Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
draconic chronicler

Is the Biblical Yahweh actually a dragon?

458 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Abecrombie

Its interesting that you asked a question but refuse any reputable or possible answer., that personaly I find to be darn interesting , expecially when the question was such a good question. Im trying to add to the solution. perhaps thats why were different. Good luck in finding what your looking for .

your co-member

Abecrombie :st

Ps perhaps this should be under the spiritual vs. scepticism forum

Edited by Abecrombie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Its interesting that you asked a question but refuse any reputable or possible answer., that personaly I find to be darn interesting , expecially when the question was such a good question. Im trying to add to the solution. perhaps thats why were different. Good luck in finding what your looking for .

your co-member

Abecrombie :st

Ps perhaps this should be under the spiritual vs. scepticism forum

No, I am not saying Yahweh isn't real, I am just saying he is a dragon, just as he is described in the Bible. After all, every culture believed in dragons, and most acknowledged they were their gods. The existence of winged reptilian entities kown as dragons today, is perhaps the most universal trait of all human belief systems, though modern Christianity had done its best to "cover up" these facts when they pertain to their own religion. If there is just one thing "real" about gods, religion and an afterlife, dragons are undoubtedly somehow connected to it for they are part of virtually every religion.

Most authoritites seem to agree that the God of the Hebrews was not known as Yahweh until this creature introduced himself as Yahweh to Moses. This is understandable because Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria where this name was unkown. Yahweh gave Moses the name that he was known by in Western Asia, the land of Cannan which Yahweh promised he would give to the Hebrews, and the land where the people knew him by the same name (Yaw), where he was also recognized as a dragon. Thus, in the Bible we see Yahweh with wings, spewing fire from his mouth, given virgins, demanding firstboard children and collecting gold, not to meniton generally behaving in a very ungodlike manner for supposedly being the creator of the universe, though a perfect prototype of the general human conception of a dragon.

This same dragon who flooded the world was known as Enlil in Sumeria, which caused the confusion with the Cannanite name of the dragon's creator, "El" also called Elohim in the Genesis story. Later worshippers of Yahweh would add the second creation story attributed to Yahweh to the original genesis creation of Elohim, further confusing things, and making the Bible seem more mythic than scientific, for the Elohim creation is quite compatible with evolution.

I'm not saying Yahweh is a bad dragon. After all, he let his Hebrew subjects "buy" their first born children back instead of eating them, like the Bible says. It is just that he isn't God. El the creator is, like the first verses in the Bible says. But in their progression to monotheism, the Hebrews melded the Creator, and their tribe's "watcher" dragon, into the same entity. This is why Jesus warned the pharisees that they were not worshipping "His Father", who Jesus called Eloi (Elohim).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salacia

I must say that this thread is very interesting to me. Here is a series of videos on youtube which brings in some other information about the misconceptions of the translation of the Genesis account of creation from the original languages:

This series has nine parts so far, and it looks as though the creator may add more parts as time goes on. Interesting that the author is saying that God's name revealed to Moses in the burning bush was of Egyptian origin.

I have requested a copy of Philip Gardiner's book, "The Serpent Grail," from my local library and am looking forward to what he says about serpents down through history.

One question that this thread brought to my mind is, what exactly would God's throne need protected from by anyone, even Seraphim? Seems overkill to me. One who is all powerful could speak a word and stop every conceivable attack.

There's so much that is beyond our comprehension in these matters, but as a Christian, I want to dig as deeply as possible to destroy the traditions of men that have nullified the power of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
I must say that this thread is very interesting to me. Here is a series of videos on youtube which brings in some other information about the misconceptions of the translation of the Genesis account of creation from the original languages:

This series has nine parts so far, and it looks as though the creator may add more parts as time goes on. Interesting that the author is saying that God's name revealed to Moses in the burning bush was of Egyptian origin.

I have requested a copy of Philip Gardiner's book, "The Serpent Grail," from my local library and am looking forward to what he says about serpents down through history.

One question that this thread brought to my mind is, what exactly would God's throne need protected from by anyone, even Seraphim? Seems overkill to me. One who is all powerful could speak a word and stop every conceivable attack.

There's so much that is beyond our comprehension in these matters, but as a Christian, I want to dig as deeply as possible to destroy the traditions of men that have nullified the power of God.

I dont think the idea is that God needs to be "protected" by dragons, but having one's throne flanked by fearsome dieities was a popular motiff to emphasize gods, who by this time were no longer considered "dragons" but still had dragon "assistants". Marduk of Babylon has flanking dragons and some pharoah's and Egyptian gods have winged serpents. Even the ark of the covenant was supposed to be the mercy seat/throne of God, flanked by cherubim, which I believe were orignally the same dragons as seraphim.

