It seems highly likely.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
koan;1350421 wrote: It seems highly likely.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too. I am guessing probably early Mesopotamian gods, or Egyptian similar to the story of the Muslim Allah comming from Rah
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too. I am guessing probably early Mesopotamian gods, or Egyptian similar to the story of the Muslim Allah comming from Rah
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
They may have been the first to say "hey... I think there's only one God who rules them all" but they didn't seem to instantly leap to "and there is only one."
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
well the greeks had zues and norse had Odin, they were considered the KINGs of there respective pantheon, but hell maybe the followers of the King god just got tired of the followers of the others being insubordinate so they came up with a new plan to make there god the only one
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Salibi is the only writer I've read who discusses that question intelligibly and provides a coherent reasonable answer. I've a copy of "Secrets of the Bible People" (awful title, that) in front of me and one chapter, "The Mystery of Noah", gives a good flavour and appears on the web at Qura'nic archaeology if you want a paragraph or two...What follows, perhaps, is the secret of the Noah myth, as it was once understood by the initiates of the mystery cult of Yahweh long before he became the One God of latter-day Judaism and ultimately of Christianityfollowed by his interpretation (with his reasons) of Genesis 6 to 9. The bit on that page which comes from the book is headed "ON HISTORICITY of NOAH".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Apparently Karen Armstrong asserts the continued polytheism in The History of God. I have the book but hadn't thought much about it until someone else mentioned it recently. I'll have to look up what she said exactly.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Then I apologize to Karen Armstrong, I did read that book but it didn't spring immediately to mind. You may well be right though.
eta: On the other hand, the sanctuaries on the high places persisted up until the exile and they were an alternative Hebrew practice to the Temple. Maybe she discusses that.
eta: On the other hand, the sanctuaries on the high places persisted up until the exile and they were an alternative Hebrew practice to the Temple. Maybe she discusses that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
spot;1350431 wrote: Then I apologize to Karen Armstrong, I did read that book but it didn't spring immediately to mind. You may well be right though.
I actually read the reference in Year of Living Biblically. I've yet to look it up but thought "jeeshuz... I believe that's true!"
I actually read the reference in Year of Living Biblically. I've yet to look it up but thought "jeeshuz... I believe that's true!"
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
koan;1350421 wrote: It seems highly likely.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too.
The first commandment is a good clue.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Even god seems to think he's not the only one. Unless he is suffering from a multi personality disorder which since the Christian church insists he is father son and holy ghost - three persons in one divine being - seems likely. Unless you hold to Unitarianism which could get you lynched as a heretic in the old days. Oh the joy of religion.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too.
The first commandment is a good clue.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Even god seems to think he's not the only one. Unless he is suffering from a multi personality disorder which since the Christian church insists he is father son and holy ghost - three persons in one divine being - seems likely. Unless you hold to Unitarianism which could get you lynched as a heretic in the old days. Oh the joy of religion.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
The first commandment dates back to one of the tribal traditions, out of lots of tribal traditions, which was collated into Ezra's Book of the Law after the end of the Exile around 600BC. The question of whether any of the tribes pre-exile, much less back in Abram's day, were polytheistic, is very different to asking what the post-Exile Temple beliefs were. Pre-Exile Jeremiah, for example, was a monotheist but he spent his lifetime criticizing Israel for whoring after other gods and marrying foreigners.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
I'll go looking for where Armstrong talks about it. She should have a pretty good big picture view the situation and when it changed.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
This is from her History of God:In the final text of Exodus, edited in the fifth century BCE, God is said to have made a covenant with Moses on Mount Sinai (an event which is supposed to have happened around 1200). There has been a scholarly debate about this: some critics believe that the covenant did not become important in Israel until the seventh century BCE.
But whatever its date, the idea of the covenant tells us that the Israelites were not yet monotheists, since it only made sense in a polytheistic setting. The Israelites did not believe that Yahweh, the God of Sinai, was the only God but promised, in their covenant, that they would ignore all the other deities and worship him alone. It is very difficult to find a single monotheistic statement in the whole of the Pentateuch. Even the Ten Commandments delivered on Mount Sinai take the existence of other gods for granted: 'There shall be no strange gods for you before my face.'
