Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

As an atheist, I think that religions are explicable by cultural evolution and are thus completely man made. I have been spending a great deal of time lately towards learning about Canaanite (Levant) religion. I have very far to go, but as of right now my sources include Robert Wright's The Evolution of God which then pointed me towards Israel Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Richard Elliot Freidman's The Bible With Sources Revealed (a color coded Pentateuch revealing sources J,E,P,D, and redactors...slight twist to Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis) and of course the Bible itself (NIV at home, but I use Bible Gateway to compare alternate translations). This is a topic which is of extreme interest to me as it shows us the environment in which the Israelite religion grew up. If you could recommend other sources that would be splendid, and I encourage you to discuss their ideas here...I'm just using what I'm familiar with at this point.

Basic Premise: The Israelites were not originally monotheistic. They were polytheists, and then went through periods of monolarity, and then finally towards monotheism.
Monolarity is basically the belief that there are other gods, but you worship the best. Usually a nationalistic God which is exactly what Yahweh is in the OT.

Polytheism in Israelite history had a long run until under Hezekiah and then later Josiah destroyed the temples, idols and altars of other gods. Josiah's reign is one of monolarity pushing towards monotheism which doesn't fully take root until after the exile.

This shouldn't sound too surprising as a cursory glance at the old testament frequently has the Israelites worshiping other deities. It is argued that there are many factors that led to the progression from polytheism to monotheism and they include both domestic and foreign politics. Consider first the foreign politics; Israel was a small nation which had really large neighbors: Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Phoenicia. Israel went through many periods in which it attempted to court treaties with Egypt, Babylon and Assyria which amounted towards vassalage. Israel didn't have a bargaining chip and had to pay high tribute to which ever country dominated during a certain time. This created a domestic xenophobic environment in which Israelites were almost always in zero sum relationships and they realized it and resented it. As a result much contempt stirs towards the aggressor of the day in the writing of the major and minor prophets including the great disparity between the Israelite elite and poor. One exception might be Solomon's reign which prospered under a strong international policy including the marrying of foreign wives whom are derided by the bible as having turned Solomon's heart by influencing him to acknowledge or at the very least tolerate their home countries gods.

Furthermore, Archaeology is revealing that the Israelites were merely nomadic Canaanites that lived in the hill country...not a vast exodus of slaves from Egypt that forcibly took Canaan. These nomadic tribes may have included assimilated surviving members of the Shasu whom are mentioned on the Merneptah Stele as being from Yhw (a place which happens to be the hill country). Part of the assimilation included some traditions of the Shasu being transmitted into the nomadic Canaanites and vise versa...thus the exodus.

So back to the Canaanite pantheon. This included El the creator god and father of all gods, Baal, Mot, Dagon, Ashtar, Astarte, Lotan, Melqart, Resheph, and others. These of course make appearances in the bible, but are found in Ugaritic Texts preserved in clay. Yahweh is included as well, as a son of El. Yahweh has many encounters with these characters in the bible and is said to rise above them often paralleling feats accomplished by Baal.

Lets look at a few bible verses to see this interaction.
Exodus 6:2-3
God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name the Lord (YHWH) I did not make myself known to them.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-9
“Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you; When the Most High (El Eloyn) gave the nations their inheritance, when he set up the boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (EL). For the Lord’s (YWHY) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”
Psalm 89:6-10
For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings (gods)? O Lord God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O Lord, and your faithfulness surrounds you. You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.
Psalm 74:12-17
“But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation upon the earth. It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever flowing rivers. The day is yours and yours also the night; you established the sun and the moon It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth ; you made both summer and winter.”
Psalm 82:1
“God presides in the great assembly (council of El) he gives judgment among the gods.”

These verses are clarified by the Ugaritic texts which explain the Canaanite pantheon. It isn't merely the sea or river, or moon or sun or day or night, these are gods which he is said to rise above. There are many places where Yahweh is spoken of as one of, but not the only god. There are also places where it is emphatic that he is the only one. However, the earlier Canaanite traditions include Yahweh as a son of El (as does the bible), and furthermore the Phoenician pantheon bears many resemblances as does some of Babylonian traditions.

