Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is the Judeo/Christian God really an ancient Canaanite Chief God of the Canaanite Pantheon?

Did the Hebrews simply adopt the Canaanite religion and make it their own?

Does this mean that God also has a wife and is part of a pantheon and not a monotheistic deity, would this explain biblical references when God or others use the term "Us" and "Gods?"


0HYpGHXagBA

Could Asherah have been God's wife and was God originally part of a polytheistic religion?

No he did not have a wife.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No he did not have a wife. Did you watch the video?

Yea

I just read about this yesterday, coincidentally. First time i'd heard about it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I just read about this yesterday, coincidentally. First time i'd heard about it. cool. what is your opinion on the subject?

If it could be proven, it would totally discredit the old testament as a history resource.

Another possible theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

There are a lots of ideas and stories from Christianity and the Bible that are very similar to older stories from older religions. The only real differences I see in the different religions are cultural biases.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No he did not have a wife. Oops. Our bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

I have a hard time believing that the bible is not a batch work of several other religions prior to it's creation. The Samurian flood story is too similar to be ignored as the source for the Hebrew flood story. I think that the Hebrews not only took the Canaanite name for God, El. But, also incorporated aspects of El into their reinterpretation of God.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I have a hard time believing that the bible is not a batch work of several other religions prior to it's creation. The Samurian flood story is too similar to be ignored as the source for the Hebrew flood story. I think that the Hebrews not only took the Canaanite name for God, El. But, also incorporated aspects of El into their reinterpretation of God.

not just that. The Jesus story has been done before. The Egyptians have a similar story of the God creating a son on Earth from a human woman. So do the Hindus. Hell, even the Greeks had the Hercules story.

Originally posted by socool8520
not just that. The Jesus story has been done before. The Egyptians have a similar story of the God creating a son on Earth from a human woman. So do the Hindus. Hell, even the Greeks had the Hercules story.

Hercules is problematic, actually, so is pretty much everything from Europe when it comes to making comparisons with Christianity. There was a long Christian influence there, which sometimes involved adjusting myths to fit Christianity better, and the pre-Christian traditions didn't leave many records.

We seriously might as well discuss whether a whole library is a single book or a batch of works. http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/bible/

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hercules is problematic, actually, so is pretty much everything from Europe when it comes to making comparisons with Christianity. There was a long Christian influence there, which sometimes involved adjusting myths to fit Christianity better, and the pre-Christian traditions didn't leave many records.
We have plenty of records of hercules.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No he did not have a wife. yeh, that is not what evidence and ancient relics and scriptures says.

5sw-NFvueK8

Originally posted by Quark_666
Oops. Our bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well not trying to offend anyone but everyone knows that. And to think that is just plain dumb.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Well not trying to offend anyone but everyone knows that. And to think that is just plain dumb.

How so. Please explain. It seems plain dumb that Joseph believed Mary was impregnated by a God then the more likely possibility of another man, however millions of people see it as feasible.

It is something that did happen. Mary did not sleep with any man and an angel went to him to tell him so. Now if the Angel did not then I can see your point but he did so theres your point.

... prove it?

Contesting the proposed theological dilemma with mythologysome factoid drawn from the Bible itself is sort of missing the point of the thread, no?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is something that did happen. Mary did not sleep with any man and an angel went to him to tell him so. Now if the Angel did not then I can see your point but he did so theres your point. actually the original text states that Mary was referred as a young woman or young girl which was later reinterpreted into virgin.

the original bible never stated she was a virgin it was simply a stretch to assume it with the initial description of who Mary was.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is something that did happen. Mary did not sleep with any man and an angel went to him to tell him so. Now if the Angel did not then I can see your point but he did so theres your point.

You know that the Bible is not sufficient evidence to prove such a miracle, yeah? How do you have such certainty?

Faith I guess. What other way can you be certain of highly improbable things you can not prove.

Believe I believe in it. What proof do you have that the bible is not madeup"?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Believe I believe in it. What proof do you have that the bible is not madeup"?

