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.
As for the similarity of the ancient dragons all over the world, the proof is there. There is no record of contact between the Sumerians and the Chinese, yet their dragons are nearly the same, not only in appearance, but in their relationship with humans.
Of course the Sumerian version of the events of Genesis will be more accurate, they were written down over a 1000 years before the hebrews finally recorded them, with that thousand years of retelling causing there to be inaccuracies. But from the exodus, these events were recorded shortly after they occured.
Jesus acknowledged the Holy Torah, and accoridng to it, Yahweh is not God, El is. Psalms and Deuteronomy both explain Yahweh is only one of many sons of El in the court of El the creator. Yahweh was the Bene Elohim in charge of the Hebrews, just as Ba'al was for the Cannanites. In this early period, Ba'al Haddad and the other "sons of Enlil" were just a real as Yahweh. Only much later was Yahweh and El combined. And as the OP shows, Yahweh, and the other "Sons", both in Sumeria and in Cannan are called dragons. Just because most modern Christians are completely ignorant of what the Old Testament is about, doesn't mean Jesus was. Jesus did not say Satan was the murderer from the beginning. He said the creature that the Pharisees worshipped was. The Pharisees worshipped Yahweh, not Satan. The problem is that most Christians now do not understand this. In ancient times many Christians knew the truth but they were defeated by the Roman Catholics and their writings mostly destroyed, though we are finding them again through archaeology.
These dragons used by the creator are not evil devils, nor are they particularly benificent Gods. Yahweh demanded the first born children of the Hebrews, but later would accept gold in their place. He is jealous and vengeful. These are not characteristics of an all wise creator entity, but an eating, drinking physical creature, which all over the world, creatures like him became surroagate gods that helped fledgling human societies, but they expected to be fed lambs, calves, and often children for their troubles. Jesus knew all of this, and when he called to his God from the cross, it was El, and not the dragon Yaw.
As for the menorah, this was discussed at length before. The most knowledgable Jewish rabbis acknowledge the Menorah on Titus' Arch conforms to Jewish religious law. This is why it is the menorah adopted by the state of Israel, as well as the menorah that has been recreated by the Jewish group trying to rebuild the temple. The dragons on the Menorah are Holy Dragons that are specifically described in AZ43a that explains exactly how they must be depicted in art.are given smooth bodiesnot depiect
From an ultra Jewish Website called Failedmessiah.com
" In the lower hexagon are three
panels with various kete (plural of ketos). A ketos is called drakon by
Hazal; in the Mishna Avodah Zara 3:3 it shows that a drakon was suspect
of being a symbol of AZ. How would that get into the Temple? Even worse,
the eagle was the symbol of Imperial Rome, and as such was an anathema
to Jews longing to be free of Roman rule.
However, the picture cannot be simply an invention of a Roman artist.
The arms are are equidistant from each other, and the distance equals
the width of the arms (another universal characteristic of Jewish
sources), they all go up to an equal height, and even the ratio of the
distance from the base to the lower arms to the rest of the height
matches the ratio given by Hazal. And there are clear g'vi'im, kaftorim
and p'rahim on the arms. This must be a representation of the Menorah of
the Hekhal. So how can we explain the base?
R. Daniel Sperber gives the correct answer, IMHO. He notes that usually
a ketos has a nymph perched on its back, and scales on its neck, and
shows pictures of a very similar from a Roman temple in Didyma with such
a nymph. In e), there is no nymph and no scales on the neck. He quotes
the g'moro AZ 43a that a drakon that is osur has scales on its neck, and
the Tosefta in AZ that says "if the neck was smooth, it is muttar."
This means, that even though pagans also believed in and depicted dragons, dragons acceptable to Jewish Law (being the seraphim that were being translated to the word Drakon during this same period), had smooth necks without the spines of the pagan dragons. Also a Jewish archaeologist states there are no "Roman Eagles" on the Menorah, but these are winged angels. I have seen it in person, and it is hard to tell becasue of the wear. Therefore nothing on the menorah is "Roman Imagery". If it had been , the Jews would have rioted in protest, becasue this would have been a far worse affront to them, than merely putting a Roman eagle on the gates. I thought you knew a little about this period of history?
So you really thing you know more aobut Jewish religious laws and history, than the State of Israel and the Jews rebuidling the temple? You've got to be kidding.
And see how similar this very ancient Chinese dragon is to the Sumerian ones. They are virtually identical in body form despite being seperated by thousands of miles. They help people in the same manner, like the same things, including alchoholic beverages! in the succedding centuries when people saw fewer and fewer real dragons, the oriental dragrons became more serpent-like with the symbolic attributes of other animals, whereas western dragons have become more and more like dinosaurs.
Edited by draconic chronicler, 27 September 2007 - 09:09 AM.