The Aztec and Norse god of war are both missing one hand.

reply to post by SepticSceptic

reply to post by SLAYER69


And also this translation, using the SDH system of Ancient Hebrew from the folks over at The Chronicle Project

And so the supreme ones declared "Let
us use the Adam as a guide,
to make a copy. This blood being to span
beings. And (they are) to go down amid
that which swims the sea and amid that to
fly the skies and amid herds and in all the
Earth and amid all the producers of mass
offspring to mount the Earth.

v27 And so the supreme ones began to copy
being, (one) to join the Adam.
The supreme ones began to produce, so to
mate, a male child and a female. They
began to produce, those to join.

reply to post by lostinspace


Some pretty awesome information presented here, it's always nice to learn a little more about mythology. It's possible that them missing their hand was simply an attempt at portraying that they had been through a lot of battles. After all they are war gods, so depicting them as having lost a limb makes sense. The amazing thing is just how much we know about what people believed in, even more amazing is that the vast majority of mythology is likely LOST to history. Think about it, we've only had writing for a few thousand years and it's a development that not every culture made in the same way or around the same time. Meanwhile our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, it seems logical to conclude that most of the beliefs our species has held have actually been lost to history.

reply to post by lonegurkha


eh, looks more like a tied knot. The Egyptian symbol for life is basically the reused imagery for a key.

S&F for you OP!! Awesome find! The parrels between the two cultures is pretty cool. Reminds me of the parrels between ancient Celts and the Mi'kmaq nation.

Whats seen in the Mixtec illustration is the pelota for hitting the ball with, a game still played as seen here;




www.tomzap.com...

reply to post by lostinspace


Thank you for pointing out this possible link. It's amazing how so many ancient cultures have countless connections between one another even though they were supposed to have no possible way of ever coming in contact with each other. It angers me to know that most of the history I was ever taught was based on complete lies.

reply to post by FactFactor


I couldn't agree with you more. There is a saying in the military: once is accidental, twice is coincidence, thrice is intentional enemy activity. I know the enemy part doesn't really apply, but man, all these similarities are adding up. From religious and cultural coincidences to architectural ones, there's is allot of evidence adding up.

My uncle Elmo had one hand so I suppose he is also associated with Norse symbolism and Mayan Chiefs?

Originally posted by Maroboduus
reply to post by 007Polytoks

 

So, your entire point is based upon a completely false foundation/assertion.

That was only one example, and unless you take the biblical narrative as literal, it make's perfect sense that it was not simply referring to one being. Monotheism is something that doesn't even coincide with the biblical narrative itself...

"Monotheism (from Greek μόνος, monos, "single", and θεός, theos, "god") is the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God"

According to plenty of Christian's, Satan is responsible for all "evil, bad, horrible" things in our world, and "God", for all the "good, happy, joyful". Even in Zoroastrianism which can be seen as the precursor to Judaism, there is an "evil/good" being. Demons come into the world via Satan, evil, sin, etc...

Here is a definition for God: A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Satan's powers are most certainly "supernatural", according to the bible itself. He is worshiped by people, is a male deity, and is thought to control some part of nature or reality (hell). Therefore, Christianity is not truly a monotheistic faith, since it relies on dualism to corner its followers. Not only that, but the creation of Judaism, could quite easily be seen as a simple compilation of many older faiths, combining many "Gods", into one, and thereby hiding the truth in order to maintain more power.

So, while I will agree that the quote when seen from a specific context doesn't jive, my point is most certainly not invalidated. Most other "old world" religions, such as the Sumerian religion, depict creator beings as coming "from the heavens", and to be of very human-like quality's.

According to Sumerian mythology, the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves, but freed them when they became too much to handle.

The God's even "rape" each-other... So while the Judaic religion like to put a profitable, and cunning spin on old world mythology, the logical theory still stands in the court of there being multiple creators, and not one troubled, pre-teen God, who only manifests himself in male form (who would have thought)...

Originally posted by SepticSceptic
reply to post by 007Polytoks

 

Could you please provide the quote of the bible saying Man was built in our image? I'm having difficulties finding it myself.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [fn] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Instead of continuing to mention the "made in our image" thing as if it refers to multiple gods, maybe you guys should actually take a second to read this post i made earlier. There is no plurality involved:

Originally posted by Maroboduus
In the instances in which God APPEARS to speak in the plural in regards to itself, it uses the intensive plural. In other words, it has a plural ending, but the verbs and adjectives which accompany it are all singular. Intensive plurality refers to a SINGLE object or person, with the plural ending simply implying the greatness of said individual. Thus, it does not mean "gods," but rather "great God."