To summarize: There is much evidence that the Israelites were originally polytheistic and Yahweh was only one of the gods in their pantheon, but being their national god he became the prominent figure and eventually the only one to survive in the Israelite tradition due largely to both foreign and domestic political pressure. Israelite religion is a product of its neighbor's religion and changed over time...cultural evolution in action.

There is much to talk about here, and I welcome discussion. Again, please bring in some of your own sources as well to enrich the topic.

[UrbanMonk]

There is much to talk about here, and I welcome discussion. Again, please bring in some of your own sources as well to enrich the topic.

Let me introduce Gary Renard's book "The Disappearance of the Universe". Gary says it is a transcript of seventeen visits/conversations over nine years with the now ascended masters Thomas and Thaddeaus who visited him at his house by popping in an out of thin air. And yet, to the touch, they were as much "flesh" as any human. They go by the names Pursah (Thomas) and Arten (Thaddeaus).

Pursah: ...you have to understand that as Jews we sincerely believed that our religion had made some kind of a giant leap forward with monotheism - the idea of one God - as opposed to polytheism - the belief in many different gods. Most of us didn't know monotheism actually originated with Akhnaton in ancient Egypt, and all this idea and our continuation of it really did was take all the different personalities and characteristics, good and bad, of all these previously made up Gods and incorporate them into one God.

Gary: So now instead of all these different screwed-up gods, you had just one screwed-up God.

Arten: Well put! Of course there really is only one God and He isn't screwed up at all...

[showmeproof]

Let me introduce Gary Renard's book "The Disappearance of the Universe". Gary says it is a transcript of seventeen visits/conversations over nine years with the now ascended masters Thomas and Thaddeaus who visited him at his house by popping in an out of thin air. And yet, to the touch, they were as much "flesh" as any human. They go by the names Pursah (Thomas) and Arten (Thaddeaus).

Pursah: ...you have to understand that as Jews we sincerely believed that our religion had made some kind of a giant leap forward with monotheism - the idea of one God - as opposed to polytheism - the belief in many different gods. Most of us didn't know monotheism actually originated with Akhnaton in ancient Egypt, and all this idea and our continuation of it really did was take all the different personalities and characteristics, good and bad, of all these previously made up Gods and incorporate them into one God.

Gary: So now instead of all these different screwed-up gods, you had just one screwed-up God.

Arten: Well put! Of course there really is only one God and He isn't screwed up at all...

Eh I'd like to stick with stuff a little bit more this worldly, I hold less esteem for mysticism than I do for mythology. Mythology we can all at least get on the same plane and talk about it from various perspectives such as archaeology, history, literature etc....mysticism relies solely on personal experience which is great for you, but a bit far out there for everyone else.

[UrbanMonk]

Eh I'd like to stick with stuff a little bit more this worldly, I hold less esteem for mysticism than I do for mythology. Mythology we can all at least get on the same plane and talk about it from various perspectives such as archaeology, history, literature etc....mysticism relies solely on personal experience which is great for you, but a bit far out there for everyone else.

I don't know what you mean "mysticism". What context are you using it in? What i've done is introduced testimony from someone who claims to be visited by the former Thomas and Thaddaeus. When they visit, they just pop in out of thin air. And when they're done talking, they just disappear the same way. And yet, to the touch, they are as much "flesh" as any other human being. The book is a transcript of recorded conversations. What is "mysticism" about this? It's called testimony.

[Seasanctuary]

showmeproof, I always thought the wording of "no other gods before me" was a bit odd.

[Jaecp]

Henotheism?

[Seasanctuary]

Henotheism?

Yeah, that's the term I've heard before.

[showmeproof]

Henotheism works. I used Monolarity because this is how Wright deals with it. As far as I am aware they are synomynous.