Here she is again, later on...But who is Yahweh? Did Abraham worship the same God as Moses or did he know him by a different name? This would be a matter of prime importance to us today but the Bible seems curiously vague on the subject and gives conflicting answers to this question, J says that men had worshipped Yahweh ever since the time of Adam's grandson but in the sixth century, 'P' seems to suggest that the Israelites had never heard of Yahweh until he appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush. P makes Yahweh explain that he really was the same God as the God of Abraham, as though this were a rather controversial notion: he tells Moses that Abraham had called him 'El Shaddai' and did not know the divine name Yahweh. The discrepancy does not seem to worry either the biblical writers or their editors unduly. J calls his god 'Yahweh' throughout: by the time he was writing, Yahweh was the God of Israel and that was all that mattered. Israelite religion was pragmatic and less concerned with the kind of speculative detail that would worry us. Yet we should not assume that either Abraham or Moses believed in their God as we do today. We are so familiar with the Bible story and the subsequent history of Israel that we tend to project our knowledge of later Jewish religion back on to these early historical personages. Accordingly, we assume that the three patriarchs of Israel - Abraham, his son Isaac and grandson Jacob - were monotheists who believed in only one God. This does not seem to have been the case. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to call these early Hebrews pagans who shared many of the religious beliefs of their neighbours in Canaan. They would certainly have believed in the existence of such deities as Marduk, Baal and Anat. They may not all have worshipped the same deity: it is possible that the God of Abraham, the 'Fear' or 'Kinsman' of Isaac and the 'Mighty One' of Jacob were three separate gods.
We can go further. It is highly likely that Abraham's God was El, the High God of Canaan. The deity introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai (El of the Mountain), which was one of El's traditional titles. Elsewhere he is called El Elyon (The Most High God) or El of Bethel. The name of the Canaanite High God is preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El or Ishma-El. They experienced him in ways that would not have been unfamiliar to the pagans of the Middle East. We shall see that centuries later Israelites found the mana or 'holiness' of Yahweh a terrifying experience. On Mount Sinai, for example, he would appear to Moses in the midst of an we-inspiring volcanic eruption and the Israelites had to keep their distance. In comparison, Abraham's god El is a very mild deity. He appears to Abraham as a friend and sometimes even assumes human form.
But whatever its date, the idea of the covenant tells us that the Israelites were not yet monotheists, since it only made sense in a polytheistic setting. The Israelites did not believe that Yahweh, the God of Sinai, was the only God but promised, in their covenant, that they would ignore all the other deities and worship him alone. It is very difficult to find a single monotheistic statement in the whole of the Pentateuch. Even the Ten Commandments delivered on Mount Sinai take the existence of other gods for granted: 'There shall be no strange gods for you before my face.'
Here she is again, later on...But who is Yahweh? Did Abraham worship the same God as Moses or did he know him by a different name? This would be a matter of prime importance to us today but the Bible seems curiously vague on the subject and gives conflicting answers to this question, J says that men had worshipped Yahweh ever since the time of Adam's grandson but in the sixth century, 'P' seems to suggest that the Israelites had never heard of Yahweh until he appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush. P makes Yahweh explain that he really was the same God as the God of Abraham, as though this were a rather controversial notion: he tells Moses that Abraham had called him 'El Shaddai' and did not know the divine name Yahweh. The discrepancy does not seem to worry either the biblical writers or their editors unduly. J calls his god 'Yahweh' throughout: by the time he was writing, Yahweh was the God of Israel and that was all that mattered. Israelite religion was pragmatic and less concerned with the kind of speculative detail that would worry us. Yet we should not assume that either Abraham or Moses believed in their God as we do today. We are so familiar with the Bible story and the subsequent history of Israel that we tend to project our knowledge of later Jewish religion back on to these early historical personages. Accordingly, we assume that the three patriarchs of Israel - Abraham, his son Isaac and grandson Jacob - were monotheists who believed in only one God. This does not seem to have been the case. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to call these early Hebrews pagans who shared many of the religious beliefs of their neighbours in Canaan. They would certainly have believed in the existence of such deities as Marduk, Baal and Anat. They may not all have worshipped the same deity: it is possible that the God of Abraham, the 'Fear' or 'Kinsman' of Isaac and the 'Mighty One' of Jacob were three separate gods.