So is there truth behind any of this? In early christian scenes, the winged serpents and dragons sit next to God in order to devour those that God damns in judgements. In the several scenes that still survive, usually at least one of the monsters is swallowing somebody. Also, the "dragons" are sent to punish humans both in Judaic and Christian lore. So the throne guardian dragons are widespread and trans-cultural, just as the notion of "dragons" devouring the wicked, and although not commonly known to most christians it is prevalent in their early beliefs, as well.

Ironically, this sounds like somehting an "evil wizard" in a fantasy novel would have, which is probably why so many Christians today try to pretend this is not part of their beliefs. But then if we go back even farther, then the "god" is the dragon itself! Although in reality, these dragon gods are usually subservient to a non dragon creator god, such as El is to the Cannanite Yaw and Hebrew Yahweh, and Anu is to Enlil the "Flood" dragon, and Enki the "Eden" dragon..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
I dont think the idea is that God needs to be "protected" by dragons, but having one's throne flanked by fearsome dieities was a popular motiff to emphasize gods, who by this time were no longer considered "dragons" but still had dragon "assistants". Marduk of Babylon has flanking dragons and some pharoah's and Egyptian gods have winged serpents. Even the ark of the covenant was supposed to be the mercy seat/throne of God, flanked by cherubim, which I believe were orignally the same dragons as seraphim.

So is there truth behind any of this? In early christian scenes, the winged serpents and dragons sit next to God in order to devour those that God damns in judgements. In the several scenes that still survive, usually at least one of the monsters is swallowing somebody. Also, the "dragons" are sent to punish humans both in Judaic and Christian lore. So the throne guardian dragons are widespread and trans-cultural, just as the notion of "dragons" devouring the wicked, and although not commonly known to most christians it is prevalent in their early beliefs, as well.

Ironically, this sounds like somehting an "evil wizard" in a fantasy novel would have, which is probably why so many Christians today try to pretend this is not part of their beliefs. But then if we go back even farther, then the "god" is the dragon itself! Although in reality, these dragon gods are usually subservient to a non dragon creator god, such as El is to the Cannanite Yaw and Hebrew Yahweh, and Anu is to Enlil the "Flood" dragon, and Enki the "Eden" dragon..

it does sound like fantasy....and indeed it is.

neither enlil nor enki were envisaged by the sumerians as dragons. In Every Single Depiction of them they are humanoid. In Every Single Story they are humanoid. You base your idea that they were dragons because they are called amongst many other things Ushumgal (Great Serpent) in verse and prayer. This however is a metaphoric epithet and wasnt considered a literal description. Like the bible and many other mythical tales you take things literally which were never ment to be taken as such.

It is entertaining and fun to consider but when one reads a little deeper into it it doesnt take long to see that your theory is strung together with the most tenuous of links.

The Sumerian literature can be read here http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/catalogue.htm the site is a project funded by oxford uni and other respected academic establishments, and provides the texts in the original language and translated into english. and i encourage everyone interested in the identities and natures of the Sumerian gods to investigate. The use of metaphor, similie, hyperbole etc are most evident in the hymns and prayers...and it is only in this highly poetic (not to be taken literally) medium that any of them are called 'great serpent' or 'furious serpent'....along with a host of other things.

If anything we could credit Enki perhaps as the first 'dragon slayer' since he defeats the serpent dragon Kur....and he was humanoid when he did it.

P.S. here are pics of enki and enlil

linked-image

Enki

linked-image

Enlil

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67thbook
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.

It is possible that the Titus menorah is "different to the original," the original of course being the one confiscated by Antiochus. Which can only mean that the menorah displayed on the arch was the replacement made by the Maccabees. That of course would require we come to the conclusion that the Maccabees were idolaters.

However, it is highly unlikely that Vespasian's generals after having sacked Jerusalem would have conceived that a three legged base of gold warranted its removal and reshaping into a a double hexagonal shape for any reason, the least of which was any need or reason to discredit the already badly defeated Jews by depicting pagan carvings on same. I suspect the celebrating Romans would have taken the greatest delight in parading the religious artifacts of the defeated Jewish God. never mind the time it would have taken to melt the base and replace same before it was delivered to Rome with the captives.

Then too we have the description from Josephus who describes the menorah as having a single base. Since he described the seven lamps, I doubt he would have called three legs a single base.

Finally, if in fact the menorah depicted on the arch was altered, we have to wonder why in 1996 Shimon Shetriel, the Minister of Religious Affairs requested the Vatican return the menorah to Israel. And as DC has already pointed out, the official depiction of the menorah by Israel is that of the double hexagonal base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
It is possible that the Titus menorah is "different to the original," the original of course being the one confiscated by Antiochus. Which can only mean that the menorah displayed on the arch was the replacement made by the Maccabees. That of course would require we come to the conclusion that the Maccabees were idolaters.

