Hiding the polytheism of the Bible Deuteronomy 32

a reply to: CB328

Chris White debunked the ancient alien construct . Stichin is/was and still is wrong based on scholars looking into it .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Shahada

When we look in the book of Daniel we see a angel being dispatched to answer a prayer .The Angel is delayed buy one and says that he has to go help another . Sons of God might be a kind of generic description ,much like the word Elohim which can refer to beings of the unseen realm , including dead humans ... www.thedivinecouncil.com...

In Daniel I could see this because of the evolved theolgy from Persia and Greece that by that time Sons of God/Elohim were considered a class of angels because they developed a very intricate angelology by the time Daniel was written. Seraphim, Ophanim, Cherubim, Egregore and Archangels but in the time of Genesis through Deuteronomy and especially at Babel, what Deuteronomy is referencing Elohim were considered Sons of El, 70 in number from Asherah the Goddess and maybe a few lesser goddesses.

They had a Cherub angel and the divinities of Jacobs ladder (but that was a dream).

And a few others from Sodom and Gomorrah.


But the Sons of El/Elohim are lesser gods. Or were when it was written.

a reply to: Shahada

Well considering Hierarchy at the time it may have had to develop . Hindsight is 20/20 we need to consider when looking back .Paul today may have not had to deal with certain aspects of culture if he knew then what is known today .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Shahada

Well considering Hierarchy at the time it may have had to develop . Hindsight is 20/20 we need to consider when looking back .Paul today may have not had to deal with certain aspects of culture if he knew then what is known today .

Paul? If he was even a real person be was a terrible human being and would contribute to the lie.

The real Pharisees were the ones that evolved the religion from many lesser gods and a Most High God El to One God and many angels under him with God being the bringer of good AND evil.

They developed the angelic hierarchy modeled on the Parsee Mazdayaznians of Persia with its Yazatas and devas becoming angels and demons (demons are the souls of the dead Nephilim).

It wasn't until Christianity that Satan became a name and the name of the prince of darkness. Previous Jews believed in a prince of darkness but they were fringe and did not equate him with The Satan (a rather minor figure in the OT).

But the less educated in Hebrew tradition Christians just lumped all evil into one being and used the Adversary of Job as a name Satan, prince of darkness.

But every true student knows God has no opponents and Ha Satan is HIS servant so blaming Satan for evil is blaming God when it's humans free wiil that is the cause of evil for which Satan is a metaphor.

Too bad the whole world doesn't realize this and is in a satanic panic of epidemic proportions that is growing.

a reply to: Shahada

My understanding is that a son is anyone who does the will of their father (their spiritual leader).

So, a son of God could be any being and to determine what kind of being they are you need to know what they were actually created as.

e.g.
A son of God does the will of God.
A son of Man does the will of Man.
A son of Satan does the will of Satan.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Here's an idea....what if the Holy Trinity is actually meant to be a metaphysical interpretation of the mind, body, and soul?

Mind = father
Body = son
Soul = Holy Spirit

That is close but it's actually more like this, I think.

Soul = Father
Body = Son
Spirit = Holy Spirit


My words are the image of my awareness (word/image/Son)
my awareness is of my spirit (awareness/psyche/soul/Father)
and my spirit is my will to help you understand the Trinity. (will/spirit/Holy Ghost)

These words are the image of my conception of my will. (The Trinity)


Father is translating the will of God as the body of God, like we all are translating our will into our body and words.


And lastly, I think a mind is more like a combination of the three, but if you have to lean one way or the other, I would say it is more like a soul but what we are looking at is our spirit and what we see is our body or thoughtforms (thoughtsforms being the image of what we see - the image of our conception more so than they are the image of our spirit). That is, form is more about your conception of a spirit than what the spirit actually is. (unless you conceive the truth, of course, then it should mirror very well.)

a reply to: Bleeeeep

That's cool. But if you follow the intended meaning bene Elohim means Sons of the Gods.

Literal Sons with Goddess mothers (Asherah, Anat(?)).

Polytheism. My point is only that ancient Israel was not monotheistic and that it is not admitted by religion, even though it can be proven.

a reply to: Shahada

That's nonsense, you can't use "sons of God" to assert that. Again, the title 'sons of God' is not specific to any type of beings other than those who do God's will.

Were they gods? Maybe, but we can't tell by 'sons of God'.

1 John 3:
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

John 8:
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Acts 13:
10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

You take in their spirit (do their will) and you are their son. It's as simple as that.