We can go further. It is highly likely that Abraham's God was El, the High God of Canaan. The deity introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai (El of the Mountain), which was one of El's traditional titles. Elsewhere he is called El Elyon (The Most High God) or El of Bethel. The name of the Canaanite High God is preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El or Ishma-El. They experienced him in ways that would not have been unfamiliar to the pagans of the Middle East. We shall see that centuries later Israelites found the mana or 'holiness' of Yahweh a terrifying experience. On Mount Sinai, for example, he would appear to Moses in the midst of an we-inspiring volcanic eruption and the Israelites had to keep their distance. In comparison, Abraham's god El is a very mild deity. He appears to Abraham as a friend and sometimes even assumes human form.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Thank you! I was proofreading high school papers tonight and still can't remember where I put that book down.
It kind of makes a difference to the reading of the OT. If the Israelites (and their version of what God said) were polytheist then their "whoring with other gods" is not so much a matter of being seduced by other cultures as thinking that they'd get better results if they appealed to someone more available at the time.
It kind of makes a difference to the reading of the OT. If the Israelites (and their version of what God said) were polytheist then their "whoring with other gods" is not so much a matter of being seduced by other cultures as thinking that they'd get better results if they appealed to someone more available at the time.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
I'd go further than she did. Where she writes "El Shaddai (El of the Mountain), which was one of El's traditional titles", I'd say it was more a matter of "El Shaddai (El of the Mountain), the traditional title of one of the many Els of the neighbouring communities", which has an entirely different meaning to hers.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
spot;1350493 wrote: The first commandment dates back to one of the tribal traditions, out of lots of tribal traditions, which was collated into Ezra's Book of the Law after the end of the Exile around 600BC. The question of whether any of the tribes pre-exile, much less back in Abram's day, were polytheistic, is very different to asking what the post-Exile Temple beliefs were. Pre-Exile Jeremiah, for example, was a monotheist but he spent his lifetime criticizing Israel for whoring after other gods and marrying foreigners.
I would suggest they fairly obviously were otherwise there would be no need for such a commandment. There is also the implication that god, or yahweh saw himself as one of several gods. Except he wasn't writing the words was he? Karen armstrong is out to prove that monotheism is a crucial event in the development of human society, which it is, but she also wants to make a case for monotheism being essential to the development of a better society, compassion etc etec and make a case for eligion. ( I will state here I have not read any of her books because when I looked at them she seemed to be one of those writers who picks bits of history to make her case and skates over those bits that don't quite fit her viewpoint, a style of writing I tend to find irritating)
The seizure of the moral high ground by moses and the establishment of a monotheistic religion is a means to gain power on earth. It is no different from the actions taken by the roman emperors in establishing the catholic church. If you can control the gateway to heaven then you can control a society and we know the catholic church sat down and decided how to rewrite the bible so they could be in charge and went on to be a power that made kings tremble and emprors crawl at the feet of the pope.
Moses went up the mountain twice, the first time he came back to find his people worshipping the wrong god so he went away to rethink his approach and came back with the first commandment though shalt have no other god but me - and guess who the main priest was. Clever politicking by moses or the work of god, take your pick. Mind you he may have believed god was guiding him or indeed god may actually have been doing so but I think we may have to just agree to disagree on that onemin an amicable manner.
Yahweh the selfish god who wanted everything for himself. Good title for a religious text perhaps??
