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

a reply to: raymundoko
El and Asherah, both names and not titles, had 70 Sons. Baal, Belial, Marduk, Tiamat, Yam are just a few. All names. All Gods. You never hear about Baal-El or El-Moloch because the generic word for god in Hebrew is Ha-Shem, not El. Because El is a name.

You make this easy. You so don't know what you're talking about I am having a great time exposing your lack of Biblical knowledge and Mesopotamian history. Keep trying to tell falsehoods, I'll keep making you look foolish.


Just for the hell of it, IF EL was a title (it's not) What is his name? He isn't named Yahweh, Yahweh is Hebrew specific. So what is the Most High's name?

EL. Sorry that your wrong, but your not even educated enough to make claims like "It's a title" because I can deduce from your posts you aren't familiar with henotheism in ancient Canaan or the discovery of the Ugaritic texts and the Ras Shamra. So I don't mind rubbing it in since you don't mind talking about things you aren't educated in.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Actually, Thoth is Hermes in the Greek epics, and many books attributed to Hermes /Thoth were read by early church fathers, even making an editorial contribution to one.

EL is also known as Anu of the Sumerian accounts. The myths are different from country to country, but El existed a good millennium before the word Yahweh was invented. El is known as the Bull and the merciful. We know Yahweh HATES the Bull, and is the least merciful being EVER.

The two can not intelligently be confused as the same being.

But you are correct about El. Star.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I enjoy your comments and I hope you are happy that I consider the Holy Spirit to be Female as I am what I call Gnostic, meaning I like knowledge of all religious beliefs and the Nag Hammadi scriptures especially, and they equate Yahweh with evil and the Holy Spirit with the feminine.

I'm kind of a male feminist, they are the superior sex both physically and spirituality.

So my God, the Holy Spirit, is truly a Goddess. EL is the father, but he is unknowable. Jesus is the Son, and saviour.

The familial trinity.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you always lie about conversations about Zoroastrianism that never took place between us? I know quite a bit about the subject, but have never discussed it with you.

You are busted. Lying is not a teaching Jesus endorsed. You are nothing but a fundamental Christian with a grudge against knowledge and anyone who exposes the lies of Christianity. You HATE anyone and anything that shows your beliefs to be incorrect and have proven your willingness to lie to protect your other lies.

I have never discussed Zoroastrianism with you, so making up stories isn't something I am going to not notice and address.

You are bitter because I am more educated and you have no problem inventing conversations to slander me because I am spreading knowledge that you don't have. Or choose to ignore.

You have lied once that I know of, and will keep lying because that's what liars do.

a reply to: Sassanid

because the generic word for god in Hebrew is Ha-Shem, not El. Because El is a name.

You are mistaken. Ha-Shem IS NOT generic word for god in Hebrew. HA-Shem closely translated word for word would be - The Name.
Ha-Shem is often used instead of your so hated tetragrammaton. Religious jews while reading tora tend to substitute this word. Even if it is written like YHWH they will pronounce it like Elohim or EloKim or Ha-Shem.

a reply to: Sassanid

Wow, everything you just posted is wrong...

I would like to see you source what you claim because I want to know where you are getting your inaccurate information. I think it's funny you are telling me I am not educated. That's a riot.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Sassanid

Wow, everything you just posted is wrong...

I would like to see you source what you claim because I want to know where you are getting your inaccurate information. I think it's funny you are telling me I am not educated. That's a riot.

Is that the best you can do "everything you just said is wrong?" How scholarly of you to not elaborate on what it is that I said is wrong. Ill do it for you: NOTHING. Which is why you CHOSE not to elaborate. Because you know I know what I am talking about but don't have the knowledge to participate on an intellectual level and only have one choice to TRY not looking stupid, a weak insult. I believe you are misinformed, as my statements don't contain falsehoods, I only post what I know is the truth so I never have to worry about know-nothings like you who are jealous of my enlightened knowledge.