However, it is highly unlikely that Vespasian's generals after having sacked Jerusalem would have conceived that a three legged base of gold warranted its removal and reshaping into a a double hexagonal shape for any reason, the least of which was any need or reason to discredit the already badly defeated Jews by depicting pagan carvings on same. I suspect the celebrating Romans would have taken the greatest delight in parading the religious artifacts of the defeated Jewish God. never mind the time it would have taken to melt the base and replace same before it was delivered to Rome with the captives.

Then too we have the description from Josephus who describes the menorah as having a single base. Since he described the seven lamps, I doubt he would have called three legs a single base.

Finally, if in fact the menorah depicted on the arch was altered, we have to wonder why in 1996 Shimon Shetriel, the Minister of Religious Affairs requested the Vatican return the menorah to Israel. And as DC has already pointed out, the official depiction of the menorah by Israel is that of the double hexagonal base.

indeed, i got thzat bit from the same place as the picture in the post bbut neglected to put quote marks around it. There are a number of possibilities in this scenario, some of which i mention in succeeding posts. Does the vatican hold it???? why have they not already returned it????

It would be great for them to at least submit it for study. from what ive read it is clear that the depiction on the arch of titus is distinctly inaccurate and thats besides the base issue. BTW it seems that Israel has been calling for the return of jewish religious artifacts for a while, and more recently too....

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/News/20030112.htm

here's a C5th CE synagogue mosaic of the temple menorah.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
it does sound like fantasy....and indeed it is.

neither enlil nor enki were envisaged by the sumerians as dragons. In Every Single Depiction of them they are humanoid. In Every Single Story they are humanoid. You base your idea that they were dragons because they are called amongst many other things Ushumgal (Great Serpent) in verse and prayer. This however is a metaphoric epithet and wasnt considered a literal description. Like the bible and many other mythical tales you take things literally which were never ment to be taken as such.

It is entertaining and fun to consider but when one reads a little deeper into it it doesnt take long to see that your theory is strung together with the most tenuous of links.

The Sumerian literature can be read here http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/catalogue.htm the site is a project funded by oxford uni and other respected academic establishments, and provides the texts in the original language and translated into english. and i encourage everyone interested in the identities and natures of the Sumerian gods to investigate. The use of metaphor, similie, hyperbole etc are most evident in the hymns and prayers...and it is only in this highly poetic (not to be taken literally) medium that any of them are called 'great serpent' or 'furious serpent'....along with a host of other things.

If anything we could credit Enki perhaps as the first 'dragon slayer' since he defeats the serpent dragon Kur....and he was humanoid when he did it.

P.S. here are pics of enki and enlil

I have already quoted Campbell here before. All of these Gods "began" as dragons or monsters, and later they were "humanized" as mankind became more confident it could control its environment. This is also in "religion 101" so you are really making yourself look quite stupid again Grem.

And even as late as the Neo Bablylonian Empire Enki (now called EA), is carefully described in intimate detail as a reptilian monster, with sharp teeth in a serpentine head, covered in scales and with heel less taloned feet exactly as dinosaurs have though this would have been unknonwn in these ancient times. But because the people were more comfortable with humanoid gods, that looked like them, they believed they could shape shift from their fearsome dragon forms into the shape of humans, so this is why they are depicted both ways.

And this is a world wide belief. Quetzalcoatl could change from a flying serpent monster to a man, Zeus could turn into a huge "swan", "serpent" or "Drakon", so Enki is far from unique. But their original form, and the form they are praised at being becasue of their power in these forms are "dragons", winged serpents, etc. So as we prove again Grem, you do not have a leg to stand on.

Did the dragons really turn into humanoid gods? I doubt it, but humans felt more comfortable believing they did, becasue it made them seem to have more humanity that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
It is possible that the Titus menorah is "different to the original," the original of course being the one confiscated by Antiochus. Which can only mean that the menorah displayed on the arch was the replacement made by the Maccabees. That of course would require we come to the conclusion that the Maccabees were idolaters.

However, it is highly unlikely that Vespasian's generals after having sacked Jerusalem would have conceived that a three legged base of gold warranted its removal and reshaping into a a double hexagonal shape for any reason, the least of which was any need or reason to discredit the already badly defeated Jews by depicting pagan carvings on same. I suspect the celebrating Romans would have taken the greatest delight in parading the religious artifacts of the defeated Jewish God. never mind the time it would have taken to melt the base and replace same before it was delivered to Rome with the captives.

Then too we have the description from Josephus who describes the menorah as having a single base. Since he described the seven lamps, I doubt he would have called three legs a single base.

Finally, if in fact the menorah depicted on the arch was altered, we have to wonder why in 1996 Shimon Shetriel, the Minister of Religious Affairs requested the Vatican return the menorah to Israel. And as DC has already pointed out, the official depiction of the menorah by Israel is that of the double hexagonal base.