I think it is pretty cool how the traces of theological borrowings from Phonecian, Canaanite, and Babylonian myth remain in the bible itself. I just touched on some of the common ones.

I'll look up the exact reference tomorrow, but while in exile a group that worshipped the Queen of Heaven complains to Yahweh worshipers that while they were giving sacrifices to her they prospered, but when it was forbidden Israel was conquered and the exile began.

[Tassman]

As an atheist, I think that religions are explicable by cultural evolution and are thus completely man made. I have been spending a great deal of time lately towards learning about Canaanite (Levant) religion. I have very far to go, but as of right now my sources include Robert Wright's The Evolution of God which then pointed me towards Israel Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Richard Elliot Freidman's The Bible With Sources Revealed (a color coded Pentateuch revealing sources J,E,P,D, and redactors...slight twist to Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis) and of course the Bible itself (NIV at home, but I use Bible Gateway to compare alternate translations). This is a topic which is of extreme interest to me as it shows us the environment in which the Israelite religion grew up. If you could recommend other sources that would be splendid, and I encourage you to discuss their ideas here...I'm just using what I'm familiar with at this point.

Basic Premise: The Israelites were not originally monotheistic. They were polytheists, and then went through periods of monolarity, and then finally towards monotheism.
Monolarity is basically the belief that there are other gods, but you worship the best. Usually a nationalistic God which is exactly what Yahweh is in the OT.

Polytheism in Israelite history had a long run until under Hezekiah and then later Josiah destroyed the temples, idols and altars of other gods. Josiah's reign is one of monolarity pushing towards monotheism which doesn't fully take root until after the exile.

This shouldn't sound too surprising as a cursory glance at the old testament frequently has the Israelites worshiping other deities. It is argued that there are many factors that led to the progression from polytheism to monotheism and they include both domestic and foreign politics. Consider first the foreign politics; Israel was a small nation which had really large neighbors: Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Phoenicia. Israel went through many periods in which it attempted to court treaties with Egypt, Babylon and Assyria which amounted towards vassalage. Israel didn't have a bargaining chip and had to pay high tribute to which ever country dominated during a certain time. This created a domestic xenophobic environment in which Israelites were almost always in zero sum relationships and they realized it and resented it. As a result much contempt stirs towards the aggressor of the day in the writing of the major and minor prophets including the great disparity between the Israelite elite and poor. One exception might be Solomon's reign which prospered under a strong international policy including the marrying of foreign wives whom are derided by the bible as having turned Solomon's heart by influencing him to acknowledge or at the very least tolerate their home countries gods.

Furthermore, Archaeology is revealing that the Israelites were merely nomadic Canaanites that lived in the hill country...not a vast exodus of slaves from Egypt that forcibly took Canaan. These nomadic tribes may have included assimilated surviving members of the Shasu whom are mentioned on the Merneptah Stele as being from Yhw (a place which happens to be the hill country). Part of the assimilation included some traditions of the Shasu being transmitted into the nomadic Canaanites and vise versa...thus the exodus.

So back to the Canaanite pantheon. This included El the creator god and father of all gods, Baal, Mot, Dagon, Ashtar, Astarte, Lotan, Melqart, Resheph, and others. These of course make appearances in the bible, but are found in Ugaritic Texts preserved in clay. Yahweh is included as well, as a son of El. Yahweh has many encounters with these characters in the bible and is said to rise above them often paralleling feats accomplished by Baal.

Lets look at a few bible verses to see this interaction.
Exodus 6:2-3

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name the Lord (YHWH) I did not make myself known to them.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-9

“Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you; When the Most High (El Eloyn) gave the nations their inheritance, when he set up the boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (EL). For the Lord’s (YWHY) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

Psalm 89:6-10
For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings (gods)? O Lord God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O Lord, and your faithfulness surrounds you. You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.

Psalm 74:12-17

“But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation upon the earth. It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever flowing rivers. The day is yours and yours also the night; you established the sun and the moon It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth ; you made both summer and winter.”