Edit: Actually not quite that simple. There is also the adoption of the Church by taking in the spirit of the Son, but you get the point.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Shahada

I figure this, if there was only one god, why does it have to be a "jealous god" about? "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Hmm is ego perfect? If not, how is "god" then perfect?

Well, there are 7 Gods. But the "Jealous God" is the Lord of this world.

The First God, the Primary One, whom the Buddhists in Tibet refer to as the "Primary Clear Light", since that is what the initial experience of HIM is when you die, the Bible refers to as the "unknown" God, and Jesus refers to as the FATHER.

The Second God, the SON of the Primary One, whom the Buddhists in Tibet refer to as the "Secondary Clear Light", since that is what the initial experience of Him is when you die, the Bible refers to as Jesus Christ.

There are four more gods, each with their own attributes and aspects, they are each perfected in their characteristic aspects, and are experienced on the First, Second, Third, and Fourth days after death, and then you meet the God of the Fifth Day, who as two aspects "best actions" and "jealous" which is the God of the Old Testament.

The thing is, though, the Primary and Secondary Clear Lights penetrate all the other Gods, so that when the various Gods speak and act, it is not necessarily their own will that is dominant, but the WILL of the FATHER.

This means you have to parse the statements made by any God, to figure out whose will is dominant when they are saying different things.

Even when some men speak, sometimes it is not the man that speaks, but the FATHER that uses his voice to communicate a message.

[QUOTE]
"But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak." -- KJV, Matthew 10:19

"For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." -- KJV, Matthew 10:20
[END QUOTE]

Since the FATHER often uses the voice of other Gods and Men to deliver HIS message, you have to pay careful attention to what is being said at any point in time.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The God Ohrmazd has 7 Spirits too. (Persia)

But they are aspects of God and not gods.

Persia was the first dualistic, good vs evil choose a side religion and Judaism and Christianity owe a lot to Persia.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Shahada

That's nonsense, you can't use "sons of God" to assert that. Again, the title 'sons of God' is not specific to any type of beings other than those who do God's will.

Were they gods? Maybe, but we can't tell by 'sons of God'.

1 John 3:
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

John 8:
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Acts 13:
10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

You take in their spirit (do their will) and you are their son. It's as simple as that.

Edit: Actually not quite that simple. There is also the adoption of the Church by taking in the spirit of the Son, but you get the point.

I can and did because it is the truth and if you start at the OP you will get it. It is a historical fact and sons of God does give me a valid reason to say polytheism because Gods and Goddesses have little god sons (and daughters) and it is a part of Canaanites and Hebrew history.

The Old Testament has about a hundred gods.

a reply to: Shahada

Psalm 89 further illustrates heavenly beings that could qualify as sons of God "5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord,
your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!
6 For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,
7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones,
and awesome above all who are around him? "

Dr. Mike Heiser has a new podcast up where he goes into John 10 where Jesus brings in Psalm 82 in a defence to Him being in the Father and The Father in Him and Them being one and the same www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...

a reply to: AMPTAH

Or the whole god thing is way more simple than that,it's just bunk.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You lost me when you invoked heiser. As a principle I don't follow people on the circuit who have a financial interest in enforcing the will of whoever is backing them.

I can do my own research based off the same information available to everyone, and do. Nothing to it really. I just dislike celebrity "scholars" who have backers and handlers and no reason to tell the whole truth and just kind of blend it all in and further confuse the already confused yet somehow making them feel educated (and superior, like they needed that).

a reply to: Shahada

TextThis is according to the oldest available Biblical texts, the Septuagint (though rendered angels) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the correct translation which means that El Elyon and Yahweh are not the same entity, even that Yahweh is a Son of El Elyon (Sons of God is the usual rendering).

This has been hashed out exclusively several times in the recent past. According to the Apostle John of Jesus you are correct in that The Most High EL is not the Creator of this creation and the Spirit Most High El is not Yahweh. I can agree with that much but all other is strictly conjecture in my opinion.

The very first thing that all of us should be aware of is that the entire subject matter is theology. There are no facts except that literature is presented with no proof outside that fact that the literature does exist. No one knows what the original autographs read because the original autographs are not available for anyone to compare.

You mention DSS but that only means that the available DSS read somewhat to advance your understanding. No proof is available till perhaps one day proof may be found. Also one must consider that when you say Septuagint bible what you actually mean is the Greek Torah and not the Tanakh or what most all reference as a bible. Even at that it is not without some doubts that the Greek Torah was not as claimed. There is actually nothing that reveals the authors or translators or even the dates of the autographs of the Septuagint. Nothing exists as proof in the entire story of its being created.

