Many have expressed, with certain hostility, to our recognition of God and his three Wives, the Three Goddesses. many claim this is false based on their own scriptures and archeology. Is it true? No. And here is why. The conventional view of the Bible as strictly monotheistic obscures a richer divine hierarchy rooted in the ancient Semitic god El, his consorts, and their offspring—gods and angels—who share a gendered likeness with humanity. This essay argues that El, the Most High, is distinct from Yahweh (YHWH), a chief son; that El has three female counterparts, Asherah, Anat/Ashtarte, and Ashtoreth/Astarte, Asherat, and Anath, as Philo of Byblos asserts in his Phoenician History; Dione, Aphrodite, and Rhea, and that angels, as their children, are not androgynous but male and female dimorphic beings, capable of procreating with humans due to a shared divine essence. This framework extends to Jesus, whose Hebrew name Yahshuah aligns with Yahweh as a pre-incarnate son of El, reflected in "El"-named angels bearing divine authority. This challenges later theological distortions and reveals a consistent thread from Genesis to Zechariah.
El as the Father God and His Distinction from YHWH
In the Hebrew Bible, El—known as El Elyon ("Most High") in Genesis 14:18-20 or El Shaddai in Genesis 17:1—emerges as the supreme, omniscient deity, distinct from Yahweh (YHWH), Israel’s national god whose knowledge appears limited. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (in older versions like the Dead Sea Scrolls) states that El Elyon divided the nations among the "sons of God" (bene elohim), with Yahweh receiving Israel as His portion, implying Yahweh as a subordinate son. Psalm 89:6-7 reinforces this: "Who among the sons of God (bene elim) is like Yahweh, a God feared in the council of the holy ones?" Yahweh stands out, not as El. Ugaritic texts (1400-1200 BCE) depict El as the all-seeing father god, ruling a pantheon. By contrast, Yahweh’s limits surface in Judges 1:19, where Judah, aided by Yahweh, fails against iron chariots—suggesting Yahweh didn’t foresee this advantage. Similarly, in Genesis 18:20-21, Yahweh "goes down" to investigate Sodom, and in Hosea 8:4, He admits ignorance of Israel’s kings, unlike El’s presumed omniscience (e.g., Genesis 14:18-20).
This distinction deepens with Jesus, whose Hebrew name Yahshuah echoes Yahweh. Many claim Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Jesus (e.g., the "Angel of the Lord" in Exodus 3:2-4). If so, Yahweh as a chief son of El aligns with Yahshuah’s identity—not El Himself, but a divine offspring with similar limits. In John 10:34-36, facing accusations of blasphemy for calling himself "Son of God," Jesus declares, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said, Ye are gods’?"—quoting Psalm 82:6: "I said, ‘You are gods (elohim), sons of the Most High (Elyon).’" This defends his status by placing him among El’s divine sons, like Yahweh, not as the unique El. Yet Mark 13:32 states, "Concerning that day or hour, no one knows... nor the Son, but only the Father," showing Jesus lacks omniscience, like Yahweh in Judges. Mark 5:30-32—Jesus asking, "Who touched me?"—and Luke 2:52—Jesus growing in wisdom—further confirm this. John 1:18 ("No one has ever seen God") contradicts earlier prophets—Moses seeing El’s back (Exodus 33:18-23), Jacob wrestling a "man" (Genesis 32:24-30), Isaiah beholding the Lord (Isaiah 6:1)—suggesting a later shift to elevate Jesus, obscuring El’s tangible, all-knowing presence.
El’s Three Wives and the Feminine Divine
El is not solitary. Philo of Byblos, in his 1st-2nd century CE Phoenician History (via Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica), identifies El with three wives: Asherah, Anat, and Ashtoreth (Astarte), synthesizing Phoenician tradition. Asherah, linked to sky, is El’s consort and mother of gods in Ugaritic texts. Anat (earth/war) and Ashtoreth (sea/love), though daughters in Ugarit, are recast by Philo as wives, reflecting his Hellenized lens. The Bible retains traces: Proverbs 8’s Wisdom (Chokhmah), present at creation (8:22-30), echoes Asherah; Ezekiel 23’s Aholah and Aholibah—Yahweh’s "wives"—parallel this; and cities like Jerusalem ("daughter of Zion," Isaiah 1:8) suggest divine femininity tied to Anat or Asherah.