Psalm 82:1

“God presides in the great assembly (council of El) he gives judgment among the gods.”

These verses are clarified by the Ugaritic texts which explain the Canaanite pantheon. It isn't merely the sea or river, or moon or sun or day or night, these are gods which he is said to rise above. There are many places where Yahweh is spoken of as one of, but not the only god. There are also places where it is emphatic that he is the only one. However, the earlier Canaanite traditions include Yahweh as a son of El (as does the bible), and furthermore the Phoenician pantheon bears many resemblances as does some of Babylonian traditions.

To summarize: There is much evidence that the Israelites were originally polytheistic and Yahweh was only one of the gods in their pantheon, but being their national god he became the prominent figure and eventually the only one to survive in the Israelite tradition due largely to both foreign and domestic political pressure. Israelite religion is a product of its neighbor's religion and changed over time...cultural evolution in action.

There is much to talk about here, and I welcome discussion. Again, please bring in some of your own sources as well to enrich the topic.

Re the bolded: If YAHWEH originated as a son of the creator god El, the father of ALL gods, was YAHWEH born as a three-in-one god or did this come later? And how would this square with “in the beginning was the word”…..and “The Word became flesh”?

BTW: I understand that the angels’ names all end with ‘el’ (i.e. Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael etc) because of their earlier association with the creator god El. Can someone confirm this? If so, the Mormons sure got it wrong with Moroni.

[showmeproof]

The three in one god is much later. Earlier they were polytheists and didn't have to hide the fact through the melding of three persons in one.

El in the general sense is the generic for God, however it is also a specific God. So when El is used as by Jacob in the naming of different altars "El Elohe Israel". This is translated as El, the god of Israel...or god the god of Israel. We have a strong case to argue for the former.

El is supposed to be the father of all the other gods, as for the angels I'm not sure. The bible even confirms Yahweh being a son of el in Deuteronomy 32:7-9. El divides the borders of the nations up according to his sons. Yahweh's allotment is Jacob (and his people).

It is also telling that during the reign of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:4, Hilkiah the priest is ordered to remove the idols from the temple which included Yahweh...Baal and Asherah among them. The temples were generalized temples for the pantheon and after the pulling out of all the other idols, Yahweh was the sole occupator left and thus it was Yahweh's temple. In other words it does history disservice to say that these temples were originally set up for solely for Yahweh worship and then became dessicrated by the slow infiltration of other gods due to the people's fickle nature. Josiah needed to control the northern and southern kingdoms and bring them under united rule because he faced stiff international pressure from both Egypt and Babylon at the time. Yahweh was chosen because he was the national god he needed to unite people behind the nation, just as today when we are in times of war we rally around the flag and become more patriotic. He then said that there are not Yahwehs of this place or that place, there is only one Yahweh...he centralized the Yahweh worship in his capitol of Jerusalem so he could unite his power at his doorstep. He had to unite the kingdoms under one god, otherwise he faced domestic challengers in the numerous priests of Baal, or the worshipers of Asherah and indeed had the priests of these gods killed. Josiah largely failed and ended up getting killed in battle by Egypt. Within a few decades Babylon sweeps in and takes Jerusalem.

Now there are two scenarios that are offered here. One must either admit that the god of their captors is greater (Baal), or they must formulate it that Yahweh used the followers of Baal to punish Israel thus making Baal subserviant to Yahweh. The Israelites upon their return from exile had successfully established the later. This is not unique in Canaanite history as the Moabite Stone indicates their God Chemosh was not above punishing his followers by allowing thier subjugation and defeat in battle.

[showmeproof]

Henotheism works. I used Monolarity because this is how Wright deals with it. As far as I am aware they are synomynous.

I think it is pretty cool how the traces of theological borrowings from Phonecian, Canaanite, and Babylonian myth remain in the bible itself. I just touched on some of the common ones.

