457 replies to this topic

[Moondoggy]

Quote

The writers of that article did know their Hebrew (unlike moondog), but could not know of the bronze libation bowl discovered decades later and now  believed to be Babylonian loot from the temple of Solomon.  It depicts the brazen seraph on a pole, and it is in fact, a winged reptile.  If it was a simple snake, it would not have been worshipped.  It was worshipped becasue it was obviously the idol of Yahweh, but nowadays this notion is unthinkable to both Jews and Christians, so do not expect to get an unbiased account from these sources.  Yahweh is described with wings, breathing fire and smoke, with a body large enough to block rivers, is offered virgins, apparently eats first born children along with calves and lambs, and ordered an idol of a winged dragon built and worshipped under pain of death.  If this diety  was anything but the God of the Jews and Christians, intelligent people woud say this is obviously a dragon god.  

Read Heiser's article.  The creatures that attack the Israelites are no mere snakes, but supernatural winged reptiles that serve the Hebrew God (or they are Yahweh's dragon buddies out for a good time).i  Or they could be both, actually.

I unlike you actually read books in my education. Any serious student would rely on a Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon for a word definition. All of them state other wise to your folly. The great thing is that people can look it uo for themselves rather than twisting definitions. You and everyone here has not stepped up to the plate to even read one of the over 100 usages of the word "Saraph" to see it's true root word meaning. Also not one here has bothered to read the "Angelology" section of the un-authorized Jewish Encyclopedia which defines the "Seraphim" in the 10 order of Angels and calls them spirit beings. Again you and I hope any SERIOUS seeker would bother to look it up. Face it DC, you will never undo Judaism because I am sure they would laugh at the bible origins amateur website. I tell you what, if you actually get your "book" published other than by self publishing. I will buy several copies and personally send them to Tel Aviv University for their analysis.

[Archosaur]

Quote

I unlike you actually read books in my education. Any serious student would rely on a Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon for a word definition. All of them state other wise to your folly. The great thing is that people can look it uo for themselves rather than twisting definitions. You and everyone here has not stepped up to the plate to even read one of the over 100 usages of the word "Saraph" to see it's true root word meaning. Also not one here has bothered to read the "Angelology" section of the un-authorized Jewish Encyclopedia which defines the "Seraphim" in the 10 order of Angels and calls them spirit beings. Again you and I hope any SERIOUS seeker would bother to look it up. Face it DC, you will never undo Judaism because I am sure they would laugh at the bible origins amateur website. I tell you what, if you actually get your "book" published other than by self publishing. I will buy several copies and personally send them to Tel Aviv University for their analysis.

Well, Moondoggy, there certainly has been a bit of contention on this subject before. Angels have variously been described as taking the forms of men (indicating their real from was something other), non-physical beings, winged humanoids, sphinx-like creatures, four-faced chimeras, and of course, flying, fiery, serpents. I believe that the preponderance of information indicates the latter was most often believed to the true form of Serepherim.

I believe the the works of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but edited by men. I think that these were collections of tribal wisdom, early histories, and priestly writings. They were edited in Alexandria, and certain works (Aproricah) were removed. Then, the Bible was edited again with the formation of the Catholic Church.

Angels have always been a contentious issue in monotheism. They fulfill an important role as intermediaries, instructors, protectors, and examples. However, ecclesiastical authorities have always been concerned that people may begin to worship them directly.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

I unlike you actually read books in my education. Any serious student would rely on a Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon for a word definition. All of them state other wise to your folly. The great thing is that people can look it uo for themselves rather than twisting definitions. You and everyone here has not stepped up to the plate to even read one of the over 100 usages of the word "Saraph" to see it's true root word meaning. Also not one here has bothered to read the "Angelology" section of the un-authorized Jewish Encyclopedia which defines the "Seraphim" in the 10 order of Angels and calls them spirit beings. Again you and I hope any SERIOUS seeker would bother to look it up. Face it DC, you will never undo Judaism because I am sure they would laugh at the bible origins amateur website. I tell you what, if you actually get your "book" published other than by self publishing. I will buy several copies and personally send them to Tel Aviv University for their analysis.