I would suggest they fairly obviously were otherwise there would be no need for such a commandment. There is also the implication that god, or yahweh saw himself as one of several gods. Except he wasn't writing the words was he? Karen armstrong is out to prove that monotheism is a crucial event in the development of human society, which it is, but she also wants to make a case for monotheism being essential to the development of a better society, compassion etc etec and make a case for eligion. ( I will state here I have not read any of her books because when I looked at them she seemed to be one of those writers who picks bits of history to make her case and skates over those bits that don't quite fit her viewpoint, a style of writing I tend to find irritating)
The seizure of the moral high ground by moses and the establishment of a monotheistic religion is a means to gain power on earth. It is no different from the actions taken by the roman emperors in establishing the catholic church. If you can control the gateway to heaven then you can control a society and we know the catholic church sat down and decided how to rewrite the bible so they could be in charge and went on to be a power that made kings tremble and emprors crawl at the feet of the pope.
Moses went up the mountain twice, the first time he came back to find his people worshipping the wrong god so he went away to rethink his approach and came back with the first commandment though shalt have no other god but me - and guess who the main priest was. Clever politicking by moses or the work of god, take your pick. Mind you he may have believed god was guiding him or indeed god may actually have been doing so but I think we may have to just agree to disagree on that onemin an amicable manner.
Yahweh the selfish god who wanted everything for himself. Good title for a religious text perhaps??
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
It's undeniable that the Israelites worshiped other gods as much of the OT is about precisely that... how much trouble they'd all get in when God caught them worshiping other gods. Aside from that, I'm intrigued to see if there is any clear point in history where their polytheism turned monotheistic and whether or not God actually states that there are no other gods in the OT or whether it is strictly that they shouldn't worship any others above Him.
Christianity certainly has multiplicity issues. I'm pretty sure the dude who said "yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" got fired.
gmc;1350613 wrote: ...( I will state here I have not read any of her books because when I looked at them she seemed to be one of those writers who picks bits of history to make her case and skates over those bits that don't quite fit her viewpoint, a style of writing I tend to find irritating)...
Right then.
I'm more interested in your opinion on things you've actually read.
Christianity certainly has multiplicity issues. I'm pretty sure the dude who said "yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" got fired.
gmc;1350613 wrote: ...( I will state here I have not read any of her books because when I looked at them she seemed to be one of those writers who picks bits of history to make her case and skates over those bits that don't quite fit her viewpoint, a style of writing I tend to find irritating)...
Right then.
I'm more interested in your opinion on things you've actually read.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350613 wrote: I would suggest they fairly obviously were otherwise there would be no need for such a commandment.
It depends on how one uses the English language. It may be that the word 'before' means 'more important than', which in this case would imply that there are other deities, and this one wants preferential treatment. No doubt some would prefer that idea- as a means of 'getting back' at a deity they might feel has them 'cornered', perhaps.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
The seizure of the moral high ground by moses and the establishment of a monotheistic religion is a means to gain power on earth. It is no different from the actions taken by the roman emperors in establishing the catholic church. If you can control the gateway to heaven then you can control a society and we know the catholic church sat down and decided how to rewrite the bible so they could be in charge and went on to be a power that made kings tremble and emprors crawl at the feet of the pope.
The reason that these people re-wrote the divine prescription was because the original was far too democratic for a fragile economic system built on massive exploitation, which is exactly what the Roman Empire was. And the Christian alternative and remedy for it was no inversion of what had preceded it from Joshua to Christ, which also was intended to be democratic. Moses could have made himself monarch: but he was never one to use his own authority in the view of Israelites. That's the crucial point- no Israelite considered Moses to be exercising his own authority, and had he been thought to be doing so, his authority would not have been accepted, considering the uncompromising attitude he took with the Israelites. We may, nevertheless, cynically suppose that he wanted to gain personal power. But the facts do not support that view. Moses never became a priest, and even if he had done so, it would have been far more about duty than privilege and power, because, unlike in other nations such as Egypt and Babylon, even the High Priest had no executive control over anything other than the immediate business of sacrificial offering and the like. Moses devolved his leadership as much as he could, and certainly gained absolutely nothing personally from his leadership- except headaches! When he died, there were other leaders, but they were not monarchs, only military 'chiefs-of-staff' cum legal officers rolled into one. And that continued until, against the wishes and advice of their deity and his prophet, the Israelites demanded a king, 'like other nations'. Monarchy did not survive in Israel, anyway. It was mostly disastrous, as the prophet had said it would be.