Good points, but the bottom line is that the ancient Jewsish religious laws themselves prove the Titus menorah is the ONLY accurate depiction of the temple law. And this is becasue Jews would be COMMMITING BLASPHEMY if they depicted the GENUINE TEMPLE MENORAH. So what do we see in all the Jewish depictions? We see the common, cheap household and synagogue menorahs, of which thousands probably existed, just as today.

So why would it be FORBIDDEN for Jews to depict the Temple Menorah??? There can really be only one plausible reason. It is becasue the IMAGE OF YAHWEH was depicted on the Menorah!!! So yes, and the Romans had to have known this. So they delighted in parading the holiest object of Judaism, with the images of Yahweh the dragon god decorating it, through the streets of Rome, and preserved in stone on the Arch of Titus.

Yes, the Jewish government knows the truth, and this is why they acknowledge the Titus depicted Menorah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
I have already quoted Campbell here before. All of these Gods "began" as dragons or monsters, and later they were "humanized" as mankind became more confident it could control its environment. This is also in "religion 101" so you are really making yourself look quite stupid again Grem.

And even as late as the Neo Bablylonian Empire Enki (now called EA), is carefully described in intimate detail as a reptilian monster, with sharp teeth in a serpentine head, covered in scales and with heel less taloned feet exactly as dinosaurs have though this would have been unknonwn in these ancient times. But because the people were more comfortable with humanoid gods, that looked like them, they believed they could shape shift from their fearsome dragon forms into the shape of humans, so this is why they are depicted both ways.

And this is a world wide belief. Quetzalcoatl could change from a flying serpent monster to a man, Zeus could turn into a huge "swan", "serpent" or "Drakon", so Enki is far from unique. But their original form, and the form they are praised at being becasue of their power in these forms are "dragons", winged serpents, etc. So as we prove again Grem, you do not have a leg to stand on.

Did the dragons really turn into humanoid gods? I doubt it, but humans felt more comfortable believing they did, becasue it made them seem to have more humanity that way.

Um? you just dont get it do you? you are blinkered by your preconceptions. which is ok, because it would be no fun if you suddenly grew a brain. Mesopotamian mythology is replete with composite beasties, are you saying all of them really existed? or just the ones you have 'chosen'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mesobaite

They probably all exist/existed. I don't see why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

how about some of this lot...

The Babylonian Apkallu (of which there were 7) were sent by the god Ea to teach wisdom to humans…If we take such images literally we must accept that there were numerous human-hybrids running around…

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

The bull-man is a demon, he helps people fight evil and chaos, and holds the gates of dawn open for the sun god Shamash, and supports the sun disc…..did he really exist too?

linked-image

The bull of heaven is the constellation we call Taurus, killed by Gilgamesh and Enkidu…..did it really exist?

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

Other human headed bulls, found decorating objects dating mainly from 3000-1800BC, later replaced by the lamassu….So many human headed bull creatures, they surely must have existed???

linked-image

A lamassu was a human-headed winged bull or lion, they frightened away the forces of chaos on Assyrian palace doorways and city gates….honestly you think these really existed?

linked-image

Lamashtu is an evil demon who preys upon unborn and newborn children, she has a hairy body, a lioness’ head with donkey’s teeth and ears, long fingers and fingernails, and the feet of a bird with sharp talons…..If she literally existed no wonder she was so upset.

linked-image

Scorpion people have human heads and bodies but their lower half is like a bird with a scorpion’s tail….they served the sun god Shamash and protected against demons.

linked-image

The Ugallu has a human body with the head of a lion and the feet of a bird…

What dangerous times to live in with all these beasties….

linked-image

The ‘queen of the night’, looks like a harpy from greek mythology….hang on …wait a minute, perhaps after her time in the middle east she flew to Greece and had some daughters who would later be encountered by Odysseus……Perhaps I should write a book….

linked-image

Pazuzu is a demon who protects humans from plague and evil forces, a human body with the feet and claws of an eagle and the head of a monster.

linked-image

Images and descriptions taken from the british museum website www.mesopotamia.co.uk sarcasm by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archosaur
Other human headed bulls, found decorating objects dating mainly from 3000-1800BC, later replaced by the lamassu….So many human headed bull creatures, they surely must have existed???

linked-image

A lamassu was a human-headed winged bull or lion, they frightened away the forces of chaos on Assyrian palace doorways and city gates….honestly you think these really existed?

linked-image

Lamashtu is an evil demon who preys upon unborn and newborn children, she has a hairy body, a lioness’ head with donkey’s teeth and ears, long fingers and fingernails, and the feet of a bird with sharp talons…..If she literally existed no wonder she was so upset.

linked-image

Scorpion people have human heads and bodies but their lower half is like a bird with a scorpion’s tail….they served the sun god Shamash and protected against demons.

linked-image

The Ugallu has a human body with the head of a lion and the feet of a bird…

What dangerous times to live in with all these beasties….

linked-image

The ‘queen of the night’, looks like a harpy from greek mythology….hang on …wait a minute, perhaps after her time in the middle east she flew to Greece and had some daughters who would later be encountered by Odysseus……Perhaps I should write a book….

linked-image

Pazuzu is a demon who protects humans from plague and evil forces, a human body with the feet and claws of an eagle and the head of a monster.

linked-image

Images and descriptions taken from the british museum website www.mesopotamia.co.uk sarcasm by me.