How many times do we have to go over this.  Distinguished Hebrew Scholars who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia support the Reptilian seraphim.  The Christian Hebrew Scholar Dr. Heiseer, who knows far moe about this than you also supports this translation.  The Ancient Jews themselves translated the word to DRAKONS.

I am not trying to Undo Judaism, you are.  Ancient Judaism acknowledged the seraphim were dragons.  That's why there are dragons on the Holy Menorah. That's why the real Jewsih scholars agree with me.   Ancient Christians also acknowledged the Seraphim are dragons, as I have proven here many times before.  But you believe in a nonsensical, non-biblical Sunday school theology where anything in the bible that seems unsavory to the Anglo-Saxon mind is simply expunged from it.

The noun Seraph, which is documented much earlier than the Bible is the Seraph that appears in the Egyptian Pyramid texts.  And guess what, it is a fiery flying serpent, EXACTLY as the Hebrew ones are described.  There can be no doubt that the hebrews took this word from the Egyptians.

Yes, legends say they spew fire, and this is why there are verbs connected to burning and fiery associated with the creature.

[67thbook]

Quote

The Jewish Encyclopedia has an article about Seraphim, here it is :-
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...88&letter=S
It appears to me that this image (Brazen Serpent) was likely to have been of a poisonous snake (horned viper?) , and along the process of this totem entity becomming the focus of a cult (one that had to be abolished later because it 'conflicted' with the sole worship of God) the serpent entity 'aquired' wings and possibly other attributes.........
it would be nice to find various representations of the totem in this timeline to mark its development.

We can see this same development with the 'dragon'. Greek mythology abounds with tales of great serpents which 'watch over' items for a god, or do the bidding of a god (hence their name). In their earliest depictions-which predate most of our literary evidence- these creatures are not winged they are great big snakes, they are called singularly 'drakon'. in some depictions they appear to fly...but have no wings. It is during the Late Classical/ Early Hellenistic -to-Roman period that we begin to see depictions of dragons with wings, the one or two exceptions to this are due to cross cultural contact--Something the Hellenistic period later greatly facilitated.

I realise that some of you will read the above article and other relevant ones in the Jewish Encyclopedia differently, and am interested in your views.

The Arch of Titus and the depictions on the double hexagonal stand of the menorah may be of assistance to you.

Of course, some will say that since it was Roman art, it was a liberty or few taken by the sculptors.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

The Arch of Titus and the depictions on the double hexagonal stand of the menorah may be of assistance to you.

Of course, some will say that since it was Roman art, it was a liberty or few taken by the sculptors.

You are right.

Actually, the most knowledgeable Jewish scholars admit the Menorah  is Jewish, and an authentic likeness of the original,  because the dragons conform to Jewish religious laws that clearly state how a "holy" dragon must be depicted (AZ 43a) .   Now why would a pagan Roman sculptor scrupulously follow Jewish religious laws to insure these were holy dragons?  The sculptor wouldn't.  This proves it is not a Roman invention.  In fact, this early Imperial art was known for its photographic-like perfection.  Even the sandal laces are completely accurate.

All of the ancient Jewish and Christian art and literature portray the Seraphim as reptilian creatures, which the ancient Jews themselves translated to Drakons as the ancient scriptures prove.

[The Gremlin]

The Arch of Titus does indeed show the menorah with the hexagonal base, it is different to the original.



When the Romans captured the Menorah, they broke off the three-footed base and replaced it with a double hexagon. The double hexagon has 12 sides. Each of the 12 Tribes were depicted on a side of the double hexagon.


This depiction of the menorah was found a few hundred yards from where the Menorah stood in the Bais HaMikdash. It was made while the Temple still stood. Notice the three-footed base.



It is quite possible that the decoration on the base reflected Roman stylistics; and propoganda.

Edit:

PS. if the tribes were represented on the sides, animal totems?

Edited by lil gremlin, 23 September 2007 - 09:58 PM.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

The Arch of Titus does indeed show the menorah with the hexagonal base, it is different to the original.



