Shocked To Find Out Yahweh Was Originally A Canaanite God Who Had A Wife, Asherah

[Batya]

It not proof quoting a 4000 year old genealogy out of the Bible.

Yes, but you're assuming that there is no God, or in this case that man made god. A god that is created is no god, and if there is a God (which I believe) then he didn't originate with anyone or any culture.

 

[Cooky]

It not proof quoting a 4000 year old genealogy out of the Bible.

So did the original Yahweh have a wife, and then he died, and came back reborn 500 years later as Jesus Christ? Is that what's going on?

I'm a little confused, but I'm not one to question scholars on the subject, that's for sure!

 

[Cooky]

Yes, but you're assuming that there is no God, or in this case that man made god. A god that is created is no god, and if there is a God (which I believe) then he didn't originate with anyone or any culture.

I, for one, am already convinced by the OP's argument... Now I just need to learn what that argument is!

 

[Batya]

I, for one, am already convinced by the OP's argument... Now I just need to learn what that argument is!

Are you convinced by historical reasons, biblical reasons, or both?

 

[Cooky]

Are you convinced by historical reasons, biblical reasons, or both?

We have no choice, Batya... A person who studies history, and knows actual scientists wrote an article. The case is closed.

 

[Batya]

We have no choice, Batya... A person who studies history, and knows actual scientists wrote an article. The case is closed.

Just because of one article, or a few your might have read? I would have to do some very deep research before coming to such a serious conclusion.

 

[firedragon]

I would call the ShAktas (devotees of Goddess as ParaBrahman) as Henotheists, because although Devi is ParaBrahman is this frame, which She is, neither the devotees nor Devi make absurd claims that Shiva, Ganesh (Her own son) or VishNu and BrahmA do not exist! They are all Brahman, and more Brahman that anything else!
So also, Devi will not say the appointed positions Indra Surya Vayu Agni do not exist , are false or fake.

It doesn't mean ShAktas worship these devas, but they do not pretend their non-existence. They are parts of Devi.

Yes, at the ultimate absolute level, they are not different forms, there is only One.

Really, the highest truth is realized within and part of that happens by identifying with some of the forms of Brahman.
So...

1. If YHWH is truly the Highest Brahman as we understand in Hindu dharma -- I am more than happy for the people of Abrahamic faiths.

2. Those who have realized the Oneness need not go further.

3. The way YHWH is presented in the Bible - either by the humans or YHWH -- is a Deity with a very specific personality but says He is the ultimate Brahman that contradicts the notion that the other deities do not exist at all , and while He could have said that they exist but you should only worship Me -- He need not have point the gun at the folks. That IMO is monolatry.

(KRshNa speaking as ParaBrahman in Gita explains how worshipers of gods go to gods, their worship is short-lived, and My devotee reaches Me (implying meditate on Brahman within) , but there is a gulf of a difference! He does not point a gun at you, neither does He ask you to push them under the rug!)

... however, when the people speak of "false gods" they either mean that those "previous" gods do not exist <quickly throw them under the rug or bus> or they are made of stone, metal, wood !

oh common! Is this really what YHWH taught them to do? Or is that a misunderstanding? Is it that they are not INDEPENDANT gods apart form the One ?

So there is monotheism-at-gun-point where mere acknowledging the existence of any other divinity - be they aspects of YHWH -- sends them to hell

I have great reverence for Jesus, have felt His blessings too. Jesus represents Guru-tattva , that means , the principle representing the spiritual master.

So if Jesus is saying "I am the way " as in "I am the principle representing the spiritual master" then that means
a) He was just answering His disciples' question -- and He is right - He is the way for His disciples.

b) For the rest of the world outside of Nazareth, it means one should find the right teacher - within-without, in the world, that will take them to Brahman OR He will be their master ( very kind of Him)

But saying that Jesus is the only way to YHWH is not fair to the rest of the Universe
On the other hand it is OK if YHWH is really what the OP says -- a very specific Deity for the middle-east and Mediterranean.

If YHWH is Brahman, Jesus cannot be the only begotten son unless He is the One who came before Him, nor can the trinity possibly ask people on the other side of the world to "nullify" their Devas.
That is because the Trinity would KNOW : the One that others worship as El or VishNu or Brahman or whoever, is the same Brahman!

Do you see the [man-made?] contradiction? Good News: Jesus did NOT ask me to nullify Dev

How can God of Israel be the Universal God unless He is actually a form taken by Brahman? So that circles back to point 1. above. I am happy if that is the case.

----

Also, people argue : There can be only one truth. So we cannot have competing Creator gods.