I'll look up the exact reference tomorrow, but while in exile a group that worshipped the Queen of Heaven complains to Yahweh worshipers that while they were giving sacrifices to her they prospered, but when it was forbidden Israel was conquered and the exile began.

Jeremiah 44:15-19 ESV
15Then all the men who knew that(A) their wives had made offerings to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who lived in(B) Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah: 16"As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD,(C) we will not listen to you. 17(D) But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to(E) the queen of heaven(F) and pour out drink offerings to her,(G) as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. 18But since we left off making offerings to(H) the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything(I) and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." 19And the women said,[a] "When we made offerings to the queen of heaven(J) and poured out drink offerings to her, was it(K) without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"

[showmeproof]

Mark Smith the The Origins of Biblical Monotheism indicates that angels or messengers were part of the third tier of the Canaanite pantheon. The first tier is el, second tier his sons, third tier the messengers.

[UrbanMonk]

Re the bolded: If YAHWEH originated as a son of the creator god El, the father of ALL gods, was YAHWEH born as a three-in-one god or did this come later? And how would this square with “in the beginning was the word”…..and “The Word became flesh”?

The gospel scribe going by the name of John got it wrong. First of all, he was probably borrowing from something Heraclitus (ca. 470 BC) said about *the LOGOS*. For example:

This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.

Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one.

John saw Jesus as one who speaks of this LOGOS, as well as being the LOGOS itself. Where John goes wrong is insisting this LOGOS has/had become flesh. In so doing, he showed himself to be an inexperienced sleeper (using the above context), saying how things are (when actually they aren't that way). John took sides in the debate about the nature of a world of form (flesh), whether it is real or an illusion (a deception). It's illusory nature is exposed in the oneness teachings (and demonstrations) of Jesus, which are similar to the oneness teachings (advaita vedanta) of the East. The illusory nature of this world - and therefore the illusory nature of Jesus body - was a popular teaching put forth as the authentic teaching legacy of Jesus. It was popular enough to be a threat to the teachings of dualists (non-oneness teachers) for the gospel scribe "John" (fraudulently put forth as an associate of Jesus) to explicitly contradict it, calling it's supporters "antichrist". Conversely, John sought to validate the the reality of this world by linguistically transforming the LOGOS into flesh, thereby lending the flesh dignity, if not reality (godliness) itself. John, taking poetic license, is attempting to teach theology from a biased perspective, as one who is really asleep in terms of understanding the LOGOS (as described by Heraclitus)...and asleep in terms of understanding the Son of Go(o)d (as described by Jesus). It is purely an interpretation...and at best, mistaken.

Understood better, "the Word" is a placeholder as in an algebraic equation. It's a variable that holds whatever word or words describe Go(o)d and/or the Son of Go(o)d. Since Go(o)d is beyond words, there are no words to be able to describe Go(o)d...therefore the need for a placeholder/variable. Words are not natural to the World of Go(o)d. Stated another way, Go(o)d does not use words to communicate within the World of Go(o)d.

LOGOS, as described by Heraclitus, would have been a useful parable to describe the teachings of a wise Teacher regarding the things of Go(o)d (ie. "all things are one"). It's quite possible that Jesus, or his teaching legacy, used it to describe the teachings of a "Good Shepherd". This is probably how the LOGOS (of Heraclitus lore) came to be associated with Jesus, who was seen as a wise teacher not well understood by the masses of sleepers. What duelists like John refuse to understand is that Jesus would have been taught by the LOGOS/Good-Shepherd as any man could be taught. Jesus would even have said so, and allegedly, he did (say so). Yet, sleepers have sought to make Jesus the LOGOS/Good-Shepherd usurping the role of the "Spirit of Truth" as man's Teacher regarding the things of Go(o)d.

FYI, the Good Shepherd, the LOGOS, the Spirit of Truth and the "Holy Spirit" are different terms for the same thing. The term Spirit of Truth is used in latter chapters of John to describe a Teacher who will teach all things relative to the Son of Go(o)d. I think it's safe to assume that this is the same Teacher who taught Jesus everything he knew about his Self (the Son of Go(o)d). Likewise, it is the role of the Spirit of Truth to teach every mind about it's true inheritance as an equal to Go(o)d.