So association of Christianity with hierarchical control of society is as great a factual error as can be made- like the suggestion that it has polytheist roots.
It depends on how one uses the English language. It may be that the word 'before' means 'more important than', which in this case would imply that there are other deities, and this one wants preferential treatment. No doubt some would prefer that idea- as a means of 'getting back' at a deity they might feel has them 'cornered', perhaps.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
The seizure of the moral high ground by moses and the establishment of a monotheistic religion is a means to gain power on earth. It is no different from the actions taken by the roman emperors in establishing the catholic church. If you can control the gateway to heaven then you can control a society and we know the catholic church sat down and decided how to rewrite the bible so they could be in charge and went on to be a power that made kings tremble and emprors crawl at the feet of the pope.
The reason that these people re-wrote the divine prescription was because the original was far too democratic for a fragile economic system built on massive exploitation, which is exactly what the Roman Empire was. And the Christian alternative and remedy for it was no inversion of what had preceded it from Joshua to Christ, which also was intended to be democratic. Moses could have made himself monarch: but he was never one to use his own authority in the view of Israelites. That's the crucial point- no Israelite considered Moses to be exercising his own authority, and had he been thought to be doing so, his authority would not have been accepted, considering the uncompromising attitude he took with the Israelites. We may, nevertheless, cynically suppose that he wanted to gain personal power. But the facts do not support that view. Moses never became a priest, and even if he had done so, it would have been far more about duty than privilege and power, because, unlike in other nations such as Egypt and Babylon, even the High Priest had no executive control over anything other than the immediate business of sacrificial offering and the like. Moses devolved his leadership as much as he could, and certainly gained absolutely nothing personally from his leadership- except headaches! When he died, there were other leaders, but they were not monarchs, only military 'chiefs-of-staff' cum legal officers rolled into one. And that continued until, against the wishes and advice of their deity and his prophet, the Israelites demanded a king, 'like other nations'. Monarchy did not survive in Israel, anyway. It was mostly disastrous, as the prophet had said it would be.
So association of Christianity with hierarchical control of society is as great a factual error as can be made- like the suggestion that it has polytheist roots.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
xyz;1350634 wrote: It depends on how one uses the English language. It may be that the word 'before' means 'more important than', which in this case would imply that there are other deities, and this one wants preferential treatment. No doubt some would prefer that idea- as a means of 'getting back' at a deity they might feel has them 'cornered', perhaps.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
If we substitute your suggested interpretation is messed up by the words "thou shalt have"
If God said "There are no other gods before me" then you'd stand a chance but that's not what was said.
It is also followed up with Exodus 20:5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God
If there are no other gods then of whom is God jealous? Surely God wouldn't be jealous of nonexistent beings. It can't be just jealous for the love of the people as jealousy implies rivalry.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
If we substitute your suggested interpretation is messed up by the words "thou shalt have"
If God said "There are no other gods before me" then you'd stand a chance but that's not what was said.
It is also followed up with Exodus 20:5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God
If there are no other gods then of whom is God jealous? Surely God wouldn't be jealous of nonexistent beings. It can't be just jealous for the love of the people as jealousy implies rivalry.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
posted by Koan
Right then.
I'm more interested in your opinion on things you've actually read.
Fair comment up to a point. I haven't read her books because I don't think very much of her approach and she strikes me as just looking for the things which reinforce her own opinions. She likes the idea that monotheism is a landmark event in human society from which all moral good flows and that without religion there is no morality. Quite frankly that idea I find ludicrous and ignores all the achievements of those who went before and of other cultures around the world who didn't hear about the middle eastern religions until much later and managed to create surprisingly advanced cultures without them.