El as Truth, Love, and Life (John 14:6, 1 John 4:8) pairs with Wisdom, Knowledge (Da’at), and Understanding (Binah)—feminine in Hebrew—forming a relational dynamic. Philo’s trio—Asherah (sky), Anat (earth), Ashtoreth (sea)—co-create with El, whose male form Moses saw. If Yahweh (Yahshuah) is a son of El and a wife like Asherah, his status reflects this gendered parentage, mirroring Genesis 1:27’s "image and likeness."
Angels as Gendered Sons and Daughters
Angels, as children of El and his three wives per Philo, inherit this likeness, debunking their androgynous portrayal. Genesis 6:1-4’s "sons of God" (bene elohim) sire the Nephilim, proving male angels’ procreative power. Job 1:6’s "sons of God" in Yahweh’s court are divine, part of El’s council (Psalm 82:1). Zechariah 5:9’s winged women, lifting an ephah with "Wickedness," are female angels—daughters of El and His consorts. Philo’s three mothers bear diverse, gendered progeny.
Angels like Michael ("Who is like El?") and Gabriel ("Strength of El") bear El’s name, and Exodus 23:20-21’s angel carries Yahweh’s: "My name is in him." This reflects El’s authority delegated to sons, including Yahweh. Psalm 82:1—"God (Elohim) judges among the gods (elohim)"—and Exodus 15:11—"Who is like you, Yahweh, among the gods (elim)?"—depict a hierarchy. Yahweh, a son, may lead the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, their likeness to humans enabling hybrids.
Implications for Image, Likeness, and Procreation
Humans, made in El’s "image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26-27), reflect this gendered, procreative family: El’s male form with three consorts, mirrored in human duality. Angels, as sons and daughters, share this, their Nephilim offspring proving compatibility.
Yahshuah (Yahweh incarnate) as a son of El and Asherah fits this lineage, echoed by El-named angels. Later theology—Yahweh as El, angels as bodiless—obscures this, but from El’s council to Zechariah’s winged women, bolstered by Philo’s three wives and Yahshuah’s identity, the Bible reveals a divine lineage where gender and procreation bridge gods, angels, and humanity.
These passages reinforce the idea that Jesus operates under a higher authority, consistent with the notion of Yahweh/Yahshuah as a son of El, not the supreme deity. I will also show a few examples where Jesus was wrong about several things, and not from the usual bits many atheists draw from. It will also contain additional references reinforcing the previous points of this Essay. Here are the key examples from the New Testament:
John 3:17:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
Jesus describes his mission as God’s initiative, not his own, stating that God sent him for a specific purpose.
John 4:34:
"Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.’"
He frames his purpose and sustenance as fulfilling the will of the one who sent him, not a self-directed task.
John 5:19:
"So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.’"
Jesus admits he can’t act independently, only mimicking what the Father shows him in his head (or mind's eye as it were), reinforcing his dependence and non-identity with God.
John 5:30:
"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."
Jesus explicitly states he acts only according to the will of the one who sent him, not by his own initiative.
John 5:36-37:
"But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me."
Jesus ties his works and testimony to the Father’s sending and authority, not his own independent action.
John 6:38:
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me."
He emphasizes his descent from heaven was at another’s direction, prioritizing the sender’s will over his own.
John 6:44:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
He credits the Father’s sending and drawing power as the mechanism behind his role, not his own volition.
John 7:16-17:
"So Jesus answered them, ‘My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.’"
He attributes his teaching to the one who sent him, denying personal authorship and pointing to a higher source.
John 7:28-29:
"So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, ‘You know me, and you know where I come from. But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.’"
Jesus clarifies he didn’t come by his own decision but was sent by one greater, whom he knows intimately.
