The Differences between EL and Elohim

wizanda said:

Moses, David, Isaiah spoke ancient Hebrew, by the time of Zechariah (tho he was a true prophet), it is clear after the Babylonian Exile the Jews had started to lose sight of the theology...

Thus in Malachi 1:6-9 the Jews no longer recognize that EL is the father of YHVH...

In Malachi 4:4-6 it is stated that Elijah (John the Baptist), and Yeshua (YHVH) will come to return the Jews back to EL Elyon (God Most High - Luke 1:32, Luke 6:35), else the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28) will be put on them, as stated in Deuteronomy 32:7-18.

The Church established by the Pharisees (John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros)) didn't understand this correction or who Yeshua was claiming to be, so they've muddled it all up.

The Rabbinic Jews are muddled since the Babylonian exile, so they've heavily misled the Church by their confusion as well... It is just a cacophony of errors.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

I disagree

You seem to be trying to disconnect Jesus from those he taught (Peter, John and spiritually appearing to Paul) makes no sense. It's a little like you looking back 2000 years and all the people Jesus taught for years all got it all wrong.

In my opinion

May I ask if you believe Jesus died for sins and rose from the dead to show God forgave the sins?
Do you believe Jesus was merely a prophet and no more?
What religious view would you most closely align with?

sooda said:

The word el (singular) is a standard term for "god" in Aramaic, paleo-Hebrew, and other related Semitic languages including Ugaritic.

The Canaanite pantheon of gods was known as 'ilhm, the Ugaritic equivalent to elohim.

For instance, in the Ugaritic Baal cycle we read of "seventy sons of Asherah". Each "son of god" was held to be the originating deity for a particular people. (KTU 2 1.4.VI.46)

Click to expand...

Specific deities known as ʾEl or ʾIl include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion[3] and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period.


chances are that the actual understanding of el comes from the egyptian culture; which the ugaritic paid tribute to. the same would have influenced the whole of the middle east; including the so called moses, or moshe.


as far as is known, the idea of a supreme god in anu arises from the sumerian


The most direct equivalent to Anu in the Canaanite pantheon is Shamem, the personification of the sky,[54] but Shamem almost never appears in myths[54] and it is unclear whether the Canaanites ever regarded him as a previous ruler of the gods at all.[54] Instead, the Canaanites seem to have ascribed Anu's attributes to El, the current ruler of the gods.[

Fool said:

Specific deities known as ʾEl or ʾIl include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion[3] and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period.


chances are that the actual understanding of el comes from the egyptian culture; which the ugaritic paid tribute to. the same would have influenced the whole of the middle east; including the so called moses, or moshe.


as far as is known, the idea of a supreme god in anu arises from the sumerian


The most direct equivalent to Anu in the Canaanite pantheon is Shamem, the personification of the sky,[54] but Shamem almost never appears in myths[54] and it is unclear whether the Canaanites ever regarded him as a previous ruler of the gods at all.[54] Instead, the Canaanites seem to have ascribed Anu's attributes to El, the current ruler of the gods.[

Click to expand...

You may find this interesting...

Quartz Hill School of Theology

whirlingmerc said:

You seem to be trying to disconnect Jesus from those he taught (Peter, John and spiritually appearing to Paul) makes no sense.

Click to expand...

• Simon was called the stone (petros) to fulfill Zechariah 3:9.
• Paul contradicts Yeshua on well over 36 points.
• The Gospel of John is purposely made up by the Sanhedrin to discredit Yeshua.

These were all Pharisees teaching Balaam teachings (Micah 6:5-8), and only someone who really isn't paying attention to the message of Yeshua could follow something so hypocritical...

Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin for murdering the prophets as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

whirlingmerc said:

if you believe Jesus died for sins and rose from the dead to show God forgave the sins?

Click to expand...

Yeshua did not get murdered to atone for sins, and to state such a thing is accusing God of first degree murder, making a man into an animal sacrifice, and thus making someone guilty.

The penalty for believing such a thing, is stated at the end of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, those who believe they get inheritance from Yeshua's death are removed from reality.

whirlingmerc said:

Do you believe Jesus was merely a prophet and no more?

Click to expand...

Yeshua is an Elohim (archangel) according to Isaiah 52:10 & Psalms 98:3, and is the spirit of Yahavah Elohim (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

whirlingmerc said:

What religious view would you most closely align with?

Click to expand...

I accept all religious texts globally, and as an archangel with the new name of Christ, I don't have a religious label, I find most of them naive.

whirlingmerc said:

It's a little like you looking back 2000 years and all the people Jesus taught for years all got it all wrong.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, the Wheat is the teachings of the Son of Man (Synoptic Gospels, Jude, James, Revelation), and planted along side it since the beginning are the Tares (John, Paul, Simon the stone (petros)).

In my opinion.

sooda said:

You may find this interesting...

Quartz Hill School of Theology

Click to expand...

i highly suspect that most of the middle east was influenced through the egyptian culture; specifically through the enigmatic figure of melchizedek, or hermes trismegistus.

with the spice/silk road came the dispersion of more than just dry goods.

thank you for the link.



There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:



sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.


Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. The folks at Ugarit were also plagued by a host of demons and lesser gods. The people at Ugarit saw the desert as the place which was most inhabited by demons (and they were like the Israelites in this belief). KTU 1.102:15-28 is a list of these demons.

One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel; while predating him by several centuries. This has led many Old Testament scholars to suppose that the Canonical prophet was modeled on him. His story is found in KTU 1.17 - 1.19.

