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

a reply to: ilstar

He doesn't even know the Ugratic texts. he's been asked several times to source his data. He hasn't. It's all made up in his head.

a reply to: Mryhh

It looks like the Canaanite pantheon is very much like Ancient Greek one, except Ba'al, as he is described with a thunderbolt (possibly due to a common feature of borrowing father's traits), is a son of his grey-haired father El. The journenings of Ba'al and his sister Anat from the Ba'al cycle also parallel, albeit altered in some respects perhaps to preserve the gods' sanctities, ancient esoteric history (e.g., from Karen 'Mila' Danrich) of Hades/Marduk and Athena/Inanna (cf. Ancient Sumer Anunnaki) and their battles. Additionally, the scattering of pieces of Ba'al by Mot is found in Set & Osiris story from Ancient Egypt. Here is what Wikipedia has on this topic:

Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbors, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices.

Consider also that Israelites were greatly influenced by the Egyptian myths. At the end, though, it is all indistinguishable who is who and who they were supposed to refer to in the original case. What you get from jumping into these ancient polytheisms and their myths is a chaotic mix, and if you even believe in them, well, then you are a polytheist pagan (or Gnostic), and not a true theist (maybe you think that Jesus means 'Hail Zeus' too?). Although your agendas become very clear as to subvert the modern monotheistic belief, your method to convince opponents to believe you is quite lacking.

What you need to understand is that there are many levels of reality or creation. Consider that the Ancient of Days is considered by some as the Son, but in The Book of Enoch as well as in Muhammad's Night Journey, it is clear that He is the Most High, or closer to the Father. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is also called the Ancient of Days but this only would confuse things. I suggest that God the Father is the unknown, undefinable, and invisible like Ein Sof in Kabbala or even Tao in Laozi's religion. The Ancient of Days is below him, he is the Most High or El Elyon (I am simply borrowing the name from The Urantia Book, which you so recklessly hate, although it should be considered as more deserving). And Jesus Christ is below the Ancient of Days, and he is the Son of the Father. Hence we get this structure:
1) God the Father
2) Ancient of Days (the Judge during the Great Judgement)
3) Jesus the Son

I hope this makes better sense to you than the genealogy from The Bible or Ancient Canaanite. If you are dissatisfied, you may add lower levels, such as those of
4) Lucifer (the light bearer, the morning star [Venus?])
5) Satan (Lucifer's lieutenant)
6) Caligastia (The Devil from The Urantia Book and Azazel in The Book of Enoch)
and various alien entities who had visited our planet in the past and who are revealed in esoteric and ancient historical/mythological accounts. The difficulties, of course, ensue when ancient cultures (and even current ones!) give a name to a lower entity when it is better deserved by a higher one.

Following this structure, we, lowly humans, are on level 7. (This only approximates my Model and its correlations on the blog.)

What I find interesting and confusing is people who can't interpret the evidence that we have of deliberately altered translations in the Masoretic (sons of Israel) and the English thet change it to read the Lord kept Israel for himself instead of received it as an inheritance. If you compare all the translations, it is just obvious that the correct one is the one that says "Inheritance" and "Sons of God" this is what the evidence concludes and if you don't see it you aren't ever going to. Changing "Sons of God" to "sons of Israel" is grand scale deception and the NIV and KJV have it as "Israel" knowing that both the Greek and Dead Sea Scrolls have "God" which is deplorable to say the least. Any version with sons of Israel is trash. If inheritance is omitted and kept for himself inserted, also trash.

The correct reading is Yahweh was a Son of El who received Israel as his inheritance from his Father.

The general story of the Ugaritic tablets is about El and Asherah and their 70 Sons. 72 is a recurring theme in Judaism and in the bible 70 and 72 are important.

Yahweh has no link to the Ugaritic tablets story, he isn't one of the mentioned. He is more like Baal in that he is known to have stolen Asherah from El. They both had this legend about them at a later time. But Asherah worshipping was condemned, probably to make Yahweh unique to Israel and not associated with Baal.