I think you need to understand how burden of proof is established in debates. This question is derived from a false supposition about this burden.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Believe I believe in it. What proof do you have that the bible is not madeup"?

Ummm...I do believe the Bible is made up, why would I argue against that? There is the fact the none of the miracles in the Bible have had any evidence supporting them. There hasn't been an ark, no mass exodus, etc. Not to mention the hypocracies within the book that make it seem much more likely that it was imagined by a group of people rather than the infallible God it claims was the source.

Actly the ark has been found in a country I forget which one and alot of the miragle has happen. But alot of people these days seem to be impressed with stuff that happens around them all the time.
It is always about not believeing in less they see it themselves. Sometimes faith is all you need not just seeing it.

Uhhh...no it hasn't. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about then it was a multi-layered rock (from erosion) that happened to take on the form of a hull. It was also too small to be the Ark dimensions wise.

Again, faith is just a catch-all for not having any proof to justify highly impropable occurrences. These days it just seems less people are willing to blindly believe things based on faith. I find nothing wrong with that.

I do it is very sad when the world will not accept something just because they think they need proof which again all they need is Faith and I don't think we are talking about the same ark.

fairy tales

If that is what you think of it then that is what you think of it. But at the end of the world we will see if it is a fairy tale or if it is real.

One Face of the dead is almost walking on earth... is it a medical miracle or the end of time?

I am not sure what you are talking about?

ADJ, where is this ark you speak up? Surely there's a link to the discovery, no?

Because, frankly, it's impossible in a number of geological and physical ways for the ark to have existed in anything resembling Biblical format. (Almost) no Christian takes it as a literal tale. It's a metaphor, a story, a story about obedience to God...not a literal history of a big boat.

I believe she is referring to the odd rock formation on one of Turky's mountain range. I think it is called Mount Ararat.


2Y5ORpMTebI&feature=related

Originally posted by Digi
ADJ, where is this ark you speak up? Surely there's a link to the discovery, no?

Because, frankly, it's impossible in a number of geological and physical ways for the ark to have existed in anything resembling Biblical format. (Almost) no Christian takes it as a literal tale. It's a metaphor, a story, a story about obedience to God...not a literal history of a big boat.

I don't have a link and I am not sure where it was found. Just look online and I am sure you will find it.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I don't have a link and I am not sure where it was found. Just look online and I am sure you will find it.

You're the one making the claim. We're back to burden of proof. My guess is, there's no proof and you're either uninformed about it or just making things up based on your beliefs.

No it is the truth and if you don't want to believe it then don't.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No it is the truth and if you don't want to believe it then don't.

*sigh*

I'm just asking you to provide some reasoning. You can't just say "this is true" and expect anyone to believe you, unless you provide them with some reasons for believing it. This is getting to be a hard conversation to have, because you're not demonstrating that you understand the need to support an argument properly.

That is what you are saying and I don't see any kind of proof at all from you.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is what you are saying and I don't see any kind of proof at all from you.

I'm not claiming anything. You're the one saying Noah's Ark was real. You have to provide evidence for it. Otherwise it's the same as saying "I have a pet zebra who is blue and can yodel" but not backing up your claim at all. No one should be expected to believe you until you provide them with valid reasons to believe.

Seriously, google "burden of proof."

I will look that up. And you saying that it is not true does not make it untrue it is just what you say because you choose for what ever reason not to believe in something just because of you have no faith.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I will look that up. And you saying that it is not true does not make it untrue it is just what you say because you choose for what ever reason not to believe in something just because of you have no faith.

That is not a grammatically correct sentence. Probably not a logically correct sentence either, but it gives me headaches to read.

Besides all that: All you're doing is throwing accusations and opinions around, ADJ. You need to learn that evidence and rational arguments for your points will get you further in debates. And those are the things we should be looking for as justification for our beliefs.

I think it makes alot of sences but if you are having trouble reading it, Then whatever I said what I wanted and that is all.

I found the Atheist Experience episode where they talk about Asherah and using modern more accurate biblical text to support Asherah as being mention and part of the bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1235703949744028501#docid=-3048879793791495094

I f anyone cares to watch it.