When the Romans captured the Menorah, they broke off the three-footed base and replaced it with a double hexagon. The double hexagon has 12 sides. Each of the 12 Tribes were depicted on a side of the double hexagon.
This depiction of the menorah was found a few hundred yards from where the Menorah stood in the Bais HaMikdash. It was made while the Temple still stood. Notice the three-footed base.



It is quite possible that the decoration on the base reflected Roman stylistics; and propoganda.

Edit:

PS. if the tribes were represented on the sides, animal totems?

It is my understanding that graffito was not excavated by archaeologists, and only alleged to be from the temple mount.  Such pieces are easily faked, and there is a ready market for "biblical artifacts".

You have read the same scholarly articles by Jewish Rabbis as I have, and the general concensus is that the Menorah base is unquestionably Jewish because the dracons are depicted in the manner described in ancient Jewish religious law.  Pagan dragons are always depicted with spines, while Jewish dracons are smooth.    And try to use a little common sense for a moment.   If the Seraphim were NOT Drakons, why did the ancient Jews translate the the word seraphim to drakon, and why would there be Jewish Religious laws that specifically referred to Drakons?  Actually, what the Jewish scholars claim is that Herod replaced the simple tripod with the elaborate Hellenistic style base to have a grander piece for the new temple he built.  But what they also say, is IT CONFORMS TO JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW, Drakons and all!  Oh, and some scholars claim that what it thought to be a Roman eagle is actually a winged angel!  

And NO, the panels do not refer to the 12 tribes.  I have seen the Arch of Titus many times in Rome, and dragons appear on all three sides visible on the base bottom.  And as I said before, dragons were not a common Roman symbol in the first century AD.  It was not used as a standard until much later.  AND if the Romans wanted to depict dragons on a monument, they would be Roman dragons and not Jewish dragons as we see on the menorah.

Like the book of Isaiah plainly states, fiery flying serpents/draKons were God's highest attendants, and this is why they were depicted on the holiest Jewish temple furniture.  And like the OP states, Yahweh Himself was also a dragon.

Edited by draconic chronicler, 24 September 2007 - 12:45 AM.

[Archosaur]

Quote

It is my understanding that graffito was not excavated by archaeologists, and only alleged to be from the temple mount.  Such pieces are easily faked, and there is a ready market for "biblical artifacts".

You have read the same scholarly articles by Jewish Rabbis as I have, and the general concensus is that the Menorah base is unquestionably Jewish because the dracons are depicted in the manner described in ancient Jewish religious law.  Pagan dragons are always depicted with spines, while Jewish dracons are smooth.    And try to use a little common sense for a moment.   If the Seraphim were NOT Drakons, why did the ancient Jews translate the the word seraphim to drakon, and why would there be Jewish Religious laws that specifically referred to Drakons?  Actually, what the Jewish scholars claim is that Herod replaced the simple tripod with the elaborate Hellenistic style base to have a grander piece for the new temple he built.  But what they also say, is IT CONFORMS TO JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW, Drakons and all!  Oh, and some scholars claim that what it thought to be a Roman eagle is actually a winged angel!  

And NO, the panels do not refer to the 12 tribes.  I have seen the Arch of Titus many times in Rome, and dragons appear on all three sides visible on the base bottom.  And as I said before, dragons were not a common Roman symbol in the first century AD.  It was not used as a standard until much later.  AND if the Romans wanted to depict dragons on a monument, they would be Roman dragons and not Jewish dragons as we see on the menorah.

Like the book of Isaiah plainly states, fiery flying serpents/draKons were God's highest attendants, and this is why they were depicted on the holiest Jewish temple furniture.  And like the OP states, Yahweh Himself was also a dragon.

It's kind of hard to make out the carvings, are there any closer views? It is interesting to see that on a Roman arch. Did they put up the art and symbols of all of the peoples of the empire? It seems to me that if they publicly wanted to offer some respect, they would have been able to produce it accurately (so it most likely is), or if they wanted to mack they would have probably twisted it almost beyond recognition.

