself into Harran's culture. It is more unthinkable to suggest that Abraham would have moved to a town as a young child, speaking a foreign tongue and would not have adapted to the new one. When in Rome........ Not only that, but don't you even wonder how Abraham would have managed to communicate when he left Harran and headed even deeper into Akkadian speaking country?

Simply, I pointed this out to state that even though Abraham likely learned semitic (Akkadian), he was likely bi-lingual. As he was likely taught the language of his father. Just like the children in the US. Just compare this to the US. It takes more than one generation being born in a country to eraticate the language spoken by that family.

Or it may have been an attempt to describe God. Male, female, singular, plural. Which is why I find it interesting.

Could have been. Or it could have been a throw back to the polytheism of earlier religions on which Judaism was founded.

... on which Judaism was "allegedly" founded.

Not a very good argument there. Even accounting for the poor "I don't have time" excuse and the fact that other religions had travelling teachers who did manage to write their words down, there are major reasons why this argument is flimsy. Judaism and Christianity make claims that even Moses had time to write the first five books of the Bible and he would have been far busier than Christ's disciples. The evidence points to most of the Gospels not even being written by the disciples anyway. It's a common assertion that they are the words of the disciples and not their actual writings. This would mean that they were either dictated or taught to others who put them down. I would imagine that the disciples would have also travelled with an entourage. It also seems unimaginable that amongst them would not have been a scribe.

Actually, it is not that unreasonable. However, it is completely possible what you say is true. Perhaps there was a scribe, and when they had time to "edit" the notes, they wrote the Gospels. Perhaps some archaeologist will find some hidden cache of writings by one of the authors of the Gospels. I doubt anything will turn my world on end. Although the faith of others may be shaken.

My argument is not that monotheism began with Moses. There is some evidence that there was at least one monotheistic cult active in the area before the Jews escaped from Egypt. My argument is that mainstream Judaic monotheism began with Moses. Before this time, at the very least, they would have been henotheistic.

I went to quote what I had written in the other thread, and saw that you had already read it, so I wont bother repeating.

Honestly, the definition of Henotheism and what I believe was the actual belief is a fine line. As man describes "objects of worship" as "god".

As I have stated - there is other evidence even if you doubt the credibility of the tablets. Canaanite belief was documented prior to that date in Egypt. The Egyptians even amalgamated some of their gods as they were wont to do with other religions.

I believe the tablets are real. I believe people believed what was on the tablets. What I dispute is that this is proof Judaism was based on those beliefs.

What we are really debating here, is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."
Of course, this chicken/egg problem is much easier to solve.
Which came first is asked while considering a chicken and a chicken egg.
Scientifically, it is safe to say that a chicken came from an egg, but the first chicken egg came after the chicken.

It might be a chicken and an egg problem to you, but there is evidence out there to solve this problem. I don't find it half as confusing as you seem to. From what I can see, you are claiming that even though the evidence points to Canaanite belief being older and there being absolutely no evidence to the contrary, other than a few passages in the Bible, Judaism is the older of the beliefs. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and state that the undocumented Jewish monotheistic belief did exist before Canaanite belief, it almost certainly did not exist as it is portrayed in the Bible. One could also lay a claim (dubious though it may be) that the early Hebrews founded their older religion on monotheistic beliefs and then forgot them only to return to them later. But in the time in between, they practiced well documented henotheism and polytheism - and in that case, one can't even say that the underlying religion remained pure or even continued to exist. When it was picked up again at a later date, what proof is there that it was reinstated in it's original form?
Even if we make all those stretches of imagination, the evidence points to Hebrew monotheism being, at the very least, a passing fad until Moses came along and consolidated it. Incidentally, a consolidation that was on very shaky foundations as witnessed by the continued worship of other polytheistic religions by his descendants.

For me they are not stretches in imagination, for I do no imagine God is real. It is the one thing I know. Nothing anyone can say will convince me other wise. What can I say? I have seen enough proof on that subject for me.

I will not deny that the Hebrew people went through periods of time they were not faithful to God. During this time period, I see no reason why this lack of faith couldn't be worshipping other "gods".

You ask "what proof is there that it was reinstated in it's original form?" I offer no proof. However, if you accept the possibility that there is one God. Then it would not be a far stretch to accept the possibility of revelation from that one God.