Before he says "Let us make man in our image," it says in the original Hebrew "And (he) Elohim said."
The speaker is a singular individual. Had it referred to multiple entities, it would have used the Hebrew phrase meaning "And (they) Elohim said."
Every single time the phrase "Elohim said/ spoke" appears in the Bible, it uses the Hebrew phrase meaning "(he) God said/ spoke" in the singular, and never "(they) God said/ spoke" in the plural.

reply to post by optimus primal


Exactly the Norse gods were always about self sacrifice for the good of the world. As you stated the Norse did not pray for help, the gods were to help you, let their presence entry you and combined you would be one. One trait of battle would be an alignment of runes so the god Odin would give you the trait of berserk, Thor would be for self protection etc etc.... Gods were not asked to do things for you, but to enter ones body and soul, so to be combined to execute a task.
As far as the Myan god goes, I do not think he is missing a hand but it is hidden.

I think is much more interesthing that both Huitzilopochtli and Palas Athenea were born fully armed.

From wikipedia:

Eventually Zeus experienced an enormous headache; Prometheus, Hephaestus, Hermes, Ares, or Palaemon[disambiguation needed] (depending on the sources examined) cleaved Zeus's head with the double-headed Minoan axe, the labrys. Athena leaped from Zeus's head, fully grown and armed, with a shout— "and pealed to the broad sky her clarion cry of war.

From an arqueology site

According to a Mexica legend, Huitzilopochtli was born on Coatepec, or Snake Hill. His mother was the goddess Coatlicue, whose name means “She of the Serpent Skirt”. Coatlicue was attending the temple on Coatepec, when a ball of feathers fell on the floor while she was sweeping and impregnated her. According the myth, when the 400 stars, who were Coatlicue’s sons and daughters, knew that she was pregnant, they led by their sister Coyolxauhqui, decided to kill her. As the 400 gods reached Coatlicue, Huitzilopochtli suddenly emerged fully armed from her mother’s womb and killed Coyolxauhqui by dismembering her. Then, he threw her body down the hill and proceeded to kill his 400 siblings.

reply to post by lostinspace
great work and very timely for me, thanks for your brilliant effort.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
Instead of continuing to mention the "made in our image" thing as if it refers to multiple gods, maybe you guys should actually take a second to read this post i made earlier. There is no plurality involved:

Instead of hinging your entire counter argument on a single statement, which in the last comment I posted (right above yours), I stated that it wasn't even a major part of my point. Why don't you take the time to read everything I wrote, and not simply attack to bolster your own viewpoint, without even reading what I said.

Here is a direct quote from my last comment "So, while I will agree that the quote when seen from a specific context doesn't jive, my point is most certainly not invalidated." Reading is important in argumentation...

reply to post by 007Polytoks


I'm not referring to your post, which was obviously made before i explained that those references are all singular. I'm referring to everybody who blatantly ignored that evidence and continued to talk about plural gods afterwards.

reply to post by lostinspace


Hello my Friend. I was struck by your Observation on this matter.

How do I say it??? "there must be a connection."

Just rubbing it in for our "skeptic" / "Nay Sayer".

There must be a Connection.

Many books have been written about the similarities between Mayan and Egyptian science, especially in the realms of Astronomy, calender and mathematics. Mayans even share the same war god as many European tribes; Votan in Mayan legends and Woden in Viking legends, (Votan and Woden is deemed to be linguistically the same).

It is funny, but the last week or so, has given me an chance to do some reading, and the materials I have been finding on a regular basis right now, seemingly suggest, Celts, The Basque Peoples and other "Red Haired Peoples", originated from North America and the fantastical aspect is they brought the Megalithic Building skills to Europa from the Americas around 6000 - 5000 BC.

Would this suggest the Center pieces of Worship would share common appearances? I remembered the above quote, and YES, Votan and Woden seem the same, Linguistically Speaking. And maybe more.

Another note, from the Age of the Third Sun, in Aztec Traditions.

The Age of the Red Heads

According to the Aztecs, 7,590 B.C. or 9,500 years ago was the beginning of the Age of the Third Sun also called the“Age of the Red Haired People.

These people were the survivors of the second age who had come by ship from the east to the New World, settling in the area he called Botonchan; they encountered there giants who also survived the second age, and became enslaved by them.

Not only did the Age of Red heads end in America and Begin in Europe at this time, but it also marks the massive genetic bottleneck in East Asia when the Thais, Tibetans, Tlingit, Haida and Hawaiians dispersed from the Taiwanese people.

Many people seem to think that Celts influenced American culture and ancient petroglyphs and megalithic monuments may seem to suggest this, but what one is seeing here is a dispersal of culture not to America, but from America.

