Daniel 8 relates a vision of a ram and a goat. A ram (male sheep) first appears from the east, then a goat "with a notable horn" appears, attacking the ram. While they are both clean animals, the sheep is an animal Yeshua compares himself to, while the goat is in certain passages used as a symbol for evil or condemnation.
The traditional interpretation shared by Jews and Christians is that the ram represents the Persian empire, while the goat represents Alexander the Great and his Greek empire, which formed the cultural base for the modern west and therefore for the modern world.
Greece vs. Persia? Sounds like 300.
But why is Persia represented by a ram?
Is the goat actually the "good one", in a reversal of symbology meant to challenge us?
Or is God's symbology consistent?
The interesting thing to me is that Persia was at this time not Mithraist/Zoroastrian, but rather part of the Elist cultural-religious family, which explains why scripture would represent Persia by a ram. They share the concept of El. Like the other Elists, the Persians assumed El (God) had a son who was his primary agent, named Baal or Bel (Lord) who generally acted on his behalf and who also had to die and be resurrected.
I think this is ultimately why Persia was represented as a ram.
While weeping for Tammuz (another name for Baal, son of El) is forbidden, God clearly understands that it is a form of paganism that pre-figures the truth. For this reason there is a hierarcy among cultures/religions.
In ancient times this ideological hierarchy could probably be represented thus:
Elist monotheism > Elist polytheism > non-Elist polytheism / other.
I honestly suspect that non-Elist forms of monotheism (Atenism, Sikhism) would be seen as subversive. In fact it is never mentioned in scripture or in any traditional material I have ever read, probably exactly because it was seen as "far out" and subversive. Or, perhaps the Jews just didn't buy the idea that there were non-Elist forms of monotheism. Indeed, if it turns out to be true that Atenism was not the pure monotheism that some make it out to be, then the only forms of monotheism recorded in the middle east would be Elist. The Bible treats non-Israelite worshippers of El, such as Jethro, as part of its cultural spectrum, whereas Egyptian polytheism, Mithraism, Hinduism, Greek polytheism and so on are admitted to be genuinely foreign and original.
In the vision God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, Elist Babylon is represented as a HEAD of GOLD, and Elist Persia is represented as an upper body of silver. Half the statue so far is representative of Elist nations. The second half, from the belly and down, is representative of the prolific and influential Greco-Roman culture, the belly of bronze representing Greece and the two legs of iron representing Rome, which would be split into a western and a eastern half. (Ancient writings frequently refer to the Byzantines as Romans.)
Despite being an Elist text, the authors of the Quran, by denying that Yeshua is the son of God, miss the symbolical connection from their own polytheist past: El has a son, God has a son, called the Lord.
In the Elist religious framework that was followed in (pre-Islamic) Babel, Asshur, Canaan and Arabia, El not only had a son, Baal, but this son had to die, and thereby defeat death. The battle of Baal (Lord) and Mot (death) can be read by anyone today. As in the Bible, the Lord's defeat of death signifies the subjugation of the last enemy ("the last enemy to be defeated is death" 1 Cor. 15:26) and Baal being given complete sovereignty over all things by his father El.
Note:
The "dying son" is not unique to the Elist family of religions. Nor is it the only defining feature of Elism. The Elism of Babylon and Persia likely had various ideological or practical points that caused God to rank it above other religious conceptualities.
Indeed, when the prophets of the El of Israel criticize the other El-religions, it has to be historically understood as an interfamilial dispute. The Hebrew Bible does not waste time naming the gods of Egypt, Zoroastrianism or Greek mythology, and the NT is also extremely reticent with the names of non-Semitic deities: the goddess Diana really only being mentioned in Acts 19 because she was the chosen deity of a certain silversmith (the silversmith being the real focus of that narrative). As a rule the names of non-Semitic gods only appear when part of a place-name or personal name.
If, as an example, the religions of India and Tibet had been known to the prophets of Israel they likely would not have spent time on these either, exactly because of their foreignness. And despite their merits, they too would have been ranked inferior to polytheist Elism. Buddhist monks probably make better neighbors than anyone else in the world, and wouldn't harm a fly (supposedly). Nevertheless, their ideological system is objectively speaking extremely far removed from the Elist family, being as it is derived from Hinduism.
Elist polytheism, if we are to believe scripture and tradition, actually is or at least began as a worship of the 70 Elohim that serve the Creator-El of Israel (these 70 are called "Gods" and "Sons of God" in Psalm 82, "Princes" in Daniel).
THE MEAT:
The worship of Baal (Lord) son of El (God) is of course also symbolically significant since it pre-figures the worship of Lord Yeshua, the son of God.
Here is a supremely fascinating thing that most people miss:
When the prophets of Israel are criticizing the worship of Baal, the subtext really is: why do you worship the son of El, at the expense of El ?