.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

well god being evil is a gnostic text, so you should bring others in to.Gnostics believe people get out of hell eventually.They also believe that When jesus was crucified his spirit left the cross and began to mock the crusifixers(is that a word?).and finally they believed Jesus spent a short time in hell.almost forgot they showed more respect to jesus's women disciple instead of calling her a whore like other religions.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by badkitty
But even still - could you imagine any world leader that believed they had a purpose not writing a single thing in their life about their mission or even having his associates write of him while he was alive or at minimum immediately after his death? I can't. Just about every political, scientific, philisophical and even religious leader that has ever lived has documented their thoughts, ideas and teachings because they wanted to accurately portray them to the world through history. So how much more important would it be for the messiah to document his words? Why would he not do this?

Jesus spent his time on earth teaching. Afterwards, his disciples went out and taught as well. Who did they teach? Everyone willing to listen and learn. They travelled so that they could teach many people. When one travels to teach, one often does not have time to do much else besides travelling and teaching.
Even the messiah? Shouldn't he have known that not documenting his teachings would lead to confusion, debate and error?


Who would learn from written words? Those who could read. Think back to who those people were. The wealthy, and the religious leaders. Would this serve their purpose?

What purpose is only for the poor when it comes to salvation? Why would writing things down not help their purpose?

The first writings were the letters written to the churches they had already established. They were written to men who could read and would teach those who could not read what they had learned. These letters were written to reaffirm and clarify what had already been taught.

Much of the letters to the curches were corrections. To my point above - why leave things to confusion? Why leave it to desciples (and Paul who wrote a great deal didn't even know Jesus) to clarify things later? Surely God is wiser than that.

It was not until the disciples were likely "too old to travel" that they took the time to write down the gospels.

And if they were too old to travel how good is their memory at that point to quote a man who died decades earlier?
.

Ok... Im a Christian. I have been taught to love God, belive in him, the whole story of the Bible, and know much about world famous religions. I have been taught that since i was probably born I pray to God a lot, and everytime i ask for help...i get it. If you knew me i dont live a very restrictive life. I curse, like to drink (though im 12 i tried it, and every birthday pary i have...i get drunk), etc... I live like a normal kid, but at the end i know God loves me no matter what. Ask for fogivness, and he will forgive you. Thoguh he will punish you for sin, because you chose the devil's way. The "horrible things" you mentioned are realesed by the satan NOT God. Satan want sin and for all humanity to die. He likes it when you get tormented in hell. God loves you and he will not kill you. Also God knows what your doing ALWAYS. He knows EVERYTHING! He created EVERYTHING. He knows what the little innocent boy, or girl is doing, and belive me when children die they go to heaven. Children are small...they dont understand anything. If they die they will go to heaven, and belive me they will be much more ha[ppier there than they are on

umm I realize your only young, but I hope you can see the Idiocy of the above statement .

Quote: "well god being evil is a gnostic text, so you should bring others in to.Gnostics believe people get out of hell eventually.They also believe that When jesus was crucified his spirit left the cross and began to mock the crusifixers(is that a word?).and finally they believed Jesus spent a short time in hell.almost forgot they showed more respect to jesus's women disciple instead of calling her a whore like other religions."

Let me clear this up for you - According to Gnosticism - the "Creator" is the Lord God of the MATERIAL ASPECT of the Universe. They Identified this "Creator God" with the Hebrew God "YahVeh". They Believe that the Supreme God of the Universe sent ITS Son - or the Word of God ("Logos" = "CHRISTos") to our world to Save/Free us. Because the Supreme God Loved us & knew that we were Suffering in Ignorant Material Delusion/Illusion. Jesus is the Human Manifestation of the Christ/Logos - In this sense Gnosticism can be defined as Christo-Paganism. It is Interesting because they Believe in Re-Incarnation & Karma & Dualistic Realms (Samsara & Nirvana) - this has more of a Root in Buddhism than in Judaism - still the Focal Character of the story is Jesus Christ!!!

Getting back to Judaism - it is true that YahVeh also had a FEMALE CONSORT!!! There is mounting evidence that this Consort might have been similar to (or actually be) the Goddess Astarte!!! As we know Astarte is also Connected to other Goddesses like Venus & Ishtar (you know the "Whore of Babylon"). This was later covered up by the "Jehovah" movement. I wonder why Fundamental Judaism/Judeo-Christianity is so ANTI-FEMINE? It even got to the point were they re-wrote the Bible in order to turn Mary Magdalene into a WHORE!!! They put Peter & Paul ahead of her when in-fact Mary Magdalene was the Apostle that was CLOSEST to JESUS!!! If they would change this - they probably changed all sorts of aspects of Judaism to fit there needs. They keep saying "Judaism is Monotheistic" when the Wise People in this Thread Plainly state that there was ELOHIM & YAHVEH (& BAAL) in the mix. Also Obviously Christianity is NOT MONOTHESTIC - "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" = THREE (Trinity). Islam seems to be the only Strictly Monotheistic Religion in Existence. I really wish that people would think a little bit more before making sweeping Statements & Accusing others of being "Satanists". Just because a person might be a Pagan - doesn't make them a bad person. I know plenty of Pagans who are REALLY GOOD PEOPLE. As a matter of fact it is FUNDAMENTALISTS that send a Chill down my Spine on a consistent basis!!!!