Now in that lite I cannot accept other theological concepts without a foundation. The DSS nor the accepted Septuagint is proven factual except to say that one can read that it does exist as literature. But that does not make it factual. The facts are that no one had a NT and no one had a Tanakh in that era of what you are considering. What one did have were MSS of Torah and some prophetical works without the autographs. So in fact this entire conversation is theological at best.

a reply to: Seede

I am sure you have heard an explanation that suits you theologically but I am approaching this from a historical perspective with no intention of making all the Gods either the same God or lesser angels.

I am going back in time to the day it was first penned and it is clear the author was writing about his tribal god Yahweh and the day that the Most High or El Elyon gave him Israel or what would become Israel as his share of the inheritance and that Yahweh was a Son of El to the author and Deuteronomy and his predecessors.

Theology can manufacture, as is its right, any suggestions it wants to say this and that but they have nothing to gain from honesty and everything to lose so they create a whole industry of manufacturing nonsensical explanations for uncomfortable facts and nobody cares because we aren't stupid enough to listen and they are wasting money.

El is a higher God than Baal and/or Yahweh and Asherah is the Biblical Queen of heaven whose worship in the Temple was acceptable until 4-300 AD maybe later even. She was first banned only from worship in the Temple because it was interfering and the brazen serpent staff and Asherah tree were removed. Even obvious serpent worship is "explained" away rather than owned and it is not honorable. History is not to be fibbed about and what was...was and is today. All that happens is words are changed and used to alter the original meaning when it is uncomfortable. Like human sacrifice being common among ancient Hebrews who were themselves Canaanites. Baal and Moloch were Hebrew gods as was later Tammuz who is eerily the origin of the traditions of today's Christmas. Every last one that is no joke, Santa is Nimrod(in the myth he brings gifts) and Tammuz is like Jesus born Dec 25. The tree is about Semiramis who said one sprouted up overnight or before her eyes, I forget.

Look close, most of what I just said is even in the Bible.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Shahada

TextThis is according to the oldest available Biblical texts, the Septuagint (though rendered angels) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the correct translation which means that El Elyon and Yahweh are not the same entity, even that Yahweh is a Son of El Elyon (Sons of God is the usual rendering).

This has been hashed out exclusively several times in the recent past. According to the Apostle John of Jesus you are correct in that The Most High EL is not the Creator of this creation and the Spirit Most High El is not Yahweh. I can agree with that much but all other is strictly conjecture in my opinion.

The very first thing that all of us should be aware of is that the entire subject matter is theology. There are no facts except that literature is presented with no proof outside that fact that the literature does exist. No one knows what the original autographs read because the original autographs are not available for anyone to compare.

You mention DSS but that only means that the available DSS read somewhat to advance your understanding. No proof is available till perhaps one day proof may be found. Also one must consider that when you say Septuagint bible what you actually mean is the Greek Torah and not the Tanakh or what most all reference as a bible. Even at that it is not without some doubts that the Greek Torah was not as claimed. There is actually nothing that reveals the authors or translators or even the dates of the autographs of the Septuagint. Nothing exists as proof in the entire story of its being created.

Now in that lite I cannot accept other theological concepts without a foundation. The DSS nor the accepted Septuagint is proven factual except to say that one can read that it does exist as literature. But that does not make it factual. The facts are that no one had a NT and no one had a Tanakh in that era of what you are considering. What one did have were MSS of Torah and some prophetical works without the autographs. So in fact this entire conversation is theological at best.

I don't see what your point is, honestly.

My original assertion that the Bible is polytheistic in origin is not hard to prove because it doesn't itself claim to be. Just the people who live by it or fail to educate themselves in history of Mesopotamian/Canaanite beliefs don't know this because much is lost, intentionally, in translation and the rest in interpretation.

All it takes is a curious and open mind willing, insistent on learning everything about the subject of the Babylonian and Semitic religious systems and the information will be found because it's easy. Everything is on the internet that is needed to figure out that Uta napishtim and Gilgamesh were written about thousands of years before Noah and the Nephilim. The garden of Eden is based off earlier Sumerian, Akkadian and Chaldean myths.

a reply to: Shahada

Check out the Sophia of Jesus Christ gnosis.org...

Jesus taught extensive polytheism. Look to Valentinianism and Manichaeasm for the true teachings of Christ for Christianity is a lie.