Why is the Father not your FOCUS ?
It's like you make the Father point to the Son, rather than the way it should be: The Son pointing to the Father.
The traditional interpretation shared by Jews and Christians is that the ram represents the Persian empire, while the goat represents Alexander the Great and his Greek empire, which formed the cultural base for the modern west and therefore for the modern world.
Greece vs. Persia? Sounds like 300.
But why is Persia represented by a ram?
Is the goat actually the "good one", in a reversal of symbology meant to challenge us?
Or is God's symbology consistent?
The interesting thing to me is that Persia was at this time not Mithraist/Zoroastrian, but rather part of the Elist cultural-religious family, which explains why scripture would represent Persia by a ram. They share the concept of El. Like the other Elists, the Persians assumed El (God) had a son who was his primary agent, named Baal or Bel (Lord) who generally acted on his behalf and who also had to die and be resurrected.
I think this is ultimately why Persia was represented as a ram.
While weeping for Tammuz (another name for Baal, son of El) is forbidden, God clearly understands that it is a form of paganism that pre-figures the truth. For this reason there is a hierarcy among cultures/religions.
In ancient times this ideological hierarchy could probably be represented thus:
Elist monotheism > Elist polytheism > non-Elist polytheism / other.
I honestly suspect that non-Elist forms of monotheism (Atenism, Sikhism) would be seen as subversive. In fact it is never mentioned in scripture or in any traditional material I have ever read, probably exactly because it was seen as "far out" and subversive. Or, perhaps the Jews just didn't buy the idea that there were non-Elist forms of monotheism. Indeed, if it turns out to be true that Atenism was not the pure monotheism that some make it out to be, then the only forms of monotheism recorded in the middle east would be Elist. The Bible treats non-Israelite worshippers of El, such as Jethro, as part of its cultural spectrum, whereas Egyptian polytheism, Mithraism, Hinduism, Greek polytheism and so on are admitted to be genuinely foreign and original.
In the vision God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, Elist Babylon is represented as a HEAD of GOLD, and Elist Persia is represented as an upper body of silver. Half the statue so far is representative of Elist nations. The second half, from the belly and down, is representative of the prolific and influential Greco-Roman culture, the belly of bronze representing Greece and the two legs of iron representing Rome, which would be split into a western and a eastern half. (Ancient writings frequently refer to the Byzantines as Romans.)
Despite being an Elist text, the authors of the Quran, by denying that Yeshua is the son of God, miss the symbolical connection from their own polytheist past: El has a son, God has a son, called the Lord.
In the Elist religious framework that was followed in (pre-Islamic) Babel, Asshur, Canaan and Arabia, El not only had a son, Baal, but this son had to die, and thereby defeat death. The battle of Baal (Lord) and Mot (death) can be read by anyone today. As in the Bible, the Lord's defeat of death signifies the subjugation of the last enemy ("the last enemy to be defeated is death" 1 Cor. 15:26) and Baal being given complete sovereignty over all things by his father El.
Note:
The "dying son" is not unique to the Elist family of religions. Nor is it the only defining feature of Elism. The Elism of Babylon and Persia likely had various ideological or practical points that caused God to rank it above other religious conceptualities.
Indeed, when the prophets of the El of Israel criticize the other El-religions, it has to be historically understood as an interfamilial dispute. The Hebrew Bible does not waste time naming the gods of Egypt, Zoroastrianism or Greek mythology, and the NT is also extremely reticent with the names of non-Semitic deities: the goddess Diana really only being mentioned in Acts 19 because she was the chosen deity of a certain silversmith (the silversmith being the real focus of that narrative). As a rule the names of non-Semitic gods only appear when part of a place-name or personal name.
If, as an example, the religions of India and Tibet had been known to the prophets of Israel they likely would not have spent time on these either, exactly because of their foreignness. And despite their merits, they too would have been ranked inferior to polytheist Elism. Buddhist monks probably make better neighbors than anyone else in the world, and wouldn't harm a fly (supposedly). Nevertheless, their ideological system is objectively speaking extremely far removed from the Elist family, being as it is derived from Hinduism.
Elist polytheism, if we are to believe scripture and tradition, actually is or at least began as a worship of the 70 Elohim that serve the Creator-El of Israel (these 70 are called "Gods" and "Sons of God" in Psalm 82, "Princes" in Daniel).
THE MEAT:
The worship of Baal (Lord) son of El (God) is of course also symbolically significant since it pre-figures the worship of Lord Yeshua, the son of God.
Here is a supremely fascinating thing that most people miss:
When the prophets of Israel are criticizing the worship of Baal, the subtext really is: why do you worship the son of El, at the expense of El ?
Why is the Father not your FOCUS ?
It's like you make the Father point to the Son, rather than the way it should be: The Son pointing to the Father.
Last edited:
