Was the Jesus mythos partially based on the Canaanite fertility deity Laḫmu?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Really
Really
Do you know what you are talking about
Really, reworded to create Islam

Do you know what you are talkin about because you don't know what you are saying

If you only spent as much time trying to understand what you think you know you are writing about, you might just figure it out

a reply to: Deetermined

I think it’s pretty well known that Islam derived from the abrahamic teachings. They just added a slight bit more child rape and a few more reasons to murder people they don’t like.

Care to explain Deets comments
I know Islam accepts the Jewish Old Testament from the bible, unchanged
They don't accept the New Testament
So what was reworded

It sounds like an ignorant fallacy to say reworded
What was reworded

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

1) The red sash indicated royalty. It was a common symbol in the ancient Middle East.

2) The Bible never said that Jesus had long hair. Israelite males usually did not grow their hair out unless they where Nazarites, and Jesus was not a Nazarite. The long haired Jesus was a European fabrication.

3) The Lahmu-lehem connection is weak, and goes against the context of the Bible. Jesus called Himself the bread of life, so it makes sense that He was born in the House of Bread. House of Lahmu is a bit of a stretch...unless you can connect Lahmu to bread.

Very interesting thread so far. A lot of this stuff I've known about, but some of it was new info to me. So right on, for that. Thanks posters.

As for a connection of Jesus to Laḫmu, it would make sense. Let's not forget the Israelites started out as Canaanites. As far as I understand, El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon. Back in the early days Judaism was still pantheistic but eventually they got around to consolidating them into Yahweh.

Interesting side note: You can tell if someone's name means something about God.

DaniEL, for example. "God is my judge"

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Care to explain Deets comments
I know Islam accepts the Jewish Old Testament from the bible, unchanged
They don't accept the New Testament
So what was reworded

It sounds like an ignorant fallacy to say reworded
What was reworded

Maybe reworded was the wrong word for me to use. More like Muhammad took the Bible and twisted it? There's no doubt that the Bible was Muhammad's original inspiration. Some of the verses are almost word for word of those from the Bible with a twist. Other verses are original to add to Muhammad's interpretation.

While some Muslims will call Jesus a "Messiah", it's only because they claim he never died on the cross, will return (second coming) with the Mahdi and convert everyone to Islam. They claim after Jesus' return that he will live out his life for 40 years, die and be buried next to Muhammad.

Was there anything else you had a question about that I didn't explain in a way that communicates to you?

www.dianedew.com...

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

TextAnd, in this post I will point at the merge of the Jesus character with the Canaanite fertility deity, Laḫmu.

Very good post. Thank you.

In Looking at Lahmu, it is noted that Lahmu was indeed a primordial being but even being so was not of the Roman gods.

Naturally, we can only go back to the antediluvian period and it may well be that Lahmu was known by the antdiluvian cultures, but still, Lahmu was not one of the Roman deities or at least not listed as one of the Empires recognized deities.
I am not saying that Lahmu was not known in the Roman circles but I am saying that that he [Lahmu] was not certified by the Romans as being one of their favored gods.

So in lite of this, Jesus could not have been born of the god Lahmu but being regarded as a primordial being would have the same qualifications a Lahmu. Let me explain.

Quote
— Philip K. Dick
In almost all mythologies, there exists a time before time, where the world had not yet been made. All that existed was simply Chaos (usually), and from here the gods/primordial entities would form, and shape the world as they saw fit. In other cases, there was nothing at all, and in others still, it was someplace indescribable by mortal words. It may still exist in some form, either as a (strange) part of the reality in question, or as a connected but separate reality.
Unquote

So by this you can see the difference between a god and a primordial entity. Jesus could fit as a primordial entity and He could also fit as a God/god. Rome had basically gods and when Jesus came into the picture, He [Jesus] did meet the requirements of a primordial being.

You could be exactly right in that Jesus brought superior existence to Roman theology. Very good point. Thank you.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I've head of Crowley before, you know he killed thousands of kids in ritual sacrifice, right? He basically admitted to ritualistic child sacrifice in the book "Magick":

Uh, no.

Crowley was a master at self-agrandizement. He was a decadent free thinker, a degenerate reprobate, and a very clever man. But he most certainly did not sacrifice children. He probably never even sacrificed a chicken except for Sunday dinner, though I suppose he may have constructed some elaborate ritual around it.

He was a braggart, did you know he invented the modern sport of mountain climbing all by himself and would have been the first man to climb Mount Everest if one of his climbing buddies hadn't chickened out? He was the uncrowned world chess champion?

He joined a 'Salon' called 'The Golden Dawn' which included some of the greatest minds of the 19th century: Yeats, Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, Oscar Wilde. The Golden Dawn was founded to discuss 'esoteric' arts like kabbalah, tarot, astrology and the like. Yeats had Crowley expelled because of Crowley's degeneracy.

He presided over a swingers club where he set up all the encounters as 'sexmagic' rituals.

He was certainly weird.

But he most certainly did not "actually", "really", "physically", murder children as sacrifices any more than a Christian "actually", "really", "physically" cannibalizes the corpse of Jesus during communion.