Here, then, is the "Trinity": The "Son of Go(o)d", his "Father", and That which teaches - in the name of his Father - the *prodigal son* of his inheritance as an equal to Go(o)d. The prodigal son is simply that aspect of the mind of the Son of Go(o)d that has gone astray of reality...that has denied it is the Son of Go(o)d...and has made itself out to be a "son of man" instead. In other words, there is only Go(o)d, as one, and nothing else. There is no prodigal son...just a wild imagination. When the prodigal son is dispelled from the mind of the Son of Go(o)d, the Son will have the Good Shepherd/Teacher to thank, and the Three will co-exist eternally as equals (as is normal in the World of Go(o)d).

The Trinity is relative to the salvation of the Son of Go(o)d from what he imagines to be true about his Self (but isn't). It consists of *Our Father*, our Self, and a Mediator between our our Father and our Self...and our wild imaginations about our Father and our Self. The Mediator is an equal who teaches that which has made itself unequal (the prodigal son) that it is equal to Go(o)d. Having learned well, Jesus did not consider it abnormal (reaching) to be equal with Go(o)d. And when his learning was complete, Jesus knew himself truly to be the Son of Go(o)d, equal and "one" with "our Father".

It's important to note that the Mediator does not become flesh! The Mediator is Spirit-Mind in nature, unlimited, and so formless. It's only the prodigal son who has imagined he can become flesh, and so become something other than the Son of Go(o)d (ie. the "son of man"). That which becomes flesh is not a Savior. Rather, that which believes it is limited in any way must be saved by an unlimited Savior, which must be Spirit-Mind. At best, flesh can only mouth what the Mediator puts into one's mind by way of inspiration. It is not the sleepers who can hear the Mediator's Voice. Those "with ears to hear" are those who are awakening to the proverbial LOGOS.

The Trinity describes the relationship of equals (Father and Son) who salvage their relationship by introducing a third party, so-to-speak, to negotiate terms and make a way to reconcile what makes itself different (the prodigal son) with what is the same (the Father and the Son). Terms are needed between that which uses no words - Go(o)d - and that which uses only words - the prodigal son. And a way must be made by which that which has lost its mind (the prodigal son) may find it's right mind again. So it is said that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

The problem is, that through the use of imagination, an aspect of the mind of the Son has made itself an unequal...different from anything populating the World of God. And through the (ab)use of mental powers, has managed to transform itself into "flesh". This is how the Son of Go(o)d "became flesh"...not as the scribe who calls himself John says how. Not only does the prodigal son become flesh...it becomes all flesh. For that matter, it becomes all matter...all form...all mass. In this sense, Heraclitus was right about what the LOGOS is teaching...that "all things are one" (despite appearances). The *Third Party* negotiates terms of equality for that which has declared itself unequal (the prodigal son) ...and its descendants (all mankind, the "son of man").

So, what I've just described to you is the authentic teaching legacy of Jesus. As you can see, it has been lost in translation...garbled up as it was passed down like a game of "telephone". As you can see, it does not represent pop theology pawned off in the name of Jesus. Nor does it represent anything that Israel would have understood either through its polytheistic pantheon, or its monotheistic evolution. What Jesus taught was "new" to the learning legacy of man. And it remains new even after twenty more centuries of self-imposed ignorance.

Last but not least, the nature of Go(o)d is not a threesome. The nature of Go(o)d is an infinitude of Beings, all equals, always sharing. When Go(o)d shares, Go(o)d gives Being to another Equal, whose attributes are exactly the same as the Perfection from which it came. In this way, all Beings are a Son and also a Father. (I am using gender specific words to describe what is ultimately beyond gender). This (sharing, creating) never ends. So, the infinitude is always increasing...but never changing. There is only one Perfection, and it is shared with all, who are all Perfect. Therefore, Go(o)d is said to be *ONE*. Who says this? The LOGOS.

