Is the Biblical Yahweh actually a dragon?

[The Gremlin 53]

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 September 23, 2007 by lil gremlin

[draconic chronicler 15]

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 September 24, 2007 by draconic chronicler

[Archosaur 15]

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 15]

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 53]

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 September 25, 2007 by lil gremlin

[northwest 1]

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 15]

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 September 26, 2007 by draconic chronicler

[draconic chronicler 15]

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 53]

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.

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 September 26, 2007 by lil gremlin

[odas 3,571]

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?

[draconic chronicler 15]

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.

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 September 27, 2007 by draconic chronicler

[Mesobaite 0]

draconic chronicler,

Your Theory is very intruiging. There does seem to be a dual personality iin the messages of the bible - one all loving father/creator and one jealouse militant/tyrant. The latter would instruct the Hebrew warriors to go into cities and kill every living thing including children, old people and all the animals. Then the other would love and protect the Isrealites from harm. Its very confusing to say the least.

[draconic chronicler 15]

draconic chronicler,

Your Theory is very intruiging. There does seem to be a dual personality iin the messages of the bible - one all loving father/creator and one jealouse militant/tyrant. The latter would instruct the Hebrew warriors to go into cities and kill every living thing including children, old people and all the animals. Then the other would love and protect the Isrealites from harm. Its very confusing to say the least.

It is confusing until you understand the nature of the Watcher Dragons assigned to the human race to all of the ancient cultures, as worldwode dragon legends attest to. El the creator allowed no fighting among his dragons, nor could they harm the humans of another dragon. So for Yaw to take back the territory of Ba'al Hadad, Yaw humans had to kill all of Ba'als. With no more children, lambs and calves fed to him, he had to leave to find new territories. Yaw blocked the Jordan with his body so the Hebrews could pass through its bed, and he could knock down the walls of Jericho, but he could not harm Ba'al people. But in order to expel Ba'al from Cannan, all of his followers had to die. Even the domestic animals had to die because they belonged to the worshippers of Baal, and many would have been fed to him, just as Yaw expected a minimum of two lambs a day, plus first born offspring of every female beast and human of the Israelites. But by this time, Yaw's love of gold (like most dragons) was such that he allowed familities to "buy back" the children, and the bible contains elaborate details on how much it would cost to get them back based on their weight/size, like and other meat. I bet they never told you about any of this in Sunday School, but its all in the Bible.

[The Gremlin 53]

As for the similarity of the ancient dragons all over the world, the proof is there.

agreed there is plenty of proof that ancient peoples from all over the world knew of creatures,entities,deities that have been retrospecively termed 'dragon'. Many of them are physically similar, some have a common root; but many of them are dissimilar physically and represent/signify different things. I would hazard that ALL have their origins ultimately in Serpent worship/cults/reverence and in collective identities.

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.

I know of no ancient record of direct contact between sumerian and chinese cultures, this however does not mean that there was none. It is far more likely that contact was indirect, trade routes....of this we are certain. The picture you posted is not of a dragon at all...It is a bixie, a composite creature, like a chimera...made poplular by the Han dynasty.

Actually the Han 'bixie' appeared relatively late in china, about 200 BC or so, the earliest dragon depiction found in china dates to more than 2000 years BEFORE this, it is serpentine and already identifiable as the 'Lung' or 'Long' dragon. The Han dragon entered chinese stylistics because the Han embraced 'barbarian' art from the north and west...(which had its cultural source in mesopotamian art.)----indirect trade

The dragon began in china as a totem animal of one of the Xia peoples, and is found in the Longshang culture which has yeilded some of the earliest depictions...here are some...

This is apparently the oldest dragon identifyable as a lung/long. from henan province....dated from the xia shang period (between 3000 or so and 1100 BC....much earlier than the Han)

!n addition to the discovery of the said tracks, a large turquoise dragon ware was excavated, which is believed to be the earliest dragon-shaped totem. The dragon, about 70 centimeters long and made up of 2,000-odd various fine pieces of turquoise, is a rare antique in terms of scale, exquisiteness, and weight.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/A...logy/149496.htm

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002011.html

Other depictions of dragons, in their progression to becomming the full composite we see today, were depicted on the shallow bowls or 'pen' of the Xia and Shang...

http://www.phoenixbonsai.com/BigPicture/Pen.html

Above 12.3 cm H; 32.4 cm W; 5.3 kg. Shang (Late Anyang, 12th - 11th cent. B.C.E. )

3D head in the centre, cool.

and here's a few interesting links, and a good article source

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Southchina1.htm

http://www.yutopian.com/dragon/

http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/xia.htm this is another page by mr c winters which is quite relevent.

also this article...

