>Christianity is based on the idea that God has a physical body, literally a man with a physical body with a circumcised penis who flew away in physical form and went to sit next to himself in the sky (Luke 24). Literally sitting in the firmament (as if the firmament was a geographical place). And this physical god sitting next to him in the sky will one day fly back. But, as he himself said, not even the son knows when. But at the same time he knows because the father knows. He knows and he doesn't know when he will return

Yes and?

>>17815127 (OP)

>>17815127 (OP)
Kukristianity

>>17815127 (OP)

>>17815197
> brown monkey people presumably beat the everloving crap out of the "huwyte g*d" and slam xis/xer face with their BBCs until they bleed to death
Shouldn't have instigated !

>>17815127 (OP)
>>17815153
>>17815197
>>17815406
>>17815860

>>17815197
>>17816137
They aren't tails. No amount of comparison with Bes and Beset can undo what the artist of the pottery actually drew on Yahweh and his shemale companion: a dick AND ballsack.
No "tail" looks like that. Even if Bes and Yahweh have inspired each other's depiction's (in an unclear direction), someone decided to deliberately diverge from the original, whether it was genitals > tails or tails > genitals.
You can stop coping now. Last I heard nobody was allowed to freely reexamine the artifact most likely because of how shameful it is for Judaism and Israel's prehistory.

>>17816140
You know the inscriptions predate the images, right?

>>17816144
>the next level of cope
An ancient person from Israel's prehistory thought Yahweh looked like that and there's nothing you can do about it.

>>17816148
>n ancient person from Israel's prehistory thought Yahweh looked like
Or maybe drew Bes and Beset without caring about the inscription, or as a way to impose Bes and Beset over Yahweh and Asherah, or didn't even notice the inscription.

You realize that there are so many different possibilities, right?

>>17815127 (OP)
>Yahweh
One of the many names God used to reveal himself with to Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. Lets not forget the many generations of Israelites who God revealed himself to without the name Yahweh.

>Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Able
>Noah and his sons
>Jonah
>Job
>Melchizedek
>Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Hagar, Ishmael

These are where the names El, El Shaddai, Adonai, Elohim, The Almighty, Jehovah, the LORD, etc come from.
Yahweh was the name given to the tribe of Israelites who immediately began worshipping false gods, the minute Moses went up the mountain. These Israelites are the same ones responsible for the atrocities in Kings and Judges. The cycle of Paganism and idolatry to facing God's wrath, to returning to holy worship.

The figure and artifact in question (OP's picrel) was discovered in the Northern Region of Judea and is dated to the 8th Century BC. Which perfectly places it in the time period of Samaria and its fall. It's also literally labelled "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah". Northern Judea at this time was at height of pagan worship and Canaanite adoption.
We know of Samaria's fall and of Northern Judea's rebellious ways from scripture.
2 kings 17 covers the fall of Samaria because of its paganism and adoption of Canaanite cultures around it. It even literally mentions the pagan God "Asherah".

Don't let this Jewish/Atheist copypasta break your faith. All it takes is a little research to blow the fuck out of these fedoras.

>>17816154
It occurs to me we might be able to cross-reference the picture with physical descriptions from the Bible to ease your doubts. The Bible says Yahweh has a long nose. What do we have here? A nose so long it starts at his forehead and covers over half his face. 1 point for a canonical depiction so far.

>>17816164
>It occurs to me we might be able to cross-reference the picture with physical descriptions from the Bible to ease your doubts.
Which there are none.
>The Bible says Yahweh has a long nose.
Having a long nose is a Hebrew idiom for being calm, patient, tempered, and slow to anger. It's not a literal phyisical description.

>>17816169
The figure of speech also literally says that Yahweh has a long nose. If the depiction has a long nose, it fits like a glove. Idioms are irrelevant. The idiom could have been applied to Yahweh because he literally had a long nose. The author thought it was a funny play on words.

>>17816177
>The figure of speech also literally says-
It's an idiom, retard, that is to say, not literal.

>>17816186
Read what I just said again. You completely missed the point.

(A figure of speech can have both a literal meaning and metaphorical meaning simultaneously)

>>17816187
>Read what I just said again.
No, you were already wrong on your first sentence.

PRAYZE THA LORD

>>17816196
Now you're being retarded. What those verses say LITERALLY is that Yahweh has a long nose. That's indisputable. Your point about it being a figure of speech is not problematic for the reasons I just explained.