On the other hand I have actually read the bible and a lot of other sources as well including many of the ones she uses herself and quite considerable amounts of ancient history so I am probably as well qualified to comment as she, you or anyone else come to that. Karen Armstrong is one bible scholar amongst many not some guru whose opinion is some great revelation. If the bible is all you read you end up with a very confused view of history. If you read the bible looking for the hand of god it gets even more confusing.
Aside from that, I'm intrigued to see if there is any clear point in history where their polytheism turned monotheistic and whether or not God actually states that there are no other gods in the OT or whether it is strictly that they shouldn't worship any others above Him.
Leave god out of it for the moment. That point when the Israelites became monotheistic was imo when Moses came back from the mountain with the ten commandments, there was quite obviously some kind of internal struggle for control, going on with the tribe of israel. Yahweh was just one of several that was worshipped and the others were probably a lot more fun. Moses came back to find a party going on if you remember with a golden calf at the centre of it all. The ancient greeks and Egyptian used bulls in their worship - bear in mind the cultures surrounding the Israelites at the time they were not exactly living in isolation.
Golden calf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no great mystery to it. It was a power grab in a primitive tribe, religion was a factor and moses may have believed he was inspired by god just as there are many today who believe they too can talk to god and are being guided by him. Just watch God TV for a few minutes and you will see what I mean. It's only if you believe in god as depicted in the old testament it all takes on a deeper meaning. I may not have read Karen Armstrong but for your own sake don't stop at her or the old testament.
posted by Koan
Christianity certainly has multiplicity issues. I'm pretty sure the dude who said "yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" got fired.
Oh dear, you need to do some more reading yourself
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important in mainstream Christian faith, teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek: hypostases)[1] in one divine Being (Greek: Ousia), called the Godhead.[2]
No offence intended but I can't think how else to phrase the question without sounding rude. What did you think the trinity was?
posted by xyz
It depends on how one uses the English language. It may be that the word 'before' means 'more important than', which in this case would imply that there are other deities, and this one wants preferential treatment. No doubt some would prefer that idea- as a means of 'getting back' at a deity they might feel has them 'cornered', perhaps.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
It's a bit pointless arguing about the semantics of english words used to translate a bible written in hebrew, translated in to greek and latin and then in to english, especially such a fluid living language as english where the meaning shift subtly over time. It a diversion away from the main point, believe there is only one god. Whether if the bible, guided by god, writers meant that god thought there were other gods besides him or there should be no gods worshipped before (as in ahead of) him is moot and not going to be resolved. Personally I don't think it matters.
Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some
I have no trouble admitting they were imaginary but then I think the "god" of the old testament is as well.
posted by xyz
The reason that these people re-wrote the divine prescription was because the original was far too democratic for a fragile economic system built on massive exploitation, which is exactly what the Roman Empire was. And the Christian alternative and remedy for it was no inversion of what had preceded it from Joshua to Christ, which also was intended to be democratic.
I would agree with you there so we are both heretics in the eyes of the catholic church.
posted by xyz
Moses could have made himself monarch: but he was never one to use his own authority in the view of Israelites. That's the crucial point- no Israelite considered Moses to be exercising his own authority, and had he been thought to be doing so, his authority would not have been accepted, considering the uncompromising attitude he took with the Israelites. We may, nevertheless, cynically suppose that he wanted to gain personal power. But the facts do not support that view. Moses never became a priest, and even if he had done so, it would have been far more about duty than privilege and power, because, unlike in other nations such as Egypt and Babylon, even the High Priest had no executive control over anything other than the immediate business of sacrificial offering and the like. Moses devolved his leadership as much as he could, and certainly gained absolutely nothing personally from his leadership- except headaches! When he died, there were other leaders, but they were not monarchs, only military 'chiefs-of-staff' cum legal officers rolled into one. And that continued until, against the wishes and advice of their deity and his prophet, the Israelites demanded a king, 'like other nations'. Monarchy did not survive in Israel, anyway. It was mostly disastrous, as the prophet had said it would be.
