The Face of God (or the face of a UFO entity)?
Copyright 2020, InterAmerica,
Inc.
The Fall 2020 issue of Biblical
Archaeology Review:
Garfinkel discusses the controversial Biblical ban “You shall not make for yourself and idol [Exodus 20:4]: “Was there an actual ban on cult images during the Iron Age (c. 1200-586 B.C.)?” Some scholars accept the ban and others do not, he writes.
For our purposes, we need to know if the creator of the “head” represented a true image or was providing an attempt at realistic representation of what he or she saw as God (or Yahweh).
Michel Lorblanchet and Paul Bahn in The First Artists: In search of the worlds’ oldest art [Thames & Hudson, London 2017] offer the time scales and purposes of early art, allowing for a progression of abstract or representational art from early man into the Upper Paleolithic era, circa 40,000 B.C.
And Gods, Voices and the Bicameral Mind: The theories of Julian Jaynes edited by Marcel Kuijsten [Julian Jaynes Society, NV, 2016] gives insight to the evolution of mankind's early thinking, giving us the substantiation of an ability to produce art that is based in reality, in what was seen.
The period when the Yahweh (God) head was produced -- 10th century B.C. -- allows for a representation that is not imaginary or abstract, and I think the "artist" depicted what he or she (and others) saw: a being professing to be God (Or Yahweh).
Yahweh, as delineated in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) forbids humans to look upon him. Why?
Was God (Yahweh) deformed, a deity on Earth (from where on Earth?) who disdained being seen?
Ancient Astronaut theorists say the "rulers" or "gods from the sky" -- in all cultures from antiquity -- in the many forms depicted -- represent extraterrestrials who visited the Earth, and drawn or sculpted, by early humans as those ETs were.
The problem is that it's unlikely that extraterrestrials ever visited the Earth, certainly not in the numbers recorded or indicated by the many versions presented by the AA believers.
But the various "creatures" and "gods" described by ancient texts are, indeed, what humans thought were gods or divine beings.
(Carl Sagan and I.S. Shklovskii suggest in Intelligent Life in the Universe [1962] that extraterrestrials visited Sumeria about 10,000 years ago.)
And Yahweh, as sculpted in clay, shown above, was what early Mesopotamian peoples worshipped or saw.
What I'm driving at, again, is that the gods of old were "gods" or thought to be, and those "gods" were seen as depicted.
The "face of God (Yahweh)" shown in the BAR article referenced above is an actual representation of God, as seen/experienced by peoples of the Middle East during the Iron Age period, 10th century B.C.
Those deities were extant, on the Earth -- how or why to be explained upcoming -- and interacted with humans.
(How people who witnessed "attractive beings" -- as probed here a few days ago -- in flying saucers has to be accounted for, and the "beautiful" entities experienced in myths and religious texts also. Were the minions of the awesome and frightening gods -- like Yahweh -- of a different breed?)
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, August 04, 2020
14 Comments:
I recently read one astrobiologist's treatise, of which she's absolutely convinced, that ET's are advanced super-AI's. I found this recent great revelation of hers amusing, as you've discussed this in great detail long before, Rich. But I'm trying to come to grips with how that squares with the gods conjecture presented here and its decidedly human-esque visage, along with that of ET biology and evolution perhaps being totally different than what's come down the pike on Earth. Along with the movie-star-like outer space "brothers," insectoids, reptilians, hybrids, etc., it's quite a menagerie we seem to be dealing with. I wish we could just settle on heptapods and be done with it -- but that wouldn't be nearly quite as engaging or thought-provoking.
By
Ron, at Tuesday, August 04, 2020
Ron:
I'm thinking that the gods of old were divinities of a kind, not ETs certainly.
My problem is trying to determine how they came to divine status, that is, how did they assume their supposed godliness?
It's not unlike how kings came to their assumed royalty.
Something allowed mere mortals, normal humans, to see these entities as gods or kings. Why?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 04, 2020
Are you looking for another explanation than that they came from the sky? Gods show wisdom or predict the future, they can do things mortals can't. Maybe in Ancients' eyes, the god was able to bring his once far-flung people together and create a civilization, or bring in crops on a yearly basis without fail. It wouldn't necessarily take a real "divine" act to be called a god, back then, would it? A smart enough con man could pull some of that off. What are your thoughts?