[showmeproof]

The gospel scribe going by the name of John got it wrong. First of all, he was probably borrowing from something Heraclitus (ca. 470 BC) said about *the LOGOS*. For example:



John saw Jesus as one who speaks of this LOGOS, as well as being the LOGOS itself. Where John goes wrong is insisting this LOGOS has/had become flesh. In so doing, he showed himself to be an inexperienced sleeper (using the above context), saying how things are (when actually they aren't that way). John took sides in the debate about the nature of a world of form (flesh), whether it is real or an illusion (a deception). It's illusory nature is exposed in the oneness teachings (and demonstrations) of Jesus, which are similar to the oneness teachings (advaita vedanta) of the East. The illusory nature of this world - and therefore the illusory nature of Jesus body - was a popular teaching put forth as the authentic teaching legacy of Jesus. It was popular enough to be a threat to the teachings of dualists (non-oneness teachers) for the gospel scribe "John" (fraudulently put forth as an associate of Jesus) to explicitly contradict it, calling it's supporters "antichrist". Conversely, John sought to validate the the reality of this world by linguistically transforming the LOGOS into flesh, thereby lending the flesh dignity, if not reality (godliness) itself. John, taking poetic license, is attempting to teach theology from a biased perspective, as one who is really asleep in terms of understanding the LOGOS (as described by Heraclitus)...and asleep in terms of understanding the Son of Go(o)d (as described by Jesus). It is purely an interpretation...and at best, mistaken.

Understood better, "the Word" is a placeholder as in an algebraic equation. It's a variable that holds whatever word or words describe Go(o)d and/or the Son of Go(o)d. Since Go(o)d is beyond words, there are no words to be able to describe Go(o)d...therefore the need for a placeholder/variable. Words are not natural to the World of Go(o)d. Stated another way, Go(o)d does not use words to communicate within the World of Go(o)d.

LOGOS, as described by Heraclitus, would have been a useful parable to describe the teachings of a wise Teacher regarding the things of Go(o)d (ie. "all things are one"). It's quite possible that Jesus, or his teaching legacy, used it to describe the teachings of a "Good Shepherd". This is probably how the LOGOS (of Heraclitus lore) came to be associated with Jesus, who was seen as a wise teacher not well understood by the masses of sleepers. What duelists like John refuse to understand is that Jesus would have been taught by the LOGOS/Good-Shepherd as any man could be taught. Jesus would even has said so, and allegedly, he did (say so). Yet, sleepers have sought to make Jesus the LOGOS/Good-Shepherd usurping the role of the "Spirit of Truth" as man's Teacher regarding the things of Go(o)d.

FYI, the Good Shepherd, the LOGOS, the Spirit of Truth and the "Holy Spirit" are different terms for the same thing. The term Spirit of Truth is used in latter chapters of John to describe a Teacher who will teach all things relative to the Son of Go(o)d. I think it's safe to assume that this is the same Teacher who taught Jesus everything he knew about his Self (the Son of Go(o)d). Likewise, it is the role of the Spirit of Truth to teach every mind about it's true inheritance as an equal to Go(o)d.

Here, then, is the "Trinity": The "Son of Go(o)d", his "Father", and That which teaches - in the name of his Father - the *prodigal son* of his inheritance as an equal to Go(o)d. The prodigal son is simply that aspect of the mind of the Son of Go(o)d that has gone astray of reality...that has denied it is the Son of Go(o)d...and has made itself out to be a "son of man" instead. In other words, there is only Go(o)d, as one, and nothing else. There is no prodigal son...just a wild imagination. When the prodigal son is dispelled from the mind of the Son of Go(o)d, the Son will have the Good Shepherd/Teacher to thank, and the Three will co-exist eternally as equals (as is normal in the World of Go(o)d).