Daniel L. Overmyer, David N. Keightley, Edward L. Shaughnessy, Constance A. Cook, Donald Harper

The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 124-160

The Bixie 'is' based on the mesopotamian composite creature called the mushussu, which came to the han via Luristan and the Sarmatians et al. in other words, it is not originally of chinese conception although it has stylistically evolved- it it gradually lost its reptilian form and came to sport a feline body, with feline hind legs instead of those of a raptor.

None of these dragons look like archosaurs, none have modified rib gliding aparatus. The bixie like the mushussu has feathered wings.

They all are mythical creatures and did not at any time really exist.

DC- 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.

The tales have common motifs but the emphasis is very different.

How many of the books was moses credited to have written? His God who demands exclusive worship is Jehovah, as was Joshua's...Jehovah is certainly the God of Exodus, and claims to be one.

For Jesus son of the highest El this is blasphemy? Im having a hard time believing that Jesus (son of El) would ratify this, and encourage it...it would mean that he was in on the lie.

My bible knowledge is (i would concider) deficient, and i dont seek to challenge any religious authority (on this point at least), i dont think my observation about the menorah challenged anything, infact as far as i am aware the image is still causing debate on the subject.

I was also aware of that failedmessiah.com,

...The base itself may have had three legs, like both Rashi and the Rambam

say, and all Jewish representations show...In any event, it is

clear that it did not have the double-hexagonal base...

from a house in the very wealthy, upper class area

of the Upper City of Y'rushalayim, one from which the BhM was actually

visible; the house was destroyed at the time of the Destruction of the

Temple from all indications. Thus it is a representation from the time

that the Menorah still existed. The fact that it is depicted next to a

representation of the Shulhan of the Lehem haPanim proves that it is

meant to be the Menorah in the Hekhal, as do the decorations of

elliptical (egg-shaped) objects on the arms, presumably the kaftorim.

Again, it is not completely detailed (the numbers of the g'vi'im and

kaftorim are not correct, and there are no p'rahim), but the same

comments about a) apply: its relative dimensions are exactly correct; it

shows the same relative size of the tripod base to the arms...

...d), OTOH, is clearly different from a), , and any of the c)s. The base

is entirely different, and out of proportion with the rest of the

menorah. The arms are all semicircular (as they are in some 3rd - 4th

Century representations from Jewish synagogues shown in JE 11:1357-1361)

and therefore the space between the inner arms and the central arm is

noticeably greater than the distance between the other arms. It has

clear kaftorim and p'rahim, although in the wrong number (not covering

the entire arms, but a greater number on the outside, longer arms). It

is not clear what the g'vi'im are meant to be: they seem to be flattened

bowl-shaped objects above and below the kaftorim, but the concave faces

of each face the kaftor, so that the concave part of the upper bowl

faces down and the concave face of the one below faces up. The central

arm appears to be wrapped with some decoration below the outer arms, and

the base is two giant hexagons, the top one larger than the lower one,

with decorations on the side panels. Examination of the panels of the

hexagons shows that the central one on the upper hexagon has a picture

of two eagles holding a (laurel?) crown. To its left and right are

panels showing a ketos, a aquatic monster usually with a serpent body

and the head of a bird or other animal. 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.

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

evidence, that the base was made showing the symbol of Imperial Rome and

avoiding AZ, matches Herod the Great. He was put in his position, after

Matitya Antigonos, by the Roman, and Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews

tells us that he erected a great golden eagle over the gates of the

Temple, an act that angered the Jews. OTOH, he always was careful to

portray himself as King of the Jews and avoided any outright AZ. So, R.

Sperber concludes, it must have been Herod who put on the base. Why

would he have monkeyed around with the Menorah? Probably because shortly

before his reign the Parthians entered Y'rushalayim and plundered it.

The Menorah may well have been broken at its weakest point, its small

base, at that time, and Herod, whose mark was large construction

projects many of which were for the benefit of the Jews while at the

same time reminding everyone of Roman sovereignty (as he did in his

reconstruction of the BhM), would naturally have made a large new base,

for the good of the Jewish Temple but with Roman symbols.