Yes we can. This is how: Each of the gods claiming to be Creator are either the exact same god, OR they are forms of the same Highest Principle , of the Absolute Truth , that KNOW they are Brahman,

Therefore they are in a position to say I am Brahman and not only this , I am Ishvar, I have created the world.
Whether directly or indirectly, by primary secondary (visarga) and tertiary delegation, they created the world.

So Adi Shakti Devi is creator, VishNu is creator, Shiva is creator, BramhA is creator, YHWH is creator. Allah is creator (assuming He is really really pure Brahman).
El as a proper noun is Creator
El as a common noun is Creator

and/or

They are really the same One which I hope is the case. Time to subtract the dogma now.

Thats not relevant to what I said brother.

So lets say in an asian country an ancient religion called their God by the word Devi which is synonymous with the word God, is it still monolatry? (Devi is not female as in Sanskrit in all languages)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

So did the original Yahweh have a wife, and then he died, and came back 500 years later as Jesus Christ? Is that what's going on?

I'm a little confused, but I'm not one to question scholars on the subject, that's for sure!

Far as the Jews are concerned, there was only one Yahweh. He was a lesser god in the Canaanite culture of which the early Hebrews were a part. The early Hebrews were a wandering nomadic tribe and they settled among the Canaanites in the Levant. Naturally they adopted the Canaanite gods for their own and when they broke away from the Canaanites to form their own nation they took Yahweh with them and molded him into the kind of god they'd like to worship. That's what I gleaned from all my reading.

What the Christians don't like is the idea Yahweh originally was a pagan god. They don't like the idea they've been worshipping a pagan god all these centuries. That means their Jesus is an offshoot of a pagan god and that infuriates them. That's why they're throwing the Bible at me left and right with, "You're completely wrong. Yahweh is not pagan. He was from time immemorial the only true God of the universe and Christianity is His chosen religion. See? That's what it says here in the Bible. See that?" but they're offering no solid secular Biblical scholarship from respected secular historians who say Yahweh was not a Canaanite deity. How can they? There isn't any, so they're stuck with the Bible and their own preconceived set of beliefs that have been hammered into them from the cradle.

 

[Cooky]

Far as the Jews are concerned, there was only one Yahweh. He was a lesser god in the Canaanite culture of which the early Hebrews were a part. The early hebrews were a wandering nomadic tribe and they settled among the Canaanites in the Levant. naturally they adopted the Canaanite gods and when they broke away from the Canaanites to form their own nation they took Yahweh with them and molded him into the kind of god they'd like to worship. That's a gleaned from all my reading.

What the Christians don't like is the idea Yahweh originally was a pagan god. They don't like the idea they've been worshipping a pagan god all these centuries. That means their Jesus is an offshoot of a pagan god and that infuriates them. That's why they're throwing the Bible at me left and right with, "You're completely wrong. Yahweh is not pagan. He's was from time immemorial. See? That's what it says here in the Bible. See that?" but they're offering no solid secular Biblical scholarship from respected secular historians who say Yahweh was not a Canaanite deity. How can they? There isn't any, so they're stuck with the Bible and their own preconceived set of beliefs that have been hammered into them from the cradle.

So the etymological root of the word "Yahweh" traces back to the Caananites... So Jesus Christ, the person, became an ancient Caananite when he took on that name... I think I get it now... It's irrefutable.

 

[firedragon]

Firedragon, I admitted in another post that I'm not a Biblical scholar. I'm only repeating what I read in

Christians are trying to view all this through the lens of a 2000 year old religion that has heavily programmed them to believe certain things about Yahweh and to declare that others are pure heresy and should be condemned under penalty of eternal damnation. One of these programs things is that Yahweh is a male and single (no wife) and Jesus was begotten (whatever the hell that means). But it's not difficult to imagine a primitive culture composed mainly of dumb goat herder believing their god had a wife. All gods had wives back then. The early Hebrews were polytheists. And the article is saying that Asherah was Yahweh's wife, although she could have been the wife of a dozen male gods depending on the sect of religion.

I've given reasons in other posts why I had to give up Christianity. I'm not one of these people who sees a ton of evidence pointing out the flaws in Christianity and can just excuse-make for it ("NO, that can't be. It has to be heresy. Yahweh didn't have a wife, period. I don't care what the Biblical scholars say.") I have to go with the evidence and the scholarship says that Yahweh had a wife--consort if you wish. But I've had a half dozen Christians say, "It's wrong" and yet not offer a single citation aside from a silly Bible scripture to demonstrate Asherah wasn't Yahweh's consort. They'd rather preach their own opinions--something they're very good at--rather than cite evidence for their position. I'm not saying you're one of them, but I would appreciate some solid scholarship, not Bible stuff to back your position. You've earned my respect, you're not abrasive like some of the others.