John 8:16:
"Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me."
Jesus asserts that his judgment is valid because it aligns with the Father who sent him, not because he acts solo
John 8:26:
"I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."
He positions himself as a messenger relaying what he’s heard from the one who sent him, not as the source.
John 8:42:
"Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.’"
He repeats that his presence isn’t self-initiated; God sent him, framing his mission as obedience to another.
John 12:49-50:
"For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me."
Jesus underscores that his words and authority come from the Father who sent him, not from himself.
John 14:24:
"Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me."
Jesus explicitly says his words belong to the Father who sent him, denying personal ownership.
John 17:3:
"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
In prayer, Jesus defines himself as the one sent by the "only true God," distinguishing his role as a sent agent.
John 17:18:
"As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."
Jesus parallels his being sent by the Father with his sending of the disciples, reinforcing a delegated mission.
John 20:17:
"Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’"
Post-resurrection, Jesus refers to the Father as "my God," indicating he has a God above him, inconsistent with being the supreme deity Himself.
John 20:21:
"Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.’"
Post-resurrection, he likens his sending by the Father to his sending of the disciples, reinforcing a chain of command.
Matthew 10:40:
"Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me."
Jesus links his authority to the one who sent him, implying a chain of representation, not self-origination.
Matthew 19:17 (and Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19):
"And he said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’"
When called "good teacher," Jesus deflects the title, reserving ultimate goodness for God alone, implying he is not God Himself.
Mark 15:34 (and Matthew 27:46):
"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’"
On the cross, Jesus cries out to God (Eloi, echoing El), expressing abandonment and addressing a higher power as "my God," distinguishing himself from that deity.
Here are scriptures where Jesus (Yahshuah) makes reference to having a mother beyond the biological (Mary), suggesting a broader, spiritual, and divine paternal (Father) and maternal (mother) figures and divine community (beyond the earthly friends, family and neighbors).
Scriptures Where Jesus References Another Mother
Luke 8:19-21:
"Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.’ But he answered them, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’"
Jesus redefines "mother" beyond his biological mother, Mary, to include those who obey God’s word. This spiritual motherhood could hint at a broader maternal concept, potentially aligning with a divine figure like Asherah or a collective faithful as motherly.
Matthew 12:46-50 (parallel to Mark 3:31-35):
"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’"
Similar to Luke 8:21, Jesus expands "mother" to encompass his disciples who do the Father’s will, suggesting a non-biological maternal relationship that could symbolically or theologically connect to a divine mother figure.
John 19:26-27:
"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."
While this refers to Mary, Jesus assigns a new maternal role to her for the beloved disciple, broadening her motherhood beyond biology. This act of redefinition might echo a pattern of multiple "mothers," though it’s more immediate here.
John 2:4:
"And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.’"
Speaking to Mary at the wedding in Cana, Jesus calls her "Woman" rather than "Mother," distancing himself slightly and possibly hinting at a broader maternal context.
Some interpret "Woman" as evoking Eve or a universal mother figure, which could align with a divine mother like Asherah in a speculative sense.
Revelation 12:1-5 (Indirect Reference):
"And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains... She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron... And the child was caught up to God and to his throne."
Though not Jesus speaking, this apocalyptic vision (often linked to him as the child) depicts a heavenly "woman" as his mother, distinct from Mary.
While not Jesus’ words, it’s a later text tied to him, suggesting a celestial mother distinct from Mary, resonating with Canaanite goddess imagery (e.g., Asherah as sky-mother).
Early Christian tradition sometimes tied this to the Church, but its cosmic imagery could suggest a divine maternal figure (e.g., Asherah as sky-related) birthing Yahshuah.
This isn't to condemn anyone's beliefs as much as to prove a point that many choose to ignore and from the same sources they often cite and quote so as to avoid the tendency of such to ignore and cherry pick only what serves their particular arguments while pretending the counters such as these don't exist (and when they do at least acknowledge them, often try and make excuses for from their own heads, and not the texts). The point is to simply demonstrate that while we have our own different perspectives, there is no need to be enemies.