By
Ron, at Tuesday, August 04, 2020
The figurines look pretty rustic by compared with art of that time in Egypt.
As I read the report it said, I believe, that these were the only figurines found. Were all others removed? Do these not look child-like work?
BD
By
Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, August 05, 2020
Yah, Ron, the con man meme is pretty close to how I see it.
The idea burrows into the Gnostic idea of God (Yahweh): a divine sociopath, with divine not quite exact as a description.
More to come. (We'll have some fun with it, and hope our fellow thinker, Martin, joins us.)
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 05, 2020
Bryan:
Yes, other figurines were found, dating from the 8th and 9th B.C. eras -- before the BIblical ban on creating images of God.
I'll have more on this upcoming, and you, Ron, (maybe Martin) and I will have a go at the possibilities.
The figurines do appear crude, but we're seeing a depiction of "god" -- who shielded itself so we're only getting an approximation of what or how that "god" was experienced, but it's a true depiction, not an abstract rendering or an imaginary creation...it's what was seen, I think.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 05, 2020
Looks like I'm late to an interesting discussion.
This brings to mind two recent books that address a topic of great personal interest. The topic: how "anthropomorphic" was God among Yahwehists and early Christians?
The books in question:
God's Body: Jewish, Christian, and Pagan Images of God [2019]
Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism [2015]
My belief is that understanding of God has developed since Biblical times as God has revealed himself more clearly. A lot of this has occurred through visions granted to saints.
I think God has had to accommodate himself to human limitations of many kinds. This I understand to be the basic reason for anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
Generally the focus has been on God slowly revealing the true morality by changes of his own example. This being most apparent in the contrasts between the Old and New Testament. The metaphysical nature of God has been even more slowly revealed. It has taken a long time for humans to develop the cognitive resources to even approach the right idea. But it appears that there were always hints. God has manifested in so many ways:
A pillar of fire
A burning bush
A more human-like form as the "Angel of Yahweh"
Etc
This plasticity of earthly forms does not fit well with the idea of God having a body much as humans do. These appearances served various purposes but none discloses God's absolutely transcendent character. That character has been largely intellectually ascertained.
So perhaps the statue corresponds to a temporary form assumed by God in some way. But that's the most I think it might offer.
There might be a useful insight here for understanding UFOs and "ETs." There is reasonable evidence that "ETs" are continuous with earlier otherworldly beings. The paradigm case is fairies. Rather than cite an old Vallee book I'd refer readers to Joshua Cutchin's Thieves in the Night.
What I'm getting at is that both God and these strange otherworldly creatures have changed their interactions with humans over time. But God's changes have led us to moral and metaphysical enlightenment. They have given us real wisdom. The UFOs and ETs and goblins and fairies etc change but only to cause further confounding. They are stringing along a millenia-old deception that bears no fruit. When they speak to their victims directly they only offer nonsense and gobbledygook. What does that tell us about them?
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, August 05, 2020
I've made a point to stay away from "goblins and fairies" (and ouija boards) but did get caught up recently in the "Summa Faeryologica" at The Big Study website, and found it fascinating the similarities in UFO and faery sightings over the centuries. So if all these amount to Trickster-ish encounters (and maybe Nick Redfern's "Collins Group" targets), then the answer to Martin's ending question is obvious. "If there's a devil, then there must also be God," or visa versa. The whole subject leaves me uneasy, but I feel bound to see where you fellas take it. Also, if what we're seeing is a centuries-slow reveal of a transcendent God, then that's a Disclosure I'd be more interested in then the pap being served up by the UFO community.
By
Ron, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
Fellows...
Let's not make more of this than it requires.
The image of God (Yahweh, the god beneath God) depicted is, I'm surmising, and actual representation of the (supposed) divinity that was shepherding early Mesopotamian humans (the Hebrew nation mostly).
This so-called divinity was deformed, physically and mentally. He (or It) is not the ineffable God, whom Martin seems inclined to worship. Nor is he (It) an exalted sprite as Ron appears to see it.