The problem is this.

The reason I asked you for the meaning of the word YHWH is because "it has a meaning". You are right. The word was used earlier for another God. And in fact, maybe it was used for 100 Gods. That does not make anything else invalid. People use this word as if it doesnt have have a meaning and is a "NAME" with no meaning or/and meaning not necessary. Maybe others used the same word for a God.

E.g. The Jewish God is a unitarian God. Same Name.
The Christian God is a trinitarian God. Same Name.

People using the same book can have such vastly different conceptions of God, which one religion would consider blasphemy, the other religion considers absolute truth.

You mentioned the word El. It has a meaning too. And is used for many Gods. Just like the word God.

Hope you understand.

 

[Cooky]

The problem is this.

The reason I asked you for the meaning of the word YHWH is because "it has a meaning". You are right. The word was used earlier for another God. And in fact, maybe it was used for 100 Gods. That does not make anything else invalid. People use this word as if it doesnt have have a meaning and is a "NAME" with no meaning or/and meaning not necessary. Maybe others used the same word for a God.

E.g. The Jewish God is a unitarian God. Same Name.
The Christian God is a trinitarian God. Same Name.

People using the same book can have such vastly different conceptions of God, which one religion would consider blasphemy, the other religion considers absolute truth.

You mentioned the word El. It has a meaning too. And is used for many Gods. Just like the word God.

Hope you understand.

But even if it became a slang term for God over generations, if someone gets called it later on, they still become an ancient Caananite deity once again!

 

[ameyAtmA]

I think that you are saying that f there is one all-powerful God, that doesn't preclude the idea that there could be lesser Gods.

Yes, but here I want to clarify that the lesser would only be aspects of the Whole that have specific responsibilities - like Vayu (Wind God) , Agni (Fire God - 7 Agnis), Varun (water God) etc. whereas in the example given, Devi is Brahman but VishNu and Shiv are Brahman. They are the same one as energy-energetic, Shiv-Shakti.

If the strongest God is jealous, it might make sense that theists would not want to heed the lesser Gods for fear of retribution. They might even start to deny their existence.

You mentioned that Devi includes the lesser Gods.

Is it possible that a strong God could defeat the lesser Gods?

No. That would be very unlike Brahman, or a truly 'Almighty' God - who is not just a regional one but responsible for His entire creation. He would not use His might to fight His own sons / His own aspects and parts -- on the contrary He protects them.

The smaller god-pantheon approach VishNu (or they ask BramhA to approach VishNu for them) when they are facing difficulty from powerful evil forces. VishNu only intervenes to defeat the evil in that case.
VishNu nourishes, and protects.

I wonder if lesser Gods might move away, to a different part of the world, and become the dominant God of a smaller group of people? That might explain a tropical pacific island with a volcano God.

What appears as multiple gods within Brahman are One in purpose and spirit with the Almighty Brahman. They do not have conflicting motives.
The words dominant God, fighting a competing god -- are all foreign for Brahman. There is just One reality and all are on that reality like a fabric.
So the volcano god could most likely be assigned that place or gifted that place by the Almighty -- unless the volcano god is an evil force or a demon and not a god at all.

Now comes the question of different human cultures and their respective Almighties. There is only one Whole.

We cannot have multiple 100%s only one 100% can fit in a 100%

Hinduism understands , for instance, Shiva, VishNu and Devi as forms of the same 100% Whole. It does not mean there are 3 Wholes or 300%
They understand each other to be Their Own Self.

Bring in the Almighties from other cultural views - they have to be the Whole, with perhaps a different form and name.
To be Brahman they have to be omniscient and know that
"God X is but another form of mine."
If they are any lesser than that - then they may feel the need to fight or
conquer each other like mortals! Jealousy etc. cannot touch Brahman by definition. It can touch celestial beings that are not Self-Realized.

Only time the devas fight is not for themselves but when demons or evil forces disrupt the balance of nature, and well-being of the world/universe is in peril.
They fight the demons, not inter-god fights.

Which is unthinkable in the Oneness of Brahman.

 

[ameyAtmA]

So lets say in an asian country an ancient religion called their God by the word Devi which is synonymous with the word God, is it still monolatry? (Devi is not female as in Sanskrit in all languages)

No. Just by saying Asian country A, God X - we cannot know if it is monolatry.
Monolatry can be personal, coming from devotee's side "I shall not worship anyone but You" --- that is monolatry, out of love, commitment.
OR this God X called Devi can say "Thou shalt have no gods besides Me" --- as a commandment -- Then and only then will it be monolatry.