So it is extremely probable that e) was actually drawn from someone who

saw the Menorah as it was paraded through Rome in 71 and perhaps later,

wherever it ended up. But some of the exact details, like the exact

number of kaftorim, or the exact curve of the arms, is wrong, because

the sculptor no longer had the Menorah in front of him.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml

Examination of the panels of the

hexagons shows that the central one on the upper hexagon has a picture

of two eagles holding a (laurel?) crown. To its left and right are

panels showing a ketos, a aquatic monster usually with a serpent body

and the head of a bird or other animal. 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.

perhaps you read it differently to me, i find the theory above to be quite possible.

The point made above that the depiction on the arch of titus was WRONG in other respects besides the base indicates that the artist may not have as faithfully recorded the menorah as the apparent attention to detail suggests.

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?

agreed many Jews would have seen it as an affront....possibly. The number of folk permitted to see it would be very low...that is, ofcourse if the one depicted was the main menorah, there were 7 or so? And also it depends whether those images on the panels were really on the base and not an invention of the artist...the issue is far from conclusion.

There are no winged angels in either Jewish or Roman art at this time, especially for public display (as far as i recall) The closest being Nike/Victoria, and no cherub looking ones (often depicted in pairs holding emblems) other than Eros/Cupid.

If you know of any such depictions of angels i would be grateful for a reference or example.

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.

As i have shown elsewhere, and above; the Chinese dragon originated from a serpent totem/cult symbol which was already 2000 years evolved (become composite of other clan totemic features) BEFORE the Han bixie you present; which means that your conclusion that it became the 'Long' serpentine dragon due to increasing unfamiliarity is incorrect....besides which they would always have had previous depictions to refer to (if it were so).

The Chinese Long and the western dragon only share the same root in that they originate somewhere in serpent totemism.

It is possible that we have an example of how an animal can become a totem, then a cult figure, and how that can affect its physical representation in the story of the Brazen Serpent (albeit in a greatly reduced timeframe).

Edited September 27, 2007 by lil gremlin

[Archosaur 15]

Thanks for the info and beautiful pictures, Grem!

Personally, I think the serpent cults were an early offshoot of, and part of, dragon cults. Let's face it: real snakes are pretty dumb. In lore throughout the world, however, the attributes that legends give them are the same: intelligence, wisdom, magic, immortality, etc. Now cultures may view them in a positive or negative light, but something must have convinced everyone to consider a rather simple predator to have all of these attributes.

Note, I'm mot saying that you have to believe in dragons, but at least there had to be a cultural phenomenon.

[The Gremlin 53]

Thanks for the info and beautiful pictures, Grem!

Personally, I think the serpent cults were an early offshoot of, and part of, dragon cults. Let's face it: real snakes are pretty dumb. In lore throughout the world, however, the attributes that legends give them are the same: intelligence, wisdom, magic, immortality, etc. Now cultures may view them in a positive or negative light, but something must have convinced everyone to consider a rather simple predator to have all of these attributes.

Note, I'm mot saying that you have to believe in dragons, but at least there had to be a cultural phenomenon.

living as we do today we have less oppurtunity to observe snakes. The rebirth/immortality attribute comes from observing them shed skin, it forms an important part of their cultic significance. Then we have their ability to survive in potentially hostile environments .... they have shown migrant folk how to survive in their new terrain: many peoples who have 'settled' in a new area claim that this was the case, including the inhabitants of Tenochtitlán. there are plenty of common attributes to serpent cults; similar rituals, values etc...As the society becomes more complex so does the religion, beliefs are adapted or rejected...its evolution man.

[draconic chronicler 15]

agreed there is plenty of proof that ancient peoples from all over the world knew of creatures,entities,deities that have been retrospecively termed 'dragon'. Many of them are physically similar, some have a common root; but many of them are dissimilar physically and represent/signify different things. I would hazard that ALL have their origins ultimately in Serpent worship/cults/reverence and in collective identities.

I know of no ancient record of direct contact between sumerian and chinese cultures, this however does not mean that there was none. It is far more likely that contact was indirect, trade routes....of this we are certain. The picture you posted is not of a dragon at all...It is a bixie, a composite creature, like a chimera...made poplular by the Han dynasty.

Actually the Han 'bixie' appeared relatively late in china, about 200 BC or so, the earliest dragon depiction found in china dates to more than 2000 years BEFORE this, it is serpentine and already identifiable as the 'Lung' or 'Long' dragon. The Han dragon entered chinese stylistics because the Han embraced 'barbarian' art from the north and west...(which had its cultural source in mesopotamian art.)----indirect trade

The dragon began in china as a totem animal of one of the Xia peoples, and is found in the Longshang culture which has yeilded some of the earliest depictions...here are some...