Well, lil Grem, while I think that we can both agree that Mesopotamian mythology had a whole lot of bull, :D , there were also many dragons in it.

I think the issue comes down to a Rorsatch image. I look at serpent and dragons mythology, and see dragon mythology. You look at dragon mythology and see: a composite of multiple animist beliefs: "Hey you got you snake myth in my eagle myth! No, you got your eagle myth in my snake myth! Hey, this work like chocolate and peanut butter!"

I see a common influence among all of these legends, you see entirely separate cultures. Our own preconceptions might be blinding us to a more accurate view of what people's actual beliefs might have been....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Well, lil Grem, while I think that we can both agree that Mesopotamian mythology had a whole lot of bull, :D , there were also many dragons in it.

I think the issue comes down to a Rorsatch image. I look at serpent and dragons mythology, and see dragon mythology. You look at dragon mythology and see: a composite of multiple animist beliefs: "Hey you got you snake myth in my eagle myth! No, you got your eagle myth in my snake myth! Hey, this work like chocolate and peanut butter!"

I see a common influence among all of these legends, you see entirely separate cultures. Our own preconceptions might be blinding us to a more accurate view of what people's actual beliefs might have been....

LOL, always a pleasure to hear from u. You would make a very good 'chair' in a debate mr archosaur, either you have had lots of experience in it or your a natural.

I would disagree with your final statement slightly though, i dont see entirely seperate cultures at all....i see lots of cultures within one cultural group, i see lots of cultural groups who have contact with each other- an exchange of elements; i see both interdependence and conquest, evolution of ideas and concepts. I also see that 2 cultures isolated from each other can manifest similar or even identical elements independently because they either share similar conditions, experiences, observations. We are all human after all, a lion would be scary to any tribesman, the flight of birds will often lead to water, and snakes live in most places...

Pastural societies will always honour cattle, nomads will always honour beasts of burden and predatory animals always honoured by hunter-gatherers.....the list goes on. So quite contrary to seeing entirely seperate cultures i find that the same patterns are nearly always present, and many configurations of a 'human culture'.

sorry to be pedantic.

but your right this may be a preconception which colours my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
LOL, always a pleasure to hear from u. You would make a very good 'chair' in a debate mr archosaur, either you have had lots of experience in it or your a natural.

I would disagree with your final statement slightly though, i dont see entirely seperate cultures at all....i see lots of cultures within one cultural group, i see lots of cultural groups who have contact with each other- an exchange of elements; i see both interdependence and conquest, evolution of ideas and concepts. I also see that 2 cultures isolated from each other can manifest similar or even identical elements independently because they either share similar conditions, experiences, observations. We are all human after all, a lion would be scary to any tribesman, the flight of birds will often lead to water, and snakes live in most places...

Pastural societies will always honour cattle, nomads will always honour beasts of burden and predatory animals always honoured by hunter-gatherers.....the list goes on. So quite contrary to seeing entirely seperate cultures i find that the same patterns are nearly always present, and many configurations of a 'human culture'.

sorry to be pedantic.

but your right this may be a preconception which colours my view.

What you do not seem to understand Grem, is that yes, many different cultures have concocted many different fantastic creatures, but unlike all of these, uncannily similar dragons, with even the same habits and abilities were recorded ALL OVER THE WORLD. And unlike all of the goofy and impossible dieties you have illustrated, there are early pterosaurs in the fossil record that resemble the popular notion of a dragon. Dragons are quite plausible and scientists believe the Sirrush/Mushushu on the Ishtar Gate along with lions and bulls was a real creature.

But just as the historical record shows that clear cut dragons like Enki, Enlil-Yaw and NIngishzida were later "humanized", so too, other dragons may have been "monsterized' into theses fanciful creatures after the true dragons became less frenquently seen.

Oh, on the history Channel tonight there was a show "In search of God's Gold" about the lost temple treasure, and the archaologists stated the Titus Menorah was a true representation of the Menorah taken by the Romans from the Temple.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
What you do not seem to understand Grem, is that yes, many different cultures have concocted many different fantastic creatures, but unlike all of these, uncannily similar dragons, with even the same habits and abilities were recorded ALL OVER THE WORLD. And unlike all of the goofy and impossible dieties you have illustrated, there are early pterosaurs in the fossil record that resemble the popular notion of a dragon. Dragons are quite plausible and scientists believe the Sirrush/Mushushu on the Ishtar Gate along with lions and bulls was a real creature.