After the final sea level rises 6,000 years ago, wiping the Bahama Banks clean of any civilization, there was a major shift in world populations. Remnants of this culture of Red Heads went their separate ways.The Celts took the Gulf stream back to their ancestral homeland of Europe, .........

As for your single handed interpretation, pardon the pun, I understand the implied remarks. Despite our verbally opinionated nay sayer suggestion, the Aztec God of War has two hands, I appears to me, he is using the Shield as or in place of a hand. You don't see his hand at all.

And to suggest, someone can't be a warrior, with only one hand, well i say





Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
Despite our verbally opinionated nay sayer suggestion, the Aztec God of War has two hands, I appears to me, he is using the Shield as or in place of a hand. You don't see his hand at all.

So the fact that the statue clearly shows him having two hands, and the fact that there isn't a single mention in any of the mythology suggesting that he had only one hand or lost a hand at any point, means nothing to you? You would rather just ignore the actual facts?

Look, this kid must have only one hand!


Greek soldiers must have been one-handed, too!


This dude doesn't have any hands, or even a torso!



The Aztecs didn't have 3-dimensional perspective in their artwork. Therefore, depending upon the direction the person depicted is facing, the hand holding the shield will obviously be hidden.
Holy cow, he is facing the side in all of those pictures! There is only one logical explanation: He must have been a flat, 2-dimensional being!!!

reply to post by Maroboduus


My Friend

You really need to lighten up.

The OP had a THOUGHT. AN OBSERVATION. Thinking about something, and using his brain.

You have expressed your view here, Three (3) times now. We get it.

It is Interesting. It is an some what Original thought, and despite your repeated, repeated, repeated remarks, it still doesn't dismiss this for what it is. A Very good Observation at that.

The basic fact does remain, there are shared gods and deities between these cultures, and there is an association, regardless.

I could go on, but why. I have no illusions of altering your perception.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane

The basic fact does remain, there are shared gods and deities between these cultures, and there is an association, regardless.

I am in no way denying that these religions/mythologies could be related. I have believed there were connections between different mythologies for a very long time. In fact, one of my high school history teachers thought i was loony because i wrote a paper positing that all humanity used to be centralized, and the differing religions were the result of...well, like a game of "Telephone." When the people spread out, they took the same story with them, and minor variations built up in different places over the generations, resulting in different mythologies with the same basic archetypes.

I am ONLY speaking to the "one-handed" thing. I didn't mean to be mean-spirited or redundant, but it's extremely frustrating when people blatantly ignore facts simply because they don't fit with what they want to believe.

I'm done now....

Originally posted by Maroboduus

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
A quote from the bible, which uses the plural "our" to describe the image that man was created in, has always struck me as meaning that there was multiple beings who were involved in our conception/creation. The fact that it says "in our image" would also indicate that we look a-lot like them, or at least similarly.

In the instances in which God APPEARS to speak in the plural in regards to itself, it uses the intensive plural. In other words, it has a plural ending, but the verbs and adjectives which accompany it are all singular. Intensive plurality refers to a SINGLE object or person, with the plural ending simply implying the greatness of said individual. Thus, it does not mean "gods," but rather "great God."

Before he says "Let us make man in our image," it says in the original Hebrew "And (he) Elohim said."
The speaker is a singular individual. Had it referred to multiple entities, it would have used the Hebrew phrase meaning "And (they) Elohim said."
Every single time the phrase "Elohim said/ spoke" appears in the Bible, it uses the Hebrew phrase meaning "(he) God said/ spoke" in the singular, and never "(they) God said/ spoke" in the plural.

So, your entire point is based upon a completely false foundation/assertion.

You could be right. But you could also be wrong. Since I'm a mere mortal and not a God like you must be, I will not pretend to know such impossible things as the intentions behind the wording of the book of Genesis, which is a book that is well over 2,000 years old.

But, from what my simple, mortal sense of logic tells me, it seems that all you have shown is that it is one individual SPEAKING, and so this singular individual could possibly be speaking about a group that included both himself and others.

Of course there are many, many reasons why I could be wrong. So I will not insult you by making criticisms on your own interpretation as if I were there when it was written. That would be rediculous, and to do so would only serve to cause me to appear as a buffoon in the eyes of wiser men and women, and children for that matter, since the fault in my own logic would be obvious to such a degree of severity that even a small child would detect quickly and easily the attempt at deception in my fairytales of rubbing elbows with the authors of the Old Testament.

Besides, everyone knows that the reason it says that in the Bible is because god is EVERYWHERE, so its just like there is a whole bunch of Him!

Nah, I have no idea... but what if??