This is apparently the oldest dragon identifyable as a lung/long. from henan province....dated from the xia shang period (between 3000 or so and 1100 BC....much earlier than the Han)

!n addition to the discovery of the said tracks, a large turquoise dragon ware was excavated, which is believed to be the earliest dragon-shaped totem. The dragon, about 70 centimeters long and made up of 2,000-odd various fine pieces of turquoise, is a rare antique in terms of scale, exquisiteness, and weight.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/A...logy/149496.htm

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002011.html

Other depictions of dragons, in their progression to becomming the full composite we see today, were depicted on the shallow bowls or 'pen' of the Xia and Shang...

http://www.phoenixbonsai.com/BigPicture/Pen.html

Above 12.3 cm H; 32.4 cm W; 5.3 kg. Shang (Late Anyang, 12th - 11th cent. B.C.E. )

3D head in the centre, cool.

and here's a few interesting links, and a good article source

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Southchina1.htm

http://www.yutopian.com/dragon/

http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/xia.htm this is another page by mr c winters which is quite relevent.

also this article...

Daniel L. Overmyer, David N. Keightley, Edward L. Shaughnessy, Constance A. Cook, Donald Harper

The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 124-160

The Bixie 'is' based on the mesopotamian composite creature called the mushussu, which came to the han via Luristan and the Sarmatians et al. in other words, it is not originally of chinese conception although it has stylistically evolved- it it gradually lost its reptilian form and came to sport a feline body, with feline hind legs instead of those of a raptor.

None of these dragons look like archosaurs, none have modified rib gliding aparatus. The bixie like the mushussu has feathered wings.

They all are mythical creatures and did not at any time really exist.

The tales have common motifs but the emphasis is very different.

How many of the books was moses credited to have written? His God who demands exclusive worship is Jehovah, as was Joshua's...Jehovah is certainly the God of Exodus, and claims to be one.

For Jesus son of the highest El this is blasphemy? Im having a hard time believing that Jesus (son of El) would ratify this, and encourage it...it would mean that he was in on the lie.

My bible knowledge is (i would concider) deficient, and i dont seek to challenge any religious authority (on this point at least), i dont think my observation about the menorah challenged anything, infact as far as i am aware the image is still causing debate on the subject.

I was also aware of that failedmessiah.com,

perhaps you read it differently to me, i find the theory above to be quite possible.

The point made above that the depiction on the arch of titus was WRONG in other respects besides the base indicates that the artist may not have as faithfully recorded the menorah as the apparent attention to detail suggests.

agreed many Jews would have seen it as an affront....possibly. The number of folk permitted to see it would be very low...that is, ofcourse if the one depicted was the main menorah, there were 7 or so? And also it depends whether those images on the panels were really on the base and not an invention of the artist...the issue is far from conclusion.

There are no winged angels in either Jewish or Roman art at this time, especially for public display (as far as i recall) The closest being Nike/Victoria, and no cherub looking ones (often depicted in pairs holding emblems) other than Eros/Cupid.

If you know of any such depictions of angels i would be grateful for a reference or example.

As i have shown elsewhere, and above; the Chinese dragon originated from a serpent totem/cult symbol which was already 2000 years evolved (become composite of other clan totemic features) BEFORE the Han bixie you present; which means that your conclusion that it became the 'Long' serpentine dragon due to increasing unfamiliarity is incorrect....besides which they would always have had previous depictions to refer to (if it were so).

The Chinese Long and the western dragon only share the same root in that they originate somewhere in serpent totemism.

It is possible that we have an example of how an animal can become a totem, then a cult figure, and how that can affect its physical representation in the story of the Brazen Serpent (albeit in a greatly reduced timeframe).

Wrong again as usual Grem. Those serpent-totem effigies from extremely ancient times may have little to do with the earliest dragon legends becasue they long predate the time of written words. On the other hand, the chinese themsleves admit that the "oldest" of their dragons have wings to fly with. I know of no of winged dragons in art prior to what you call a Bixie, so it is therfore logical that this represents the early "winged" dragons, such as the one who helped the "Yellow Emperor" in his great war.

And like both the Sumerian Mushrushu and Chinese winged dragon, the Bible says that the dragon Yahweh has both wings and FEATHERS. It is possible that in warm climates, some early reptile birds may have had feathered wings but scaly bodies, just like Saphiria in the Eragon movie, or Yahweh in the Bible.