Another creature which has ties to the Old Testament is Leviathan. Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1-2 describe this beast. Also see Ps 74:13-14 and 104:26.

Fool said:

i highly suspect that most of the middle east was influenced through the egyptian culture; specifically through the enigmatic figure of melchizedek, or hermes trismegistus.

with the spice/silk road came the dispersion of more than just dry goods.

thank you for the link.



There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:



sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.


Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. The folks at Ugarit were also plagued by a host of demons and lesser gods. The people at Ugarit saw the desert as the place which was most inhabited by demons (and they were like the Israelites in this belief). KTU 1.102:15-28 is a list of these demons.

One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel; while predating him by several centuries. This has led many Old Testament scholars to suppose that the Canonical prophet was modeled on him. His story is found in KTU 1.17 - 1.19.

Another creature which has ties to the Old Testament is Leviathan. Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1-2 describe this beast. Also see Ps 74:13-14 and 104:26.

Click to expand...

The Arab merchants traded from Egypt to Yemen to East Africa to Mesopotamia to Bahrain and across to the Indus Valley.. Everything .. from salt to pearls to spices, frankincense and myrrh, textiles.. Can you imagine?

wizanda said:

• Simon was called the stone (petros) to fulfill Zechariah 3:9.
• Paul contradicts Yeshua on well over 36 points.
• The Gospel of John is purposely made up by the Sanhedrin to discredit Yeshua.

These were all Pharisees teaching Balaam teachings (Micah 6:5-8), and only someone who really isn't paying attention to the message of Yeshua could follow something so hypocritical...

Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin for murdering the prophets as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

Yeshua did not get murdered to atone for sins, and to state such a thing is accusing God of first degree murder, making a man into an animal sacrifice, and thus making someone guilty.

The penalty for believing such a thing, is stated at the end of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, those who believe they get inheritance from Yeshua's death are removed from reality.

Yeshua is an Elohim (archangel) according to Isaiah 52:10 & Psalms 98:3, and is the spirit of Yahavah Elohim (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

I accept all religious texts globally, and as an archangel with the new name of Christ, I don't have a religious label, I find most of them naive.

Just to be clear, in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, the Wheat is the teachings of the Son of Man (Synoptic Gospels, Jude, James, Revelation), and planted along side it since the beginning are the Tares (John, Paul, Simon the stone (petros)).

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Why are we demonizing Simon Peter????

Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic. That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer: John 1:42 (KJV) 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

sooda said:

Why are we demonizing Simon Peter????

Click to expand...

Simon taught to have faith in jesus the person; rather than have faith in Yeshua (salvation) from God.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

Simon taught to have faith in jesus the person; rather than have faith in Yeshua (salvation) from God.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

But Jesus CHOSE Simon Peter not YOU.

sooda said:

But Jesus CHOSE Simon Peter not YOU.

Click to expand...

Yehoshua called Simon the stone (Matthew 16:18) fulfilling Zechariah 3:9, and when he rebukes him as satan (Matthew 16:23) that is Zechariah 3:1-2...

In the Parable of the Seed-sower, the stony ground which doesn't have roots is plural of petros.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

I accept all religious texts globally

Click to expand...

But just to be clear, you only accept the ones that you have determined not to be "made up". (see below)

wizanda said:

The Gospel of John is purposely made up by the Sanhedrin to discredit Yeshua.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be difficult or pushy. But saying you accept **all** religious texts isn't exactly true, right?

@Fool ,

What's KTU?

I google searched it, I see it referenced all over the place in biblical commentaries. But I don't know what it means. I've never heard of it. can you help? What does KTU stand for?

dybmh said:

I'm not trying to be difficult or pushy. But saying you accept **all** religious texts isn't exactly true, right?

Click to expand...

Firstly to accept the Bible, we need to accept that John, Paul, and Simon are false, as it is a built in Morality IQ test that is prophesied in the texts.

Tho we can accept a texts exists, and be willing to read them; it doesn't mean they're all automatically truth.

In my opinion.

dybmh said:

@Fool ,

What's KTU?

I google searched it, I see it referenced all over the place in biblical commentaries. But I don't know what it means. I've never heard of it. can you help? What does KTU stand for?

Click to expand...

you can thank @sooda for the clarification



Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit

wizanda said:

Yehoshua called Simon the stone (Matthew 16:18) fulfilling Zechariah 3:9, and when he rebukes him as satan (Matthew 16:23) that is Zechariah 3:1-2...

In the Parable of the Seed-sower, the stony ground which doesn't have roots is plural of petros.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

. Zechariah was a prophet from 520 BC to 518 BC in Jerusalem, about 2500 years ago. During that era, many Jews were returning from the Babylonian Captivity to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple, which had been destroyed by the Babylonians.

Zechariah didn't know Jesus or Simon Peter.. You're doing it again.. turning the bible into a death cult.

sooda said:

Zechariah didn't know Jesus or Simon Peter.

Click to expand...

Since Yehoshua is the Branch of David, with the spirit of Yahavah upon him... Zechariah prophesied him by name.

Simon making Pharisaic statements, is why he then becomes prophetically satan, accusing the Messiah for cutting them off.

sooda said:

turning the bible into a death cult.

Click to expand...

When we remove John, Paul, and Simon it isn't a death cult; Yeshua was teaching a living Gospel, not a dead one.

In my opinion.

Thank you sooda; i appreciate u.