But just as the historical record shows that clear cut dragons like Enki, Enlil-Yaw and NIngishzida were later "humanized", so too, other dragons may have been "monsterized' into theses fanciful creatures after the true dragons became less frenquently seen.

Oh, on the history Channel tonight there was a show "In search of God's Gold" about the lost temple treasure, and the archaologists stated the Titus Menorah was a true representation of the Menorah taken by the Romans from the Temple.

Oh i understand what you mean DC, I just dont think its credible.

history channel is not the most reliable. often interesting, but never accept at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Oh i understand what you mean DC, I just dont think its credible.

history channel is not the most reliable. often interesting, but never accept at face value.

And why shouldn't archaeologists agree the Titus Menorah is an accurate rendering of the object? After all, the STATE OF ISRAEL with its own rabbis, historians and archaeologists does.

And as your own Rabbinical source proves, it was FORBIDDEN for Jews to depiect the real menorah, a rule the romans could ignore. So all of the other menorahs depicted are simply imitations for use in Snynagogues without the IMAGE of the Yahweh dragon. After all, there must be a reason Jews were forbidden to depict the real menorah, and the only plausible reason is becasue its imagery was too sacred.

Its really cut and dry Grem. Yahweh is Yaw, the dragon of storms and the sea. And what do we see on the most sacred object in the temple, and object no Jew was allowed to ever depict in art? We see it decorated with images of Yaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
indeed, i got thzat bit from the same place as the picture in the post bbut neglected to put quote marks around it. There are a number of possibilities in this scenario, some of which i mention in succeeding posts. Does the vatican hold it???? why have they not already returned it????

It would be great for them to at least submit it for study. from what ive read it is clear that the depiction on the arch of titus is distinctly inaccurate and thats besides the base issue. BTW it seems that Israel has been calling for the return of jewish religious artifacts for a while, and more recently too....

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/News/20030112.htm

here's a C5th CE synagogue mosaic of the temple menorah.

linked-image

No Grem, that is NOT the temple Menorah. Why do we know this? It was AGAINST JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW to Depict the Temple Menorah. Even your own sources confirm this.

And there is only one LOGICAL reason why it would be forbidden to depict the Temple Menorah. It is becasue the image of Yahweh was depicted on it. And that image is a dragon, exactly the form of the earliest version of Yahweh.

The tripod based Menorah's frenquently seen in Jewish art are the type placed in synagogues and private homes. All of the evidence supports this view. This is why ONLY the Romans depicted the Yahweh-decorated, Temple Menorah - because they of course, were not subject to Jewish religious laws. Even you should be able to figure this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
No Grem, that is NOT the temple Menorah. Why do we know this? It was AGAINST JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW to Depict the Temple Menorah. Even your own sources confirm this.

And there is only one LOGICAL reason why it would be forbidden to depict the Temple Menorah. It is becasue the image of Yahweh was depicted on it. And that image is a dragon, exactly the form of the earliest version of Yahweh.

The tripod based Menorah's frenquently seen in Jewish art are the type placed in synagogues and private homes. All of the evidence supports this view. This is why ONLY the Romans depicted the Yahweh-decorated, Temple Menorah - because they of course, were not subject to Jewish religious laws. Even you should be able to figure this out.

As I said before, I don't think you fully understand AZ, particularly clauses 2 and 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archosaur

Some references I found while researching this topic:

On the Sumerian origins of Yahweh:

http://www.homestead.com/bibleorigins*net/...hYawUgarit.html

On the religious roles of serpentine/dragon beings:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/5789/serpent.htm

I will try to grab more as I go. I posted these not because I necessarily agree with them, but I beleive that more information will help in the search for truth. You may agree or disagree with them, or other information for that matter, but as long as we earnestly continure to search for truth, it will be revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Some references I found while researching this topic:

On the Sumerian origins of Yahweh:

http://www.homestead.com/bibleorigins*net/...hYawUgarit.html

On the religious roles of serpentine/dragon beings:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/5789/serpent.htm

I will try to grab more as I go. I posted these not because I necessarily agree with them, but I beleive that more information will help in the search for truth. You may agree or disagree with them, or other information for that matter, but as long as we earnestly continure to search for truth, it will be revealed.

I have cited the Bibleorigins article before. It compiles much of the information that shows the link between Yaw and Yahweh, as well and Enlil-Enki and Yahweh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
It is possible that the Titus menorah is "different to the original," the original of course being the one confiscated by Antiochus. Which can only mean that the menorah displayed on the arch was the replacement made by the Maccabees. That of course would require we come to the conclusion that the Maccabees were idolaters.