Hey Seraphim:

Actually, Judaeism before the Babylonian Exile (pre 587 BC) was not a recogniseably monotheistic religion (to us at least) : it did not even begin to remotely resemble monotheism until long AFTER the exile (post 480 BC) when the Yahwistic returning priestly families (only 4 families of 24 ever came back from Babylon, and the ones that DID come back were YHWH hardliners) all other clan gods were verboten (Hear O Israel, YHWH is our clan-god, YHWH alone is a post Exilic credo in late Hebrew).

The Hebrew of the pre-Exilic 10 Commandments says "You will have no other elohim before my faces"

which language presumes that there ARE other elohim ("gods" ) in existence) and that the priests of YHWH (at cetrtain clan centers in the north, before the Exile) only wanted YHWH first in line (KJV blurs the Hebrew when it states Thou shalt have no other gods before me) basically means that in the Temples, YHWH in certain pre-Exilic cult centres (e.g. Shiloah or Shechem) was placed first in the list, and after these cult centres were destroyed in the north by the Assyrians, the cults of YHWH in the south (e.g. Hebron, or Yerushalayim) lived to re-write "the Bible" both before (721 BC to 621 BC) and AFTER the Exile (c. 480 BC during Ezra's re-visions) where YHWH alone was allowed to be worshipped, and the cult centers of El, and El Shaddai, and El-Elyon and other Els were all merged into one cult (and the Ashera was suppressed-wiped out, Asherah-Astarte was variously the consort of El and sometimes YHWH such as at Yahwistic temple complex at Elephantine in Egypt) leaving YHWH sort of standing alone---but this did not happen until after Ezra, when Judaiesm finally became "monotheistic" during the Persian period.

Before that time, Israelite religion was a hotchpotch of monolatrous cults (one god in front of lesser gods) such as we see when we read about the socalled Council of the gods in Deuteronomy 34 and even the prose preamble to the book of Job and certain early pslams...

Can anyone on this thread say SYNCRETISM? i.e. the blending of separate cults of different gods into one single cult where one god's attributes get mixed in with another?

This is exactly what we see with the originally separate cults of Amon and Ra in Egypt (later became the single god, Amun-Ra) or in Canaan, we see the originally separate priestly cults of YHWH scattered all around the nothern hills of Palestine (translated THE LORD) and ELOHIM (translated in KJV as GOD) became the single cult of YHWH ELOHIM (translated in King James as: THE LORD GOD)...

After the Exile, all this syncretism blended originally separate deities (e.g. El Elyon, or El Shaddai) into YHWH the clan god of post Exilic Israel that "Jeezzuzz" knew.

Read EXODUS chapter 3: "Formerly I was known as El Shaddai, and El Elyon, but I did not reveal my name to them...." etc..

This syncretism might help to explain the contradictory split personalities of the god of the Jews that we find in the heavily edited Old Testament...

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head...

Amadeus - Thanks for the Info - That really clears things up!!!

As a matter of fact I just added "The Strange Gods of Judaism" to my Amazon Wish List in order to learn more on this Subject. The Jews that I run into usually refuse to talk about the subject with me (since I am a Goy).

Since you are so knowledgeable in this subject let me ask you a question. Do you think there is any Validity to the Fact that the Ancient Gnostics Identified YaHVeH/Jehovah with the "DEMIOURGos" (also called
A.K.A. "Yaldabaoth" & "Samael")!!!

In that case (Protestants & Fundamentalists please don't throw a fit) the "GOD" that Jesus called his "Father/ABBA" might NOT be YaHVeH but a hereto Unknown & Un-named "GOD". This would account for the discrepancy in the Characteristics of the Old Testament "God" (Wrathful, Vindictive, Jealous, Egotistical) & the New Testament "God" (Loving, Compassionate, Alive) in said "Bible"?