Monolatry is not a bad thing as long as it is voluntary, devotional, and not out of fear or threat.

By definition, Brahman sees Oneness, and is extremely generous with love and respect.

So this Asian God that you are suggesting, will most likely teach Oneness

 

[dybmh]

It's not that big a deal that there isn't archeological evidence of worship of Yahweh by the ancient Hebrews prior to the Cannanites. If they didn't worship idols, then there wouldn't be idols left behind to be found...

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The problem is this.

The reason I asked you for the meaning of the word YHWH is because "it has a meaning". You are right. The word was used earlier for another God. And in fact, maybe it was used for 100 Gods. That does not make anything else invalid. People use this word as if it doesnt have have a meaning and is a "NAME" with no meaning or/and meaning not necessary. Maybe others used the same word for a God.

E.g. The Jewish God is a unitarian God. Same Name.
The Christian God is a trinitarian God. Same Name.

People using the same book can have such vastly different conceptions of God, which one religion would consider blasphemy, the other religion considers absolute truth.

You mentioned the word El. It has a meaning too. And is used for many Gods. Just like the word God.

Hope you understand.

The problem is this.

The reason I asked you for the meaning of the word YHWH is because "it has a meaning". You are right. The word was used earlier for another God. And in fact, maybe it was used for 100 Gods. That does not make anything else invalid. People use this word as if it doesnt have have a meaning and is a "NAME" with no meaning or/and meaning not necessary. Maybe others used the same word for a God.

E.g. The Jewish God is a unitarian God. Same Name.
The Christian God is a trinitarian God. Same Name.

People using the same book can have such vastly different conceptions of God, which one religion would consider blasphemy, the other religion considers absolute truth.

You mentioned the word El. It has a meaning too. And is used for many Gods. Just like the word God.

Hope you understand.

I appreciate what you're telling me. Makes a lot of sense. If we were discussing the origins of god's names this would be relevant. On the other hand, my contention is a simple one. The god Christians pray to has origins in a pagan culture. This conflicts with what Genesis says about the Hebrew god. In Genesis, god says he existed from before the universe began and Jesus and the holy spirit were with him. This is untrue dogma because at the time Yahweh came into being among the Canaanites, nobody knew who Jesus and the holy spirit were. The very fact that 50,000 years ago Yahweh didn't even exist in any culture should be proof positive Yahweh is a made-up deity because if Yahweh were real--if he existed from before the universe began then he would have made himself known to the earliest Homo erectus. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Batya]

I appreciate what you're telling me. Makes a lot of sense. If we were discussing the origins of god's names this would be relevant. On the other hand, my contention is a simple one. The god Christians pray to has origins in a pagan culture. This conflicts with what Genesis says about the Hebrew god. In Genesis, god says he existed from before the universe began and Jesus and the holy spirit were with him. This is untrue dogma because at the time Yahweh came into being among the Canaanites, nobody knew who Jesus and the holy spirit were. The very fact that 50,000 years ago Yahweh didn't even exist in any culture should be proof positive Yahweh is a made-up deity because if Yahweh were real--if he existed from before the universe began then he would have made himself known to the earliest Homo erectus. Does that make sense to you?

And how do you know that YHWH didn't exist in any culture 50,000 years ago? There's no proof positive that he didn't exist before the Canaanites.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

And how do you know that YHWH didn't exist in any culture 50,000 years ago? There's no proof positive that he didn't exist before the Canaanites.

There is nothing recorded among the earliest cave drawings depicting Yahweh. There is NOTHING pertaining to Yahweh until he emerges among the Canaanites.

 

[Batya]

There is nothing recorded among the earliest cave drawings depicting Yahweh. There is NOTHING pertaining to Yahweh until he emerges among the Canaanites.

That is not proof that he did not exist though. Or it might be proof that he did exist though, because no one can draw a picture of something that is actually a God.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That is not proof that he did not exist though. Or it might be proof that he did exist though, because no one can draw a picture of something that is actually a God.

I think you're missing my point: if Yahweh were real I suspect he would have tried in some way to make himself known to our earliest ancestors so they could worship him. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Batya]

I think you're missing my point: if Yahweh were real I suspect he would have tried in some way to make himself known to our earliest ancestors so they could worship him. Does that make sense to you?

He did. And if he did, how do you expect you'd know about it?