The Trinity is relative to the salvation of the Son of Go(o)d from what he imagines to be true about his Self (but isn't). It consists of *Our Father*, our Self, and a Mediator between our our Father and our Self...and our wild imaginations about our Father and our Self. The Mediator is an equal who teaches that which has made itself unequal (the prodigal son) that it is equal to Go(o)d. Having learned well, Jesus did not consider it abnormal (reaching) to be equal with Go(o)d. And when his learning was complete, Jesus knew himself truly to be the Son of Go(o)d, equal and "one" with "our Father".

It's important to note that the Mediator does not become flesh! The Mediator is Spirit-Mind in nature, unlimited, and so formless. It's only the prodigal son who has imagined he can become flesh, and so become something other than the Son of Go(o)d (ie. the "son of man"). That which becomes flesh is not a Savior. Rather, that which believes it is limited in any way must be saved by an unlimited Savior, which must be Spirit-Mind. At best, flesh can only mouth what the Mediator puts into one's mind by way of inspiration. It is not the sleepers who can hear the Mediator's Voice. Those "with ears to hear" are those who are awakening to the proverbial LOGOS.

The Trinity describes the relationship of equals (Father and Son) who salvage their relationship by introducing a third party, so-to-speak, to negotiate terms and make a way to reconcile what makes itself different (the prodigal son) with what is the same (the Father and the Son). Terms are needed between that which uses no words - Go(o)d - and that which uses only words - the prodigal son. And a way must be made by which that which has lost its mind (the prodigal son) may find it's right mind again. So it is said that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

The problem is, that through the use of imagination, an aspect of the mind of the Son has made itself an unequal...different from anything populating the World of God. And through the (ab)use of mental powers, has managed to transform itself into "flesh". This is how the Son of Go(o)d "became flesh"...not as the scribe who calls himself John says how. Not only does the prodigal son become flesh...it becomes all flesh. For that matter, it becomes all matter...all form...all mass. In this sense, Heraclitus was right about what the LOGOS is teaching...that "all things are one" (despite appearances). The *Third Party* negotiates terms of equality for that which has declared itself unequal (the prodigal son) ...and its descendants (all mankind, the "son of man").

So, what I've just described to you is the authentic teaching legacy of Jesus. As you can see, it has been lost in translation...garbled up as it was passed down like a game of "telephone". As you can see, it does not represent pop theology pawned off in the name of Jesus. Nor does it represent anything that Israel would have understood either through its polytheistic pantheon, or its monotheistic evolution. What Jesus taught was "new" to the learning legacy of man. And it remains new even after twenty more centuries of self-imposed ignorance.

Last but not least, the nature of Go(o)d is not a threesome. The nature of Go(o)d is an infinitude of Beings, all equals, always sharing. When Go(o)d shares, Go(o)d gives Being to another Equal, whose attributes are exactly the same as the Perfection from which it came. This never ends. So, the infinitude is always increasing...but never changing. There is only one Perfection, and it is shared with all, who are all Perfect. Therefore, Go(o)d is said to be *ONE*. Who says this? The LOGOS.

Seriously, you purporting to tell anyone the authentic teaching legacy of anybody is a bit off topic. Unless you have something to address regarding the Canaanite pantheon, I'd ask for you to start your own thread.

[UrbanMonk]

Seriously, you purporting to tell anyone the authentic teaching legacy of anybody is a bit off topic. Unless you have something to address regarding the Canaanite pantheon, I'd ask for you to start your own thread.

I'd be glad to start my own thread. However, if you are pretending to be a scholar, then you should want to have a wider scope of inquiry/perspective. I've given some perspective, without which your scholarship will come up short of learning anything that can actually help anyone understand what's really going on whether one believes in many gods or none at all. You would like to imagine a disconnect between my contribution and yours. Me thinks you have an agenda that biases your perspective as much as the scribe of the gospel John had an agenda. His gospel was not for learning. It was for indoctrination....getting minds to believe what it wanted them to believe about a certain person/subject. It's always about identity...who we think we are...no matter what we are talking about.