Hi guys, Sorry if people have said this before but I didnt have the patience to read all the replies. In my opinion Mutehalo. YOu got it wrong. Christianity is based on love, not restrictions! The bible says clearly if you accept Jesus as your saviour, you'll go to heaven. People still make mistakes after they've accepted Jesus but we try not to becaus we respect and love our God. God didnt create Hell, Lucifer did when he fell from grace. God puts these restrictions on us (eg only sex in marriage) because he believes that we'll lead a more blessed life if we follow them. He certainly doesnt make us rot in hell if we dont. Many good christians do these things but they'll still be saved.
Children who are too young to understand will not go to hell!
Your only encounter with christianity must have been a terrible one, because not all Christian churches are so extreme and restrictive. I live a free life and I still love God

[edit on 1-9-2004 by Seeking Soul]

Hi Seraphim:

The book you ordered (the Strange Gods of Judaeism) is mainly about the nonsense in the Talmud (oral Torah of the Rabbis) and the flagrantly anti-gentile sentiments which were strictly kept under wraps by the Rebbes throughout the Middle Ages so that the gentiles would not know of it (they even published a nicer, shorter, more gentile-friendly "cleaned up version of the Talmud for Goyim" with most of the obscene passages cleaned up (e.g. "If a goyish woman is raped by a Jew, have her killed, because she got a Jew into trouble..." or "It is a punishible sin for a Gentile to kill a Jew, but it is not a punishable sin for a Jew to kill a Gentile" and many other such heinous passages that the Rebbes do NOT want the goyim to read in the Hebrew). If you want a translation of the Talmud you have to look around for the UNEXPURGATED versions which are few and far between, but we ARE living in the internet age...

As for R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jeezuzz") unfortunately, he would have said that he believed in the same clan god as the Old Testament god YHWH (e.g. when he discussed a Resurrection of the Dead midrash with the Tsaddukkim (Sadducees) who did not believe in life after death or in angels: apparently he was referring to a 1st century type of rabinnic midrash on Exodus chapter 3 which explains that the god of Abraham and the god of Isaac and the god of Yakkob was the same as the burning bush god of Moses---and by rabbinic implication Abraham, Yitzaac and Yakkov were in some way still "alive" since they were mentioned by name by the god almost in the language of living witnesseses etc.

Most of the earliest Greek material placed into the mouth of Iesous in the gospel pericopes PRESUPPOSE that the god of Iesous is the same as the god YHWH, i.e. the post Exilic clan god of Israel....even at the pre-trial hearing before "Joseph Kaiphah" the ruling (and Roman appointed) high priest, the name YHWH seems to have been pronounced by Iesous in front of him (which only the High Priest could speak and only on ONE day of the year, i.e. Yom Kippur) which caused him to rend his garments ("Are you the Messiah the son of the Blessed One? and he said (Greek: EGO EIMI) I AM" which is a free translation of YHWH, the so-called Tetragrammaton (Y-H-W-H) of the post exilic clan god of Israel.

There is nothing to suppose that another clan god is meant with teachings attributed to Iesous---although the language he uses (at least according to the gospel writings) at times is highly personal (e.g. Abba, "daddy"), possibly because as a Daviddic descendant, his blood line was considered special,holy and closer to "god" and the kings of Israel were considered "sons of YHWH" e.g. "Thou art my Son, this Day I have Begotten Thee" is a Daviddic Coronation Hymn from psalms chapter 2: we remember some of the sayings about the Davvids ("behold David, a man after my own heart, saith YHWH)...

The Gnostic belief in an evil creator god may have had its inception duriung the the Persian Period, when Palestine (and much of the Middle East) for nearly 200 years was ruled by the Persians (BC 531 to BC331) and during this time, many religious ideas from Zoroastrianism were introduced with the soldiers--- including a belief in Angels, Daemons, the Resurrection of the Dead and the Last Judgment, all of which ideas were foreign to Judaeism BEFORE the Exile, and were therefore rejected by the Jerusalemite Sadducees (sons of Zadok) i.e. the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem who held more "traditional" beliefs (claiming only the 5 books of the Torah was inspired scripture).

The religious weltanschauung of "Iesous" was clearly influenced by post exilic Messianic resurrection believing Persian-Judaeism (i.e. which became Pharaseeism, notice the word Ph-R-S, and PeR-Sian) and his enemies were not the Pharasees (these were the enemies of the early church when the gospels were being written) but rather the Tsaddukkim--- the temple priests (who were placed in power by Rome) who actively blocked his accession to the Throne of David, calling their own Hashmonean high priests "kings" after 104 BC ---i.e. they established a non Daviddic rival Hasmonean Dynasty of Priest-Kings as opposed to the blood lineage of the Daviddic kings were were in Exile since Zerubbabel's assassination by the Persians (in around 480BC).