However, it is highly unlikely that Vespasian's generals after having sacked Jerusalem would have conceived that a three legged base of gold warranted its removal and reshaping into a a double hexagonal shape for any reason, the least of which was any need or reason to discredit the already badly defeated Jews by depicting pagan carvings on same. I suspect the celebrating Romans would have taken the greatest delight in parading the religious artifacts of the defeated Jewish God. never mind the time it would have taken to melt the base and replace same before it was delivered to Rome with the captives.

Then too we have the description from Josephus who describes the menorah as having a single base. Since he described the seven lamps, I doubt he would have called three legs a single base.

Finally, if in fact the menorah depicted on the arch was altered, we have to wonder why in 1996 Shimon Shetriel, the Minister of Religious Affairs requested the Vatican return the menorah to Israel. And as DC has already pointed out, the official depiction of the menorah by Israel is that of the double hexagonal base.

Thanks, 67th. I was going over these posts again and just discovered your quote from Josephus claiming that the temple menorah had a single base instead of the tripods seen in many depictions of mere synagogue menorahs. So Josephus is yet more confirmation that the image of the temple menorah on the Arch of Titus is authentic.

You should know tht leading Jewish Rabbis do acknowledge this is an accurate depiction of the temple menorah, it is maninly anglo saxon Christians with an "anti-dragon agenda" who rather lamely make claims like "the romans paganized the menorah to insult the Jews". These fools clearly do not realize that Ancient Jewish religious laws speciically explain how a DRAKON must be depicted in art. And why would Drakons be depicted in Jewish religious art? Becasue the Jewish preistly cast clearly understood that Seraphim, Cherubim and Yahweh Himself were Drakons. There was also a law that forbid the depiction of the temple menorah. Why? The only plausible explanation was becasue they knew it bore the image of Yahweh.

Of course, the Romans cared nothing of Jewsish laws so they faithfully reproduced the menorah complete with Yahwehs image as a Drakon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

In

particular, the Menorah had acquired the connotation of Jewish

sovereignty at the time of the Matitya ben Yohanan and the Hanukka

miracle; Matitya Antigonos, named after his ancestor and a Hasmonean,

would naturally have used the Menorah in the Hekhal as THE symbol of

Jewish sovereignty.

So menorah must be intended to represent the Menorah in the Hekhal. To

be sure, this is a coin, and there is no room for details, like

kaftorim. But, as R. Sperber points out, this is not just a schematic

representation: its dimensions match the dimensions that Hazal gave to

the Menorah in terms of the ratio between the area with the arms vs. the

base below. And what is the shape of the arms? Curved, but by no means

circular like the ones on the Arch of Titus. Rather, they are more like

the arc of an ellipse: they curve most sharply at the bottom and then,

about a third of their length, they become almost straight. You can see

this by comparing the space between the tops of the 7 arms, where the

candles were. On the coin, the tops are all equidistant from each other,

most importantly the two curved arms on either side of the central arm

are the same distance from the central arm as all the other arms are

from each other.. Compare this to e), where the arms are semicircular,

and so the two curved arms nearest the center are further away from the

central arm than the other arms are from each other, and to the Rambam's

drawing (and any other with straight arms, e.g. c3).

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

say, and all Jewish representations show (see a discussion in MY pp.

177-183), but the coin is rubbed out at the bottom. In any event, it is

clear that it did not have the double-hexagonal base shown in e).

Next is B). This is 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 as does a),

both in terms of height and width, and the arms are curved, but not

semicircular. In fact, they are remarkably similar in shape to those

depicted in a): they are all equidistant from each other, they curve at

the bottom, and about a third of the way up they become almost straight.

Thus we have two depictions, one from a Hasmonean king and one, done 40

to 100 years later, from a man residing in the most prestigious part of

Y'rushalayim overlooking the BhM, both from the time when the Temple

existed, that agree almost exactly in terms of relative dimensions and

the shape of the arms. For this to be a coincidence strains the

imagination.

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

say, and all Jewish representations show (see a discussion in MY pp.

177-183), but the coin is rubbed out at the bottom. In any event, it is

clear that it did not have the double-hexagonal base shown in e).

Next is B). This is 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 as does a),

both in terms of height and width, and the arms are curved, but not

semicircular. In fact, they are remarkably similar in shape to those

depicted in a): they are all equidistant from each other, they curve at

the bottom, and about a third of the way up they become almost straight.....

...d), OTOH, is clearly different from a), B), 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.

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

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.

************x

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

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 [it] 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.

******************xx

As you can see in this picture,

1) this Menorah has a flat base (the real Menorah stood on 3 legs);

2) it has a hexagon base which is a non-Jewish symbol;

3) it has images of shkatzim uremasim on sides of the hexagon including a sea-dragon! The Gemarah in Avodah Zarah says that if one finds a vessel with a sea-dragon embossed on it, it is probably Avodah Zarah, and should disposed.