The Chinese considered foreigners as barbarians and almost never adopted elements of their culture. Therefore the uncanny resemblence between Sumerain and Chinese WINGED dragons strongly suggest both cultures observed the same living creatures. As I said before, this just makes my case all the stonger.

Of course the hellenistic world of Herods time was FILLED with winged demigods. In fact the nereids that often ride the classical drakons all have wings and this may be the origin of the notion of angels riding dragons seen in some elements of Christian and Jewish angelology.

I didn't say this was an angel, a Jewish archaeologist did. But eagles are conected to heavenly matters in the old testament as well, so there is nothing to say this is Roman propaganda. In fact just the OPPOSITE is the case becasue we have proven the DRAKONS on the Menorah CONFORM to Jewish Religious Laws of the time.

[The Gremlin 53]

Wrong again as usual Grem. Those serpent-totem effigies from extremely ancient times may have little to do with the earliest dragon legends becasue they long predate the time of written words. On the other hand, the chinese themsleves admit that the "oldest" of their dragons have wings to fly with. I know of no of winged dragons in art prior to what you call a Bixie, so it is therfore logical that this represents the early "winged" dragons, such as the one who helped the "Yellow Emperor" in his great war.

I disagree, and have provided refrences which give the opinion of chinese archaeologists, historians etc.

im not sure how many chinese people youve spoken to...

btw they are 'dragons' not just serpent-totem effigies, they are the earliest representation of the chinese dragon as we know it, and it has a homegrown source, no dragons flew in from mesopotamia. It is clear, since they have become a cultural motif (even at such an early date) there would have been stories surrounding them which were eventually written down, suffice to say that dragons (the 'long') was already important to the chinese before the han dynasty.

And like both the Sumerian Mushrushu and Chinese winged dragon, the Bible says that the dragon Yahweh has both wings and FEATHERS. It is possible that in warm climates, some early reptile birds may have had feathered wings but scaly bodies, just like Saphiria in the Eragon movie, or Yahweh in the Bible.

conjecture. dont know about whether yahweh has feathers, but western dragons usually have leathery skin wings.

means nothing. The link between the Chinese bixie and the mushussu has already been pointed out.....it didnt fly, it got bought.

The Chinese considered foreigners as barbarians and almost never adopted elements of their culture. Therefore the uncanny resemblence between Sumerain and Chinese WINGED dragons strongly suggest both cultures observed the same living creatures. As I said before, this just makes my case all the stonger.

The han were different in this respect, as ive already pointed out they stand out conspicuously for their enthusiasm for barbarian style, materials, weapons...etc.

Of course the hellenistic world of Herods time was FILLED with winged demigods. In fact the nereids that often ride the classical drakons all have wings and this may be the origin of the notion of angels riding dragons seen in some elements of Christian and Jewish angelology.

please name some or provide pics because i cannot recall any instances of winged demigods. Nereids lived in the sea, and so are not depicted with wings as far as i recall.

I didn't say this was an angel, a Jewish archaeologist did. But eagles are conected to heavenly matters in the old testament as well, so there is nothing to say this is Roman propaganda. In fact just the OPPOSITE is the case becasue we have proven the DRAKONS on the Menorah CONFORM to Jewish Religious Laws of the time.

just because some pic of a ketos appears to conform to jewish legal standards (from the Mishna, Avodah Zara 3:3) doesnt mean jehovah is a dragon. and doesnt mean that its Not roman propoganda....just means that it happens to comply.

you might find this interesting

http://www.shemayisrael.com/chanukah/shape.htm

[draconic chronicler 15]

You have proven nothing Grem. The Chinese sources say the oldest and most important dragons had wings, and your so called Bixie is the only ancient winged dragon type I know of. It is only conjecture that the Chinese imitated this form from barbrians. Don't forget that the chinese, above all other peoples firmly state the dragons are real creatures, with civil servants assigned to take care of them. They were as real as any other animal to them, ans used wings to fly, so here we see a winged dragon of the same type as we see in Mesopotamia, where dragons also controlled the weather and had other similar characteristics.

The author of your menorah article knows far less about the subject than the ones I cited. He was completely ignorant of the fact AZ 43a clearly stated how a Holy Drakon was to be depicted. And guess what? As the real scholars have pointed out, the Drakons were depicted exactly as they must be to be acceptable accoridng to Jewish religious law. What more proof do you need? He called the Drakons an abomination because he is a fool who knows nothing about this. How can both he and you be so ignorant? The Israeli government with an army of religious scholars a their disposal adopted the Titus Menorah.