But the image of the god(s) of Israel did change radically from what he was described as being in pre-Exilic times (anthropomorphic, i.e. with human features) to what he was described after the Exile (more ghostly, transcendant, mysterious and distant):

It is very is possible that the more personal-god teachings of John the Baptist had a great influence on the later teachings of his own disciple "Iesous" who wanted to bring back some of the flesh and blood aspects of early Judaeism which had been blurred by the Sadducean temple heirarchy who kept all that mystery (and sacrificial temple money!) to themselves...

At any rate, the idea of a personal "god" as opposed to a "transcendantal" greek like Logos god was gaining popularity generally in the Roman Empire at the time (especially from 100BC to about 300 AD) with all the mystery religions promising a closer intimacy with the gods, especially among the grass roots population in which "Iesous" seems to have focussed most of his energies (the upper echelons like the Hasmonean Sadducees, of which Herod was one of them, were after all in power because of Rome, and had to therefore play very high stakes Roman power games with Roman officials, and Rome would have demanded a rejection of any Daviddic King over Judaea, as a direct threat to the Emperor, since a "David" like Iesous, if placed back in power, would have been much harder to control poltically from Rome, having as it were Zionist aspirations contrary to Roman policies)...

This comment is getting too long, I better stop.. for now..!

Random thoughts ...

SIN = procreation .... You only die because you were born ....

It is the ORIGINAL and ONLY sin ....

I concur, Elohim is "evil" in that they came to Earth and contaminated a species already evolving here....
mixed own dna with neanderthal man thereby creating cro-magnon ...
The relationship between the two can read about in genesis chapter 6 as well as many other places in the cannon ... (david vs goliath)

The 10 commandments are examples of anti-christ control .... "
THOU SHALL NOT"


Lucifer proclaimed " I WILL ascend into the highest heaven" and then he commissioned the writing of the bible ....


The 'FATHER' spoken of by Christ is indeed the UNIVERSE ...

"In my fathers house there are many mansions" ...

They did crucify Christ because he endorse the idea that the sub-atomic particles and atoms that make the body were stolen from the UNIVERSE(father) to do so... Upon death those particles return to the Universe and are used to create new galaxies and solar system ...

" I go to prepare a place for you" . He even call certain apostles future "PLANETS" ...
" upon this stone"

The book of John speaks on nothing BUT this theory .....

~peace

Forgive me but whoever started this post is an idiot.

well being the atheist or agnostic or whatever i am, i dont actually believen god. i used to, i went to a catholic elementry school, but then i realized that it just seems to unbelievable, i mean billions of people believen the bible but there isnt any proof that anything in the bible has ever happened. i would like to believe a god but i think its a waste of my life. church is boring, reading the bible is boring. i think god would have wanted all of this to be more fun. well, if god and the bible and such really exist i think us living on earth is a test by god. he put us on this horriable planet with all the pains of living, all diseases everything. i really hope that god does exist because heaven sounds like a wonderfull place. but i gotta look at the science side of things and they say that god doesnt exist.

also there are alot of smart people in the world who are athiest/ agnostic and there are a lot of stupid people who are christians.

On that Note:

I can't believe that after reading all of the Intelligent thought on this thread (and many threads like it on this ATS Website) that you made such an Idiotic Statement as this:

Quote: "God didnt create Hell, Lucifer did"

Ahem, Ahem -> ***LUCIFER is NOT SATAN***

Lucifer is the Bringer of Light -> The HIGHEST SERAPHIM ANGEL!!!

Satan is the Accuser & Tempter & Ruiner of Man.

- Get the facts straight next time before you open up your big stupid mouth! As a matter of fact there is a thread somewhere on ATS about this very subject = Lucifer is NOT Satan.
(I am so SICK of repeating this - Fundamentalists please learn how to read instead of just accepting everything that your Preacher tells you at face value). "God" even says in the so-called Bible that "He" is the SOURCE of BOTH Good & Evil!!!

Now getting back to Amadeus:

If what you say is true - I am starting to spot a HUGE underlying PATTERN in Judaism -> RACE. It is all about Parental Lineage.
YHVH might even be a Genetic Code (like DNA or XY Chromosomes)
= Father, Mother, Brother, Sister.

Jews seem to be just about as RACIST to me as the Nazis that they constantly complain about. Doesn't the Talmud also stress the Racial/Genetic Superiority of "God's Chosen People" - it sounds like something HITLER might have said!!! How Ironic!!!