In primitive tribal society shamans arguably have more power than a warlord if they can make people afraid of offending the gods then no one will go against their interpretation. It would be a very brave king that would deliberately offend the gods or god when he needed warriors to believe he/they were on his side. Moses didn't need the title of king to have power. I'm being very cynical, he may really have believed god was talking to him - there are plenty around today who think the same and have their churches, you can see how powerful it would be with a small tribe. A surprising number of religious leaders also want power on earth for the good of their religion.
The roman emperors set themselves up to be worshipped as gods to enhance their power , the catholic church and the nicene creed was a variation on a theme and unless you are religious a thoroughly ruthless and effective way to get power on earth. Excommunication was a fearful threat to use on a king or an emperor who has the most power, a king or the keeper of the keys to heaven? It wasn't until the protestant reformation the power of the church was truly broken.
posted by xyz
So association of Christianity with hierarchical control of society is as great a factual error as can be made- like the suggestion that it has polytheist roots.
No it's not, just read the history of the catholic church and the steps it took to keep control. You might argue that has nothing to do with Christianity but that would once upon a time have got you killed had you dared to say it out loud. It does have polytheistic roots, you can see where they have pinched bits from pagan religions or incorporated aspects they could not stamp out. The thing is of course we can spend hours debating exactly what Christianity is and is not and I suspect we would broadly agree with each other. But then Christianity and religion don't always go hand in hand do they? If only Christianity could start and stop with the new testament and Christians could live in peace with each other.
What's your take on transubstantiation as against Consubstantiation then? There's a pagan notion of ever there was one, right op there with eating the hearts of your enemies to take their strength.
Every single word in the English word (and in many other languages as well) that relates to individual freedom and rights and valuing human life per se pre-dates Christianity or come from pagan cultures - in the case of english that is angle, saxon, viking etc etc.
With Christianity you stand before god and are judged, your rulers are anointed by god and rule by divine right. regicide is a sin against god. Once we got rid of that notion we were on our way to the freedoms we now take for granted. All men are equal but not if god is deciding who rules and the priests are the ones doing the deciding on his behalf. With Christianity we got hereditary kings prior to that kings were, in a surprising number of cultures, chosen by those around them.
I have no problems with the message of JC, the religions spawned in his name are another matter but as you have probably gathered I am not religious so please don't take it that I am out to have a go at your particular set of beliefs.
Right then.
I'm more interested in your opinion on things you've actually read.
Fair comment up to a point. I haven't read her books because I don't think very much of her approach and she strikes me as just looking for the things which reinforce her own opinions. She likes the idea that monotheism is a landmark event in human society from which all moral good flows and that without religion there is no morality. Quite frankly that idea I find ludicrous and ignores all the achievements of those who went before and of other cultures around the world who didn't hear about the middle eastern religions until much later and managed to create surprisingly advanced cultures without them.
On the other hand I have actually read the bible and a lot of other sources as well including many of the ones she uses herself and quite considerable amounts of ancient history so I am probably as well qualified to comment as she, you or anyone else come to that. Karen Armstrong is one bible scholar amongst many not some guru whose opinion is some great revelation. If the bible is all you read you end up with a very confused view of history. If you read the bible looking for the hand of god it gets even more confusing.
Aside from that, I'm intrigued to see if there is any clear point in history where their polytheism turned monotheistic and whether or not God actually states that there are no other gods in the OT or whether it is strictly that they shouldn't worship any others above Him.
Leave god out of it for the moment. That point when the Israelites became monotheistic was imo when Moses came back from the mountain with the ten commandments, there was quite obviously some kind of internal struggle for control, going on with the tribe of israel. Yahweh was just one of several that was worshipped and the others were probably a lot more fun. Moses came back to find a party going on if you remember with a golden calf at the centre of it all. The ancient greeks and Egyptian used bulls in their worship - bear in mind the cultures surrounding the Israelites at the time they were not exactly living in isolation.