In fact, your fool did say one thing that PROVES I am right. He said JEWS were FORBIDDEN to depict the temple menorah also according to religious law. So what did the JEWS do? The copied a synagogue menorah with 3 simple legs instead. And why couldn't they copy the Temple menorah? Because it had Yahweh's dragon image on them. The AZ 3 that instructed that vessels with the image of a dragon were to be thown in the dead sea referred to those depicting Pagan symbols, not only the pagan spined dragon, but also stars. 43 a was written AFTER 3 and carefully defined how a holy dragon must be depicted.

Now think about this a minute. The Jews were NOT allowed to represent the temple menorah, undoubtedly becasue it had Yahweh's image on it. A SEA DRAGON exactly as YAW is described. But the ROMANS had no such inhibition. They copied the menorah EXACTLY as they saw it, just as all art historians would agree. Everything on the arch is photographic quality, and so should be the Menorah.

Thank you again for providing more evidence to PROVE I am right and you are wrong.

[Mesobaite 0]

I bet they never told you about any of this in Sunday School, but its all in the Bible

draconic chronicler,

They certainly didn't. lol. But I can kind of understand why - that would get in the way of their power base (money).

Because if people were privy to information like this they wouldn't be as vunerable to false religious ideologies.

One thing that always intrigued me though, and this supports your arguments, is why the Jews were singled out as the chosen people. Your theory on Yaw's humans and Ba'al's humnas certainly gives a strong view on the reason's for wars.

[The Gremlin 53]

You have proven nothing Grem. The Chinese sources say the oldest and most important dragons had wings, and your so called Bixie is the only ancient winged dragon type I know of. It is only conjecture that the Chinese imitated this form from barbrians. Don't forget that the chinese, above all other peoples firmly state the dragons are real creatures, with civil servants assigned to take care of them. They were as real as any other animal to them, ans used wings to fly, so here we see a winged dragon of the same type as we see in Mesopotamia, where dragons also controlled the weather and had other similar characteristics.

The author of your menorah article knows far less about the subject than the ones I cited. He was completely ignorant of the fact AZ 43a clearly stated how a Holy Drakon was to be depicted. And guess what? As the real scholars have pointed out, the Drakons were depicted exactly as they must be to be acceptable accoridng to Jewish religious law. What more proof do you need? He called the Drakons an abomination because he is a fool who knows nothing about this. How can both he and you be so ignorant? The Israeli government with an army of religious scholars a their disposal adopted the Titus Menorah.

In fact, your fool did say one thing that PROVES I am right. He said JEWS were FORBIDDEN to depict the temple menorah also according to religious law. So what did the JEWS do? The copied a synagogue menorah with 3 simple legs instead. And why couldn't they copy the Temple menorah? Because it had Yahweh's dragon image on them. The AZ 3 that instructed that vessels with the image of a dragon were to be thown in the dead sea referred to those depicting Pagan symbols, not only the pagan spined dragon, but also stars. 43 a was written AFTER 3 and carefully defined how a holy dragon must be depicted.

Now think about this a minute. The Jews were NOT allowed to represent the temple menorah, undoubtedly becasue it had Yahweh's image on it. A SEA DRAGON exactly as YAW is described. But the ROMANS had no such inhibition. They copied the menorah EXACTLY as they saw it, just as all art historians would agree. Everything on the arch is photographic quality, and so should be the Menorah.

Thank you again for providing more evidence to PROVE I am right and you are wrong.

the article was not provided as proof, just an echo of my argument. It is a debate that continues to rage amongst jewish scholars and so no conclusive theory is accepted. most however agree that the base, and its depictions are not jewish.

your reasoning is not logical.

I dont think you fully understand AZ. particularly clauses 2 and 3.

the menorah did not have yaweh's picture on it. period.

P.S. i know of no historian that would ever suggest that any roman public depiction was photographically accurate. what they would say though is that public art was filled with Roman cultural and imperialist symbolism and propaganda; and that propaganda is NEVER reliable...especially when it concerns the enemy.

I wonder how your theory would stand up in a rabinical debate, have you pursued this line of argument on a proper jewish religious scholarly site? if so could u provide a link?

all i have proven is that there is more doubt behind your theory than you credit.

the chinese sources i have provided refute your claim that the bixie is: a- of chinese conception (a representation of a witnessed beastie) and, b- predated the long version of the dragon.