And remember: spines aren't kosher.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

It's kind of hard to make out the carvings, are there any closer views? It is interesting to see that on a Roman arch. Did they put up the art and symbols of all of the peoples of the empire? It seems to me that if they publicly wanted to offer some respect, they would have been able to produce it accurately (so it most likely is), or if they wanted to mack they would have probably twisted it almost beyond recognition.

And remember: spines aren't kosher.

It is hard to find clear photos of the drakons on the arch for they are fairly worn, but nobody doubts what they are.  You could say they look quite a bit like plesiosaurs, or "nessie"!!!   But no real scholar doubts this is a faithful reproduction of the original artifact. Yes, the Romans copied the original items scrupulously.  During this period art was depicted entirely realistically.  Every element of armor, sandals, etc, are identical to the real thing.  There is no doubt the menorah itself was displayed in a Roman temple, as captured spoils were, and could be seen and compared with the sculpture.  Other trophies were captured enemy armor and weapons, and again, we see this in remarkable detail on the base of the arch of Trajan.

BOTH the State of Israel, and the highly orthodox group recreating the temple implements recognize the hexogonal base as the "real thing" and NOT a Roman invention.  It is only ignorant people disturbed by the dragon imagery that have a problem with the reality of it, and the undeniable role of dragons as important Heavenly creatures in the Judao-Christian theology.

[The Gremlin]

what you are saying here dc is that :-

the hexagonal base (as depicted on the arch of titus) was original and the menorah did not have a tripod base.

the images on the hexagonal base were accurately copied in the arch's depiction of it.

the 'dragon' image in the depiction is 'kosher', and must depict a seraphim or bene elohim. 'It looks like a plesiosaur, like nessie'


you say YHVH was a bene elohim, and that he is enlil, Satan is a bene elohim and he is enki.

enlil and enki were Ushumgal (great serpents=bene elohim) and ushumgal look like mushussu....


a 'seal-nessie' concieved with a plesiosaur body.

mushussu from the Istar gate Babylon

rolled out image of the vase of lagash

the vase of lagash, notice the central focal image, the entwining serpents on the beak of the vase from where the libation was poured.

they dont look particularly similar, and if each were faithfully represented then there's a problem. It is unlikely even with the dimmest memory that a sighting of nessie would be rendered like a mushussu.

Edit : to label pics.

Edited by lil gremlin, 25 September 2007 - 10:38 PM.

[northwest]

What amazes me is the lack of "are you f.... serious" kind of comments in this incredible thread

is it so beyond ridiculous for various skeptics that they don't even bother posting, or....well I can't figure out another reason

Don't get me wrong, DC, I think it's one of the best thread we have had lately, I don't think its ridiculous
myself, I think you have a strong case within religious frame of thinking.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

What amazes me is the lack of "are you f.... serious" kind of comments in this incredible thread

is it so beyond ridiculous for various skeptics that they don't even bother posting, or....well I can't figure out another reason

Don't get me wrong, DC, I think it's one of the best thread we have had lately, I don't think its ridiculous
myself, I think you have a strong case within religious frame of thinking.

It is becasue I have been here a long time, and I know what I am talking about, and "they" know it.   If we accept the premise that events and creatures in the Bible actually exist, then the Bible supports my argument far more than it does the "stereotype, modern Christiain, Non-Biblical, Sunday School mythology"  believed in by the majority of today's Christians.  There is actually far more evidence for the dragons that occur in virtually every human belief system (including original Christianity and Judaism) than there is for any other kind of God, angel or demon.   Now they are all supposedly invisible spririts, but this is not what the Bible says.  In the real Bible, angels eat food and have sex with women.  Yahweh eats children and likes salt on his fatted calves, has great wings, breathes fire and blocks rivers with his huge dragon body.  These things are plainly stated in the Bible as well as Yahweh's murderous behaviour, jealousies and paranoia.  But unlike most Christians, I never stated that this dragon is God.  Nor does Jesus.  That is why this is so amusing.  Christians are fullfilling their own prophecies in Revelation, as the accursed ones who "worship the dragon", yet stupidly point to Satanists who are in reality simply colorful atheists who do not even believe in "the dragon", but stage their "praise Satan" antics just to mock Christianity.