El is definitely Father of Yahweh according to Deuteronomy. An undeniable fact of life.

a reply to: Merari

Again, you are arguing semantics and can't see that. Do all people worship Israel as God? No. So big deal if they changed it. Are you going to track every change that has been made? There are changes that are really hard to track, except perhaps knowing in general how the Israelites wrote Torah as a more nationalistic text, hence altering the truth about God being for all people and not only Jews. That is also what your hated The Urantia Book states. Jews got their nationalistic tendency with Abraham (who also did not preserve Melchizedek's original teaching about the Holy Trinity and El Elyon) and going on through all their prophets and especially King David and then you get Jesus, who was seen as a nationalist hero and king, but Jesus was for all people and not only Jews, so they killed him... Interestingly, The Urantia Book contradicts The Bible in that it was Jesus's choice to be crucified rather than an obligation. He could have simply dematerialized as Melchizedek had also done.

a reply to: ilstar

I'm not arguing semantics, I am saying that EL was around before Yahweh, and at the same time as his Father, as Deuteronomy makes clear, that it says in original form and when honestly translated, that Israel, the only people who worshipped Yahweh, was given to him by his Father EL, as an inheritance. It's very easy to understand and later beliefs don't change the beliefs of those that came before them. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy saw Yahweh as on of El's Sons. This is beyond dispute by anyone who has investigated it. Anyone who does dispute it doesn't know history. Or is not honest.

Regarding the Urantia book. It's an obvious hoax and has been scientifically analyzed to have many human authors who are clearly not prophets and only the truly gullible would look for knowledge in a book with such a ridiculous background story as the Urantia papers. You might as well get your palm read.

I only respond to people like you when I am bored and need to laugh or remind myself how dumb I could be and thank God that he hasn't let me grow up a fool. Thank you.

a reply to: Merari

That's funny because you think that the Israelites worship a different God when all they worship is a God who is conceived differently than how it was originally taught by Melchizedek before Israel was ever born (and seemingly the Canaanites preserved some of his teachings, such as the name of the God "El Elyon" that he chose, but they also didn't retain the teaching about the Trinity). You simply have problems with their concept of Yahweh because you probably have read lots of atheist criticism, such as in the book God – The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. Nonetheless, even while conceived differently, the Israelites' belief was acceptable because it was a monotheism. Monotheism was the goal for Melchizedek and other enlightened prophets in order for humankind to be prepared for the arrival of Jesus. They obviously didn't want henotheism or anything of that sort.

Why are you laughing at The Urantia Book when you have clearly not read it or ever considered whether there is some truth to it? Yes, humans wrote that book, just as every other book, but the information is clearly not from humans alone. I would rather you look at yourself for a moment than criticize what you clearly do not understand.

You believe, as pagans do, in a family of gods, a polytheistic primitive belief that completely ignores that there are conceptual levels of God much beyond the images of those who came to visit our planet in the past. There is a true God, not merely some highly advanced races or fallen angels who have influenced our history and mythology so much that you would rather believe them or those who worship them than books that actually clarify everything about our past.

I am simply keeping up with your replies in order to maintain the importance of monotheism on this thread and not let some strange xenophobe undermine it with his own problems of polytheism.

a reply to: Merari

And concerning your calling The Urantia Book a hoax, even though, in its whole, it most certainly isn't, I will, if you allow, bring to your attention that not all so-called hoaxes are complete hoaxes. I would like to bring as evidence the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, in particular their protocol #5, part 4:

Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the GOYIM understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain. Reared on analysis, observation, on delicacies of fine calculation, in this species of skill we have no rivals, any more than we have either in the drawing up of plans of political actions and solidarity. In this respect the Jesuits alone might have compared with us, but we have contrived to discredit them in the eyes of the unthinking mob as an overt organization, while we ourselves all the while have kept our secret organization in the shade. However, it is probably all the same to the world who is its sovereign lord, whether the head of Catholicism or our despot of the blood of Zion! But to us, the Chosen People, it is very far from being a matter of indifference.