I think that it is clear which dragon the chinese have in mind when you say 'dragon' to them, and it isnt the bixie....because it isnt a dragon really.

perhaps you should look more into it.

P.S. it is the long that controls weather, the bixie guards tombs etc.

What this actually does prove is that the Chinese already had the concept of dragon more than 2000 (thats TWO THOUSAND) years before the han imported the notion of the bixie from Luristan; and so cannot share a common source with western dragons. perhaps you missed that point.

Edited September 28, 2007 by lil gremlin

[Moondoggy 2]

Funny how none of this has ever made it into a Judaism 101 or 201 study. The reason is because even though someone here has way too much time on one's hands, dealing with an Idea that stems from Pagan religions and has not one shred of acceptance in Classical Judaism. I challenge the readers to check it out. Read up on what the theology is really based on. Google "Gamaliel" or "Maimonides". Doctors of their day on the subjects of who Yahweh is and what his substance and character are. Or check out the materials available from Tel Aviv University. Yahweh is a spirit being and NEVER has been referred to a dragon, not any other words ascribed to God such as El. The mantra of Judaism has been that God is ONE. Hence all the other name are simply characteristical usages. But, the simpleton should know this and would know this if they actually studied Judaism in a formal way, rather than relying on notions that they garner from amateur web sites to prove a silly idea.

[draconic chronicler 15]

Funny how none of this has ever made it into a Judaism 101 or 201 study. The reason is because even though someone here has way too much time on one's hands, dealing with an Idea that stems from Pagan religions and has not one shred of acceptance in Classical Judaism. I challenge the readers to check it out. Read up on what the theology is really based on. Google "Gamaliel" or "Maimonides". Doctors of their day on the subjects of who Yahweh is and what his substance and character are. Or check out the materials available from Tel Aviv University. Yahweh is a spirit being and NEVER has been referred to a dragon, not any other words ascribed to God such as El. The mantra of Judaism has been that God is ONE. Hence all the other name are simply characteristical usages. But, the simpleton should know this and would know this if they actually studied Judaism in a formal way, rather than relying on notions that they garner from amateur web sites to prove a silly idea.

Of course, modern practiciing Jews are not going to say "Yahweh is really Yaw, the Cannanite dragon" but brilliant, secular Israeli archaeologists do becasue it is a historical fact. The Bible even confirms that Yahweh is the son of El, exactly as the dragon Yaw is the son of El. But I am sure this means Yaw is a "creation" of El, becasue El is not a dragon and would not have "sired" a dragon in a biological sense. Being a creator, he would be formless. This is where your misunderstanding of the Bible begins.

Yahweh is Yaw, the cannanite dragon, who was also the Sumerian dragon who is said to have caused the great deluge. Here's a recap since you have so much trouble remembering the facts in the Bible:

1. The highest heavenly creatures are called Seraphim, a word which the highly esteemed and scholarly Jewish Enclyclopedia states means "fiery flying serpent", though medieval Christians have transformed these "dragons" into the more familiar, swan-winged, "cartoon" angels of popular culture. When the ancient Jews translated the word Seraphim into Greek, the word they used was drakon, which is the word our modern "dragon" is derived from.

2. The only graven image/idol Yahweh ever permits is that of a "fiery flying serpent", obviously his personal image, This image has supernatural powers, and Yahweh allows it to be freely worshipped in Solomon's temple. As soon as the idol is broken, disaster befalls Israel and it has never recovered until the late 20th century.

3. The flood story of Genesis is believed by most Biblical scholars to be a "retelling" of near identical, yet far older Sumerian versions in which the God name Enlil, who is also subservient to a greater Creator God is called "a Great Serpent-Dragon of Heaven". His hymns also associate him with rainbows as we see in Genesis, and he is called "the good shepherd".

4. Some scholars acknowledge that the Name Yahweh comes from the Cannanite Dragon God Yaw, who like the Biblical Yahweh is a god of storms and floods, but is a "son" of the true Creator Elohim, also the name of the Creator in Genesis, not Yahweh.

5. Virtually every world culture had identified the winged intelligent dragon as a real creature, and most of the earliest cultures recognize it as the creatue that brought them knowledge of agriculture and technology. This is also true in the Judaic legends with the reptilian "watchers".