>>17816204
>What those verses say LITERALLY
IT'S NOT SAYING LITERALLY YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>17816216
You don't understand what the word literally means, lmao.
The verses about his long nose say two things: something literal and something figurative. They aren't mutually exclusive. Black and white thinking is a sign of autism.

>>17816224
>The verses about his long nose say two things: something literal and something figurative.
Prove that it's also meant to be taken literally.

>>17816230
Again, my point is merely about what those verses say in a literal sense. There's nothing to prove. That's just what the words say when taken literally.

If you want textual evidence that it could be intended as a play on words I suggest you read the other verses which emphasize his nose without using the long nose figure of speech.

All of this is unnecessary to delve into. The only thing that's necessary to establish is the Bible says he has a long nose (for whatever reason, doesn't matter if it's also figurative) and the drawing also has a long nose. End of story. It's not much but from here we can start looking for a second point of comparison between the drawing and textual descriptions.

>>17816253
>Again, my point is merely about what those verses say in a literal sense.
So you're actively choosing to read it literally, like a fundamentalist Christian. Got it.

>>17816230
that is your god. accept that. No more cope now.>>17816159
no fucking jewish king look like that only god of jew can look like that. Stop coping.

>>17816256
you loser. Accept that. At least your god has big dick.

>>17816257
>>17816259

So basically the Bible was originally about the Creator (non-manifest). Non-manifested things are more powerful than manifested things because they aren't acting, they are potent. Like if you have a bow that's drawn and ready to let loose for example. But anyway, the Bible was altered at some point to worship the Lord and God, who literally live on clouds in the sky (invisible to us, because they're made of ether, which is very subtle, like air). The clouds they live on cover the whole earth in multiple layers which is why the Gnostics said shit like there's 7 heaveens, 12 heavens etc. Jesus was a prophet i.e. spirits spake through him by posessions, but there's 3 ways of being a prophet; Having the spirits of the dead speak through you, having God's angels speak through you and having the Creator speak through you. The Jesus in the Bible is multiple people condensed into one, it's obviously a very old book so it gets many details wrong, like Judas for example was actually a soldier who betrayed Zarathustra (Many of the acts ascribed to Jesus in the Bible were actually committed by Zarathustra during his life) Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

>>17816256
>So you're actively choosing to read it literally, like a fundamentalist Christian. Got it.
No, the point is that the only condition necessary for the text to match the depiction is for the literal wording to match. The figurative meaning is unable to disqualify the correspondence.

>>17816278
>for the literal wording
How do you know it's meant to be read literally?

Psalm 145.8
>YHWH [is] gracious and merciful, long of the nose, and great in kindness.

>>17816294
Stop going around in circles. You missed the point.
The Bible really does emphasize Yahweh's big, powerful nose. It is totally plausible that the figure of speech is a play on words.

Exodus 15.8
>And with the blast of your nostrils the waters were piled up.
Deuteronomy 32.22
>For a fire has been kindled by my nostrils,
>And it burns to the lowest [part] of Sheol,
>And consumes earth and its increase,
>And sets on fire [the] foundations of mountains.
Psalm 21.9
>You shall make them as a furnace of fire when you appear.
>YHWH shall engulf them by his nose,
>So fire shall devour them.
Ezekiel 22.30
>Just as silver and bronze and iron and lead and tin are gathered into a furnace, to blow fire on it in order to melt it, so I will gather in (by) my nose and in (by) my heat (rage), and I will set [you] down and melt you.

>>17816299
>Stop going around in circles.
I'm asking you a simple question, no circle necessary, you're reading a text that is very clearly an idiom because we know this idiom is present on other texts, so why are you reading it literally?

>>17816311
Why is it that you don't understand the words you're reading and seem to deliberately misinterpret and twist them? Could you be retarded? Could you be trolling?

My work is done here.

>>17816317
>Why is it that you don't understand the words you're reading and seem to deliberately misinterpret and twist them?
What twist? I'm just telling you that it's an idiom, not meat to be read literally.

>>17816317
I'll take that as a concession of defeat. Anyway.

In conclusion.

It was Bes and Beset.
The inscription was written later for unknown reasons
YHWH's "long nose", is a idiom not meant literally.
OP is a faggot.

>>17816318
I never disputed the claim that it's an idiom. Its idiom status is simply irrelevant. You don't understand this point which I've already repeated multiple times because you have poor reading comprehension or you're simply trolling.

>>17816327
>I never disputed the claim that it's an idiom.
Then why are you reading it otherwise if you know that it's meant to be read that way? You're openly admitting, now that you've recognized it's an idiom, that you're actively choosing to read it literally.