For me, theologically, an entity assumed the character of a divine being. (How or why is a matter for discussion,)
That being screwed up the habits, morality, ethics and almost everything else for the early Jewish nation.
My point, with the posting, is that this entity is base and foul. And It or like creatures
roamed the Earth in various incarnations and forms, and was still foraging among humankind across the globe.
It's a thing that can die (and did, as I've postulated here often) but It has offspring, who've continued to roam the Earth -- Ron hints at that -- and may have shown up a la UFOs.
We aren't being observed by extraterrestrials but by some intrinsic "being(s)" who pose as gods -- how or why -- and cause strife mostly -- the devil being one of the faces of these
as Jung posited with his idea of the Quaternity.
My former pal, Matty, smarted at such a notion but it is a principle of the Gnostics and zi think it merits a hearing.
The Face of God is the real face of god (Yahweh) deformed and insane, pathological.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
The Israelites believed that no one could look upon the face of God and live. I'm not sure how that idea could've taken hold if there were enduring relics depicting the observed actual face of God. As I said above I think at most we might be seeing a representation of the "Angel of Yahweh." Also could they have revered something deformed and ugly?
Note how circumspect the archeologists are. The conclusion that the statue depicts God (Yahweh) is a leap from the thin evidence available.
Believe it or not: Yahwehism was morally enlightened relative to the ethics that pervaded the ancient world generally.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
The Israelites believed that no one could look upon the face of God and live. I'm not sure how that idea could've taken hold if there were enduring relics depicting the observed actual face of God. As I said above I think at most we might be seeing a representation of the "Angel of Yahweh." Also could they have revered something deformed and ugly?
Note how circumspect the archeologists are. The conclusion that the statue depicts God (Yahweh) is a leap from the thin evidence available.
Believe it or not: Yahwehism was morally enlightened relative to the ethics that pervaded the ancient world generally.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
Martin:
We are always in a relativistic position when it comes to God (UFOs, and lots of other things).
Debating issues about God or religion, like politics, is iffy, especially when discourse becomes entrenched in belief rather than an outside discussion where belief (or faith) is set aside.
I'm trying to avoid a head-butting dialogue, where it seems that a devil's advocacy is an attack on anyone's fervent belief system.
Often I present Jung's Gnostic viewpoints which go against my Catholic upbringing and current faith. Does that mean I accept Jung's views or that of the Gnostics? Not necessarily.
It's like the UFO extraterrestrial viewpoint. I seem to hate it, but do I, really?
Conjecturing here is just that: conjecturing.
By the way, I dug out two of several books I have on the pseudepigrapha, Nag Hammadi Library, et cetera....one being The Other Bible edited by Willis Barnstone, in which I saw material on the Barnabas Epistle and Gospel.
But opening the book today, I'll be damned if I can find any reference to Barnabas or his works.
I did find the Epistle(s) in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, an iffy tome published by World Bible Publishers 1926/1927.
The Gospel referred to in that link I provided the other day is nowhere to be found in either book. I'll have to go back through my collection to see what I have about it (the Gospel).
I did come across The Secret Gospel of Mark, a work I accept as authentic despite the view of some that it's a hoax, even though it's referred to by Clement of Alexandria.
I'll let you know if I recover the Barbabas references that I had in my hand but seem to have disappeared.....work of the devil or Yahweh?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
Oh well please don't think I am meaning to force my view. I am just presenting my perspective. I realize we don't agree on religious matters. But we seem to be in fairly strong agreement on UFOs.
The possible Yahweh statute is interesting. I don't think it's clear enough what it was actually meant to represent to be very consequential though. For now anyway.
The "Gospel of Barnabas" doesn't seem to be especially well known. Certainly not when compared to say the "Gospel of Peter" or the "Gospel of Thomas."
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
I had a full-scale exegesis of the Barnabas works in hand and thought I brought the books from my library upstairs the other day, but nope.
I'll give it another go tonight.
It's fascinating and obverse from his epistle(s).
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 06, 2020
Post a Comment
<< Home