Consider that the Jesuits have indeed done this as written and published in 1911. Today, since 2013, Pope Francis is a Jesuit who is the overt presence recognized by leaders of 132 countries and 15 religions. Also study the influence of Jesuits on politics, media, religion, philosophy, and hence pretty much every aspect of life from the TOP throughout centuries, starting with 1540, when they were first founded in opposition to the Reformation. Jesuits are a military congregation of the Roman Catholic Church who are subordinated to the Black Pope.

a reply to: ilstar

If you believe the Urantia book is not a hoax, I know a bridge that's for sale. Melchizedek is Shem in Judaism and you are truly gullible if you take the Urantia book seriously. Also, Ancient of days is a derivative of the Zoroastrian concept Boundless Time and so is Ein Soph. I didn't need to read a hoax to learn about this I just studied actual religions and their history.

Regardless, it's a historical fact, preserved in the Bible itself, that the original Yahwists considered him a Son of El.

It's not difficult to understand, why do you have so much troubleaaccepting history yet are so easily fooled into believing in this stupid book that has obviously messed you up to the point that you will not believe what IS true and believe what is fantasy.

It's baffling. Wisdom is understanding knowledge, deny knowledge (provable facts) and you can't become wise. You are denying the provable in favor of fantasy. By provable I mean we have proof beyond doubt that El and Yahweh were Father and Son in early Israelite history, they invented a word for this odd brand of polytheism, henotheism, specifically to describe newly learned about facts from ancient Canaan and the Ugaritic texts. Each people had a national god AND a High God named El. Yahweh was waaaay later down the road and was not equated with EL, but a Son of El. Waaay later they dropped El completely and would and do LOVE that you believe the lie of a monotheistic ancient Israel. It's just not true. Sorry.

a reply to: ilstar

You think that you are the only person who knows about the Jesuits and the Protocols?

It has nothing to do with the Urantia hoax, or El not being Yahweh. I guarantee you that the Jesuits don't believe in the Urantia book though, or it would have been suppressed at all costs. It is wholly unbelievable toall bbut the extremely naive and New Age oriented cuckoo's.

You could also interpret the two gods as:

Yahweh - The god of this world (aka the Devil, lord of the material universe).
Yeshua - The son of Yahweh and the anti-christ.

and

El - The heavenly spiritual God.
Emmanuel - The true Christ.

Just a passing thought.

a reply to: coomba98

I had the same theory until I realized that the Isaiah virgin prophecy mistranslated virgin and was not a Messianic prophecy.

I would love to find a way to reconcile this, as Immanuel was supposed to be his name per the Messenger (Gabriel, right?).

Then for no reason he gets the name Yeshua that's then switched to Jesus even though Yeshua means Joshua.

Yeshua was an actual person who was a Nazarene Essene and teacher of James, and, fully human. Messiah in Judaism was never to be a God like the Hellenistic Christ preached by Paul.

Jesus was divine in that he scored A+ on the tests God performs on US all...

originally posted by: Pinocchio
Jesus was divine in that he scored A+ on the tests God performs on US all...

That's the mythical Christ, not the historical Yeshua. Yeshua was a human like the rest of us. If God wants to forgive sin it won't be because you believed in a myth.

Why else would faith be so important? God has infinite options to redeem mankind, why would he require us to be forgiven per the death of his son?

All he has to do is forgive, no human sacrifice required

Azzezza,

Mary, Joseph and the virgin birth. If thinking logically then this can definitely be construed as....

'Joseph wanted some but Mary said no because they were not married yet. So Mary used her hand, when finished Joseph did the typical male thing and rolled over and falls asleep. Mary, feeling....unsatisfied used her hand that she used on Joseph and battaBOOM!, nine months later we get Yeshua born from a virgin.'

Not sure who the prophecy came from, been awhile since I read the OT.

I also agree that Yeshi dying for our sins is a façade, there is no logical point!

--

Pinocchio,
You just admitted that Jesus was a man/mortal/mundane/human, and not of divine origin.
This does not make him the Messiah within that context.

aka:
'Jesus was divine in that he scored A+ on the tests God performs on US all'

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

I'm not buying that, if you're even serious. Mary was a priestess, a Miriam. Ever wonder why there are 2 or 3 MENTIONED in the gospels? I learned that here actually, but it rings true if you know what I mean when you hear something and it hits you, it's a difficult experience to word without sounding crazy but I believe a Miriam is of a royal family because her sister gave birth to the greatest man who ever lived according to Jesus himself. And John was equally humble enough that he said he wasn't fit to tie his sandals. Two sisters, one whose destiny was to be immortalized as the Isis figure of the Roman era, mother of God, the (re?) Incarnation of God (Osiris) in human form as the Horus but more accessible and human until he is resurrected after initiating his own death as a ransom, A HUMAN SACRIFICE if there ever was one. He is a willing Isaac, confident in the power of John the Baptist's baptism of water that gives him the power of Baptism of the Holy Spirit and of Fire.

Speaking of the Elijah, JTB, he was so Holy that the one request of Herodias daughter was the Head of John the Baptist, on a silver plate or platter. No doubt this woman was a sorceress and this would give her (or Rome?) some power just for possessing it.

originally posted by: Azzezza
a reply to: coomba98

I'm not buying that, if you're even serious. Mary was a priestess, a Miriam. Ever wonder why there are 2 or 3 MENTIONED in the gospels? I learned that here actually, but it rings true if you know what I mean when you hear something and it hits you, it's a difficult experience to word without sounding crazy but I believe a Miriam is of a royal family because her sister gave birth to the greatest man who ever lived according to Jesus himself. And John was equally humble enough that he said he wasn't fit to tie his sandals. Two sisters, one whose destiny was to be immortalized as the Isis figure of the Roman era, mother of God, the (re?) Incarnation of God (Osiris) in human form as the Horus but more accessible and human until he is resurrected after initiating his own death as a ransom, A HUMAN SACRIFICE if there ever was one. He is a willing Isaac, confident in the power of John the Baptist's baptism of water that gives him the power of Baptism of the Holy Spirit and of Fire.

Speaking of the Elijah, JTB, he was so Holy that the one request of Herodias daughter was the Head of John the Baptist, on a silver plate or platter. No doubt this woman was a sorceress and this would give her (or Rome?) some power just for possessing it.

Mary was a woman that was most likely raped and impregnated and instead of meeting the loving and kind death of stoning she lied about her bby daddy. Now, which according to Occam's law is way way way way way way more probable. A woman living in a bronze age where men treated them like cattle being raped by a man. Or a magical being appears from the sky and boom, she's pregnant. Now I'll even be silly here and advise you that with our current position in time and tech we have no proof of any deity. Just claims.

a reply to: coomba98

Johns camel hair coat is symbolic of his role as the Elijah, but he also wore a special leather belt that I have only been able to guess thus far is a symbol of his Sage like status or higher, in an esoteric order that I assume is the Essene Nazerenes. He should be the first martyr. But I am only speculating about the significance of the belt, though I am certain that its very mention is a deliberate understatement so only certain people knew what it meant. The camel hair coat is obvious.

I got off track and I don't know what I mean was talking about in the first place, oh, her virgin birth just paganizes everything and is based on a mistranslation and misinterpretation both. Kind of busts up the myth and brings you back to reality. The Nazarenes would never have hated Yeshua so I think that Nazareth the town didn't exist then and this is the symbol of a prophet, that his own town rejects him so it was inserted in briefly without attracting much attention and Nazareth became a town later.

Im rambling.

a reply to: BobbyMachiavelli69

No rape, just an allegory. It means she is the Isis of the Piscean age. Your trying to take the meaning out of the myth, but what is a myth without meaning? A lie, a fib a tall tale.

But if it means something then you don't interpret it as historical because it isn't. It's a 2000 year old myth based off SOME real people. You read the New Testament and think about rape that isn't even a part of the myth. Remember what happened when Dinah got raped?

a reply to: Azzezza

Ah, here's your biggest issue. This book, or at the times, a # load of stories. Written by people we can not trace and source their content. The subjectivity of your post indicates you believe the story to be true without being 1st, to prove the deity of this story to be true. To date, with tech, no one has one smidgen of empirical proof "it is written" then you bolster the fella with "he was of god" blah blah blah. Basically, every claim you make is based out of the fallacy of claim from ignorance/

a reply to: BobbyMachiavelli69

It sounds to me that you think saying Occam's law is an appropriate method for interpreting mythical allegory. I don't think it is. I really don't know or care about this Occam and if I thought I would care I would find out.
This is what I like.