H'mm,my memory of things from ancient days isn't what it used to be but from what i recall atm the term yahweh is a feminine connotative and refers to a pact,covenant or marriage,not the name of a male deity.

a reply to: kitzik

You are incorrect, while I am aware that Shem can mean name, in the tower of Babel story, in Hebrew, it's "let us make a Ha Shem for ourselves" which is incorrect interpreted in the name sense. But Jewish interpretation it means literally "make a god for ourselves." According to Jewish tradition Ha Shem is a term for a god. It has two meanings, which should not be surprising.

You just don't know Judaism so you go with a Christian interpretation of a Jewish word. That's a very incorrect way to interpret Judaism, as the two traditions actually have little in common.

It's an understandable mistake, not everyone studies Jewish tradition. But a Ha Shem is most certainly a term used to mean god. That's a fact.

a reply to: kitzik

I am also aware that Ha Shem can refer to THE God, but in the tower of Babel story, it's used for a god. So yes, it's generic in that case.

a reply to: Sassanid

I have sourced several materials. You have sourced nothing. You are wrong and everyone in this thread knows it. You are wildly swinging now, but you've already been knocked out.

a reply to: kitzik

So you are only half incorrect, I should have read your whole message before posting. Ha Shem means god or God, but my point is that EL is the NAME of the Canaanite deity called Most High. You are two quick to look for error that isn't there. However, were I wrong, which I am not, then I would appreciate the correction.

It just happens that I am not.

Read the Zohar by Nurho de Manhar, it's a book of Jewish interpretation of the scriptures and a fascinating read for anyone interested in such things, and you will learn a lot.

Have a good day.

a reply to: Sassanid

I don't like to quarrel with religious people. I was following your thread for a long time, but only when I seen your comment of Ha-Shem I choose to make a remark. Attributing the word Ha Shem to generic word for God in Hebrew is certainly wrong.

Read the Zohar by Nurho de Manhar, it's a book of Jewish interpretation of the scriptures and a fascinating read for anyone interested in such things, and you will learn a lot.

Zohar was most likely written in the 12-th century by Jewish Spanish cabbalist Moshe de Leon. He wrote it in a kind of invented aramaic language and said that he found an ancient manuscript penned by Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. The book became very popular amongst mystically minded jewish cabbalists. Today jews will even say that the "wisdom" contained in this book was orally preserved from the time of Abraham or Adam.

a reply to: Sassanid

The Zohar is a hoax, you know that right?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Sassanid

The Zohar is a hoax, you know that right?

The Zohar is a book of Tanakh interpretations, it isn't claimed to be magical that it needs to be, or could be, deemed a hoax. I have read the Torah section myself, and it is nothing in the realm of a hoax like say...a magic trick or the Protocols. Who is claiming it to be something more than a book of Jewish interpretation of scripture? I am sure many people could be writing crap and calling it a Zohar, but the version I read was just sensible interpretation and clarifications of scripture and nothing about it can be called a hoax because nothing untrue is claimed.

It has a mythology to it going back to Moses, but you think mythology is taken literally when it is just to hype up the book, nobody actually believes it goes back to Moses, it's just a myth.

It was penned by a Rabbi named Simeon bar-Yochai, I think, and everbody knows that. Jews have a completely different religion than you imagine and they have a lot of traditional teachings besides the Tanakh, even without the Talmud.

Christianity has made religion intolerant, ignorant of Judaism, and rigidly unaccepting of Jewish tradition and is nothing like what Jesus taught. It's narrow minded and refuses to consider anything outside of those 66 books, Judaism evolves.

So you're actually talking trash about a book now? Interesting, you will hate on anything it seems. Your arguments are cynical and weak.