And this theory has complete compatibility with evolution and an earth Billions of years old.  What is a sceptic to say?  Not only do I support most of the things they believe, but I can also explain why virtually every human culture worshipped dragons and gave them virtually the same attributes in every corner of the world.

Edited by draconic chronicler, 26 September 2007 - 12:28 AM.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

what you are saying here dc is that :-

the hexagonal base (as depicted on the arch of titus) was original and the menorah did not have a tripod base.

the images on the hexagonal base were accurately copied in the arch's depiction of it.

the 'dragon' image in the depiction is 'kosher', and must depict a seraphim or bene elohim. 'It looks like a plesiosaur, like nessie'
you say YHVH was a bene elohim, and that he is enlil, Satan is a bene elohim and he is enki.

enlil and enki were Ushumgal (great serpents=bene elohim) and ushumgal look like mushussu....


they dont look particularly similar, and if each were faithfully represented then there's a problem. It is unlikely even with the dimmest memory that a sighting of nessie would be rendered like a mushussu.

Edit : to label pics.

Yes, like the leading Rabbis who commented on the base, I believe it must be of Jewish origin because the Drakons are not pagan , but conform to Jewish religious laws.  Before Herod improved it with images of Yahweh or his relatives, there is some evidence the earlier Menorah had a tripod base, though this is not said when Moses was given instructions to make it.  The State of Israel uses this shape menorah with the dragon base as the official menorah.  How could you possbily question them for not being Jewish?

The popular concept of Nessie has the basic draco form as the creatures on the Menorah, a long neck. reptilian head and tail.  We really do not know if Nessie and other lake monsters have fins or legs.  

The Babylonian Mushushu would look much like nessie if submerged in the water with the feet hidden.  Same long neck, same reptilian head.

The winged Mushushu is quite similar to the wingless ones, with same style head, longish neck, similar tail, simlar clawed feet.  If the wings were closely folded to the body like a bird, (as many medieval  dragons are depicted, it would be difficult to even notice the wings.  Nessie could have such wings just like aquatic birds like the commorant.

I really don't see your point.  The evidence you provided fully supports my argument.  

[The Gremlin]

Quote

I really don't see your point.  The evidence you provided fully supports my argument.

it doesnt surprise me at all, you have already stretched credulity beyond the point of elasticity so that it flaps like a lolling tongue. I suppose in the scheme of your 'theory' this 'explaination' isnt such a big stretch.

Quote

If we accept the premise that events and creatures in the Bible actually exist, then the Bible supports my argument

this premise expects us to accept that the events and creatures in the bible actually exist, but to also accept that the bible is (at least Genesis) flawed, a hazey recollection of stories from Sumeria. Is Genesis as recorded in the bible as an event to be accepted? which version? Is the bible a more reliable source for Genesis than the Sumerian stories? Is it all events and creatures in the bible that we have to accept as true? or just the ones that fit into your argument?

perhaps you should be more specific with your premise.

One final thing, you have made much of jesus coming to fulfill the OT, he endorses it.
At the same time you have him admonishing the authorities for worshipping satan while he worships the true god,  since he is a son of El and not Jehovah.
Please explain why Jesus would endorse the book as the one reliable holy book, if it were filled with the demands, wishes and deeds of what appears to be a demi-urge. Surely he could not endorse the belief that jehovah was the highest, or one true god?

Im sure that once you have explained it to me that it will all become clear.

P.S. Im sure the Museum of the Bais Hamikdash would be grateful to you to hear that their exhibit is a clever forgery, im sure they hadnt entertained the thought or examined it at all.

P.P.S    The most convincing argument ive heard so far about the menorah base, is that Herod 'fixed' its broken tripod base, and decorated it with roman imperial imagery.
I have seen no support for the belief that the base depicts jewish religious imagery, The closest to this being that they represented the emblems of the tribes.

Edited by lil gremlin, 26 September 2007 - 02:44 PM.

[odas]

Great posts, DC. I like to read it.

Can you tell me how many variations of the name - EL ( Elohim ) are used in the Semitic languages? How many variations are there for Yahweh?