4) This Menorah lacks the Gevi'im, Kaftorim & Perachim which are mentioned in Parshas Terumah! (Goblets, Knobs and Flowers)

******************xx

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/951215_Menorah.html

Ps, neither i nor the writers of these sites are anglo-saxon, christian, or harbour an anti-dragon bias.

whatever the case about the shape of its base, the menorah on the arch of titus is clearly not the 'original'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
In

particular, the Menorah had acquired the connotation of Jewish

sovereignty at the time of the Matitya ben Yohanan and the Hanukka

miracle; Matitya Antigonos, named after his ancestor and a Hasmonean,

would naturally have used the Menorah in the Hekhal as THE symbol of

Jewish sovereignty.

So menorah must be intended to represent the Menorah in the Hekhal. To

be sure, this is a coin, and there is no room for details, like

kaftorim. But, as R. Sperber points out, this is not just a schematic

representation: its dimensions match the dimensions that Hazal gave to

the Menorah in terms of the ratio between the area with the arms vs. the

base below. And what is the shape of the arms? Curved, but by no means

circular like the ones on the Arch of Titus. Rather, they are more like

the arc of an ellipse: they curve most sharply at the bottom and then,

about a third of their length, they become almost straight. You can see

this by comparing the space between the tops of the 7 arms, where the

candles were. On the coin, the tops are all equidistant from each other,

most importantly the two curved arms on either side of the central arm

are the same distance from the central arm as all the other arms are

from each other.. Compare this to e), where the arms are semicircular,

and so the two curved arms nearest the center are further away from the

central arm than the other arms are from each other, and to the Rambam's

drawing (and any other with straight arms, e.g. c3).

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

say, and all Jewish representations show (see a discussion in MY pp.

177-183), but the coin is rubbed out at the bottom. In any event, it is

clear that it did not have the double-hexagonal base shown in e).

Next is B). This is 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 as does a),

both in terms of height and width, and the arms are curved, but not

semicircular. In fact, they are remarkably similar in shape to those

depicted in a): they are all equidistant from each other, they curve at

the bottom, and about a third of the way up they become almost straight.

Thus we have two depictions, one from a Hasmonean king and one, done 40

to 100 years later, from a man residing in the most prestigious part of

Y'rushalayim overlooking the BhM, both from the time when the Temple

existed, that agree almost exactly in terms of relative dimensions and

the shape of the arms. For this to be a coincidence strains the

imagination.

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

say, and all Jewish representations show (see a discussion in MY pp.

177-183), but the coin is rubbed out at the bottom. In any event, it is

clear that it did not have the double-hexagonal base shown in e).

Next is B). This is 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 as does a),

both in terms of height and width, and the arms are curved, but not

semicircular. In fact, they are remarkably similar in shape to those

depicted in a): they are all equidistant from each other, they curve at

the bottom, and about a third of the way up they become almost straight.....

...d), OTOH, is clearly different from a), B), 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.

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

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.

<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml</a>

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.

************x

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

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 [it] 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.

******************xx

As you can see in this picture,

1) this Menorah has a flat base (the real Menorah stood on 3 legs);

2) it has a hexagon base which is a non-Jewish symbol;

3) it has images of shkatzim uremasim on sides of the hexagon including a sea-dragon! The Gemarah in Avodah Zarah says that if one finds a vessel with a sea-dragon embossed on it, it is probably Avodah Zarah, and should disposed.

4) This Menorah lacks the Gevi'im, Kaftorim & Perachim which are mentioned in Parshas Terumah! (Goblets, Knobs and Flowers)

******************xx

<a href="http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/951215_Menorah.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/951215_Menorah.html</a>

Ps, neither i nor the writers of these sites are anglo-saxon, christian, or harbour an anti-dragon bias.

whatever the case about the shape of its base, the menorah on the arch of titus is clearly not the 'original'.

Yes, and they agree with me. The ARE saying that the Menorah that the Romans took out of the JEWISH TEMPLE is decorated with DRAGONS. I never said it was the Menorah made by Moses becasue Jerusalem had been sacked too many times for it to have survived. But the priests kept the SECRET KOWLEDGE that Yahweh was a dragon, so when the noew Menorah was made, it was decorated with dragons because Yaw the Cannanite storm and water god was a dragon, and the Jewish religious laws specifically explained how a dragon must be depicted. And there is your proof again. Why would there be a reason for dragons to be depicted in the Temple? One reason. Yahweh is a dragon as the OP explains.

It is ridiculous to think Herod made it that way to make the Jews mad. On the contrary, he alwasy strived to please them. As for the eagle, eagles, like dragons are conected with heavenly creatures.

None of the menorah depictions in ancient art support your case because it was forbidden to display the temple menorah. This means that the other menorah are simply intended for synagogues.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.