I used the Zohar for language purposes only to show how the term Ha-Shem can mean god, God OR THE NAME. All true as you now know, and now your gonna go so low and resort to insulting a book going completely off topic as nobody was considering your opinion on the validity of the Zohar and even now no one cares what you think about the Zohar and everbody knows you didn't know that Ha -Shem could mean god. Just give up and save yourself from the embarrassment because I make damn sure I know what I say is true I can't stand lying. I lie if it's gonna save me from danger or to avoid being rude but I don't lie about religion. I can be and have been wrong a ton of times but not out loud and I always admit it if I see proof that I am wrong. My beliefs evolve with every new teaching I absorb.

a reply to: kitzik

It's obviously not wrong if you know how serious Jews take the Zohar you wouldn't be saying that. I already explained the scenario it was used in that was in a generic sense, so it's not wrong to the Jews. That book is considered Scripture to a whole lot of Jews.

It's all besides the point as this stems from a members erroneous belief that EL was a title when it is a fact that EL was the name of the Canaanite Most High and even though it is translated as God, in ancient Canaan it was a name, plain and simple.

So you chose the wrong subject to inject your opinion, as it is mistaken. Ha-shem was used in a generic sense in the tower of Babel story, it English translation isn't true to the Hebrew.

a reply to: kitzik

We can even take the Zohar out of the equation and get the same results. Hebrew it is make a Ha-Shem for ourselves and the proper translation as you well know is make a god for ourselves, not make a name. That translation is dishonest and misleading.

I know you understand now, that it can be used in, and was/is used in a generic sense in Genesis in the tower of Babel story.

Not trying to be a jerk about it, just defending what I said, because it's true.

a reply to: Sassanid

Ok. Lets put aside Zohar .
If you want I can tell you my interpretation of the name Yahve, Jehovva and many similar English renditions of this word. I would prefer to call it Tetragramatton aka 4 letter name.
Y - Iud. H - Hei. W - Vav . H -Hei. YHWH. You can choose a little bit different spelling for the names of the letters this is just how I feel would be correct to say.
Now, this word is not really a proper name of some god, like say Yam, Dagon or Zeus or Jupiter. I think that even in the ancient times it was meant to represent some mystery that we can't logically comprehend.
In Hebrew the word Hei-Iud-Hei - meaning verb "to be" in the past tense. Those 3 letters following our English representation would be YHY.
"To be" in the present would be HWWH.
"To be" in the future would be YHYH.
Combining the letters of "to be" for the past present and future is what is YHWH. This explanation is not academic and not strictly following judaism.
In the Christian tradition the closest to this version would be
" I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End"

Or look into biblehub.com...

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: JackReyes

He'll probably tell you he's read and has copies of them all.

In one of his previous posts, he challenged me in regard to forgiveness of sins in the Avestas (Zoroastrian texts) because "he had the Zend Avesta there, right in front of him".

He was mortified, of course, when I provided the reference from the Zend Avesta, Fargard III, 29.

He may have owned a copy but I doubt he has given it any particular study. Which is also probably his modus for his Biblical study. I wonder where he got his idea from?

It is the modus for all Biblical scholars, and researchers.

It is something inherently placed in the mind of all, to waste your time as you have all wasted time with this book, with these teachings, and with these beliefs.

An infant can see how sad all of this is, but the systems are so entrenched they are crushed very soon, and get in line to try endlessly to get nowhere, as everyone has.

The proof that you need, that your studies have been a complete waste of time, are in the facts all surrounding, the same ones you take as victories.

The punishments coming for those who stop the others who want to expand away from all of this, are indeed soon at hand, and the Christians will be the last to recognize what is going on.

You are a real ray of sunshine on a rainy day.

a reply to: Sassanid

Oh please, educate ME on Judaism?...what a laugh. The Zohar is a hoax. It was penned by a man to line up with his personal beliefs and attributed to a long dead rabbi. It is rejected by real Judaism. But hey, Madonna lives by it so yeah, must be good.

You said earlier in this thread you aren't even reading peoples sources, so that's why you can't see the proof that shows you are wrong.