6. In Exodous, Yahweh leaves his dragon sized tent, and flies ahead of the Israelites to burn away impassable briars and scorpions. He marks the route by spewing smoke and fire.

7. Yahweh plops his huge dragon body in the bed of the Jordan River upstream to divert its flow so the Hebrews can cross its bed to attack Jericho.

8. He is specifically described spewing fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, exactly like the dragon like Leviathan that the Bible states he "plays" with. (A female dragon?)

9. Many biblical passages imply that Yahweh physically consumed his meat offerings unlike the "fake" gods of other cultures. The Bible is very specific that Yahweh wanted salt on his meat as well, suggesting these offereing were physically consumed and not merely burned to ashes.

10. Like many legendary dragons, Yahweh occasionally "consumes" humans as well, to include two of Aaron's sons who prepared a sacrifice wrong. In scripture, Yahweh demanded the first born of all Israelites, but the bible says it was possible to pay him money instead, on a sliding scale, also indicating the univesal dragon love of hoarding treasure.

11. The preferred prey of dragons in most cultures are "human virgins" for reasons which are not entirely understood. This trait is very apparent in the Bible as well, where Moses presents Yahweh with 32 Midianite virgins after the Israelite destruction of this tribe. No more is said of them so we can only assume they were "consumed" like Aaron's sons.

12. The Persian Zoroastrians, whom share much reiligous doctrine with Christianity clearly state in their own scriptures (the Denkard), that the "God" of Judaism and Christianity who watched of the Israelites and provided their laws was a dragon, and brother to the dragon Ahriman in their own religion. Interestingly, the storm dragon of Sumeria who flooded the world happened to be brother to the dragon Enki who livied the the garden of Eden and who "tricked" a man named "Adam" out of eternal life.

13. Some Christian gnostics also state Yahweh is a dragon in their scriptures.

14. Jesus stated the Pharisees were worshipping a creature that was NOT his father. Many Christians claim Jesus meant Satan, but this does not make sense, for the Jews clearly worshipped Yahweh and clearly recognized Satan as a distinctly different creature which they definately DID NOT worship. Could Jesus have been referring to the Yahweh dragon? After all he did not call to Yahweh from the cross, but to El. The first paragraphs of the Bible show these are two different entities, for El's creation story is completely different from Yahweh's, far less scientific one.

15. Yahweh is described with literal "wings" in one of the psalms as well as"feathers", as depicted on most of the most acnient dragon wings and this idea lasted until medieval times, after which dragons became less commonly seen, and were given bat like membrane wings to appear more sinister. The dragon character Saphira in Eragon is reminesecent of these ancient dragon depictions of feathered wings as Yahweh is described in the Bible, and probably inspired the design of this character.

Numerous scholars admit the in the Hebrew Bible it is clear that originally the beliefs were polyestic. there were many Gods, only the Hebrews must worship their own God Yahweh. Later on, the other Gods are called false, and the watcher dragon of the Hebrews, and the Creator God of Genesis were combined into one God, but abundant proof that Yahweh was originally believed to be a dragon, is shown here, and more and more emerges through continuing archaeological discoveries. Swallow your foolish pride and believe the warning of Jesus to the pharisees. Yahweh is a dragon who only works for the real creator El. (He's the one Jesus called to from the cross, not the dragon Yahweh). Look it up yourself, its in your Bible.

Edited September 29, 2007 by draconic chronicler

[Abecrombie 72]

If your really interested, you would look under the textragrammonton, the hebrew language and the greek.

In the textragrammonton, YHWH is the name of God in hebrew, add vowels { greek} spells yahweh, which in turn todays english is JEHOVAH which is the name of God and means "He causes to become"

[draconic chronicler 15]

If your really interested, you would look under the textragrammonton, the hebrew language and the greek.

In the textragrammonton, YHWH is the name of God in hebrew, add vowels { greek} spells yahweh, which in turn todays english is JEHOVAH which is the name of God and means "He causes to become"

Okay, whatever the Christian Sunday School Coloring Books say. But it is Israeli archaeologists and biblical scholars, who know far more Hebrew than you or I who say Yahweh comes from the Cannanite dragon God Yaw, who is the same "son" of El (Bene Elohim) as Yahweh in the Bible. And they even BOTH have the same dragon god girlfriend Asherah. And they even BOTH have the same sworn enemy Ba'al Haddad. And they even both have wings, breath fire, eat first born children, cause floods, etc. etc. Mere coincidence? I don't think so.