Common Fallacies in Religious Debates
While we can all engage in a reasonably peaceful critique of one another’s beliefs, claims, or lack thereof, we must remain vigilant to avoid common pitfalls: selective listening, selective demands, problematic statements, and the conflation of personal assumptions with poorly substantiated sources. This requires recognizing that criticism is not condemnation, nor is an argument inherently a verbal or physical attack—such notions are largely the nonsense of extremists. To foster meaningful dialogue, we must distinguish these traps and ground our discussions in clarity and mutual respect.
Selective Listening Examples:
Ignoring parts of an argument that challenge one’s position: “I only heard the part that supports my view.”
Focusing on a single word or phrase out of context: “You said ‘maybe,’ so you must be uncertain about everything.”
Dismissing opposing views without consideration: “That doesn’t fit my beliefs, so I won’t hear it.”
Hearing only what aligns with preconceptions: “You agree with me here, so the rest doesn’t matter.”
Tuning out to avoid discomfort: “If it questions my stance, I’ll just stop listening.”
Selective Demands Examples:
Insistence that specific practices or beliefs must be observed because "a book demands it" is unjustifiable.
Requiring absolute adherence to a rule while ignoring its context: “You must follow this, no exceptions.”
Demanding evidence from others but not oneself: “Prove your point, but my belief stands without proof.”
Expecting others to conform to personal rituals: “If you don’t do it my way, you’re wrong.”
Mandating agreement based on vague authority: “Someone important said it, so you must accept it.”
Problematic Statements Examples:
“You’re not listening to me” confused with “You need to agree with me.”
“This book says so, therefore it must be true.”
Assuming moral judgment by belief: “If you don’t believe this, you’re good or bad.”
“Do as I say, not as I do,” revealing hypocrisy.
“Some things are not meant to be understood,” avoiding critical questions.
Circular Arguments Examples:
“This is true because it’s in the book, and the book is true because it says so.”
“I’m right because I believe it, and I believe it because I’m right.”
“God exists because the world is ordered, and the world is ordered because God exists.”
“You can’t disprove it, so it must be true, and it’s true because you can’t disprove it.”
“My faith proves itself because it’s faithful.”
A Priori Assumptions Examples:
“Everyone knows this is true, so we don’t need to question it.”
“It’s obvious that my way is correct, no evidence required.”
“Good people believe this, so it must be right.”
“The world works this way because I’ve always thought it does.”
“If it feels true to me, it doesn’t need further proof.”
Finally, just because Druwayu does not agree with or conforms to what you assume to be true or you make the assumption that we "hate" you in particular, or some other such nonsense, you are engaging in an assumption fallacy. To clarify what an Assumption Fallacy is, since in this particular phrasing is seldom specifically stated, I shall clarify what I mean by Assumption Fallacies which is not the same as drawing a conclusion based on research and resulting evidence.
Key Characteristics of an Assumption Fallacy
Unproven Starting Point: The argument begins with a claim assumed to be true without justification.
Circularity or Bias: It may loop back to reinforce itself or reflect personal bias masquerading as fact.
Failure to Question: The assumption isn’t tested or supported, yet it’s treated as a given.
Examples of Assumption Fallacies
Begging the Question (Circular Assumption):
"This book is true because it’s divinely inspired, and we know it’s divinely inspired because the book says so."
The assumption (divine inspiration) is unproven and relies on itself, making the argument circular.
False Premise:
"Everyone agrees the Earth is flat, so it must be true."
Assumes universal agreement without evidence, and the premise itself is false.
A Priori Assumption:
"Good people always believe in justice, so if you doubt this law, you’re not good."
Assumes a link between belief and morality without proving it, then judges based on that.
Hasty Generalization:
"I met one rude person from that town, so everyone there must be rude."
Assumes a single case defines the whole, lacking broader evidence.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Causal Assumption):
"I prayed, and it rained, so my prayer caused the rain."
Assumes causation from sequence alone, without proving the connection.
Thanks for reading.