Golden calf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no great mystery to it. It was a power grab in a primitive tribe, religion was a factor and moses may have believed he was inspired by god just as there are many today who believe they too can talk to god and are being guided by him. Just watch God TV for a few minutes and you will see what I mean. It's only if you believe in god as depicted in the old testament it all takes on a deeper meaning. I may not have read Karen Armstrong but for your own sake don't stop at her or the old testament.
posted by Koan
Christianity certainly has multiplicity issues. I'm pretty sure the dude who said "yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" got fired.
Oh dear, you need to do some more reading yourself
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important in mainstream Christian faith, teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek: hypostases)[1] in one divine Being (Greek: Ousia), called the Godhead.[2]
No offence intended but I can't think how else to phrase the question without sounding rude. What did you think the trinity was?
posted by xyz
It depends on how one uses the English language. It may be that the word 'before' means 'more important than', which in this case would imply that there are other deities, and this one wants preferential treatment. No doubt some would prefer that idea- as a means of 'getting back' at a deity they might feel has them 'cornered', perhaps.
But it may be that the word 'before' means 'in front of' as in 'witness before the court'. And that is indeed what the word in Exodus 20:3 means. It means that the Israelites were never again to dare to even think about following any other deities now that they had agreed to follow the one who had led them out of Egypt- of which event they had just been reminded. Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some.
It's a bit pointless arguing about the semantics of english words used to translate a bible written in hebrew, translated in to greek and latin and then in to english, especially such a fluid living language as english where the meaning shift subtly over time. It a diversion away from the main point, believe there is only one god. Whether if the bible, guided by god, writers meant that god thought there were other gods besides him or there should be no gods worshipped before (as in ahead of) him is moot and not going to be resolved. Personally I don't think it matters.
Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some
I have no trouble admitting they were imaginary but then I think the "god" of the old testament is as well.
posted by xyz
The reason that these people re-wrote the divine prescription was because the original was far too democratic for a fragile economic system built on massive exploitation, which is exactly what the Roman Empire was. And the Christian alternative and remedy for it was no inversion of what had preceded it from Joshua to Christ, which also was intended to be democratic.
I would agree with you there so we are both heretics in the eyes of the catholic church.
posted by xyz
Moses could have made himself monarch: but he was never one to use his own authority in the view of Israelites. That's the crucial point- no Israelite considered Moses to be exercising his own authority, and had he been thought to be doing so, his authority would not have been accepted, considering the uncompromising attitude he took with the Israelites. We may, nevertheless, cynically suppose that he wanted to gain personal power. But the facts do not support that view. Moses never became a priest, and even if he had done so, it would have been far more about duty than privilege and power, because, unlike in other nations such as Egypt and Babylon, even the High Priest had no executive control over anything other than the immediate business of sacrificial offering and the like. Moses devolved his leadership as much as he could, and certainly gained absolutely nothing personally from his leadership- except headaches! When he died, there were other leaders, but they were not monarchs, only military 'chiefs-of-staff' cum legal officers rolled into one. And that continued until, against the wishes and advice of their deity and his prophet, the Israelites demanded a king, 'like other nations'. Monarchy did not survive in Israel, anyway. It was mostly disastrous, as the prophet had said it would be.
In primitive tribal society shamans arguably have more power than a warlord if they can make people afraid of offending the gods then no one will go against their interpretation. It would be a very brave king that would deliberately offend the gods or god when he needed warriors to believe he/they were on his side. Moses didn't need the title of king to have power. I'm being very cynical, he may really have believed god was talking to him - there are plenty around today who think the same and have their churches, you can see how powerful it would be with a small tribe. A surprising number of religious leaders also want power on earth for the good of their religion.
The roman emperors set themselves up to be worshipped as gods to enhance their power , the catholic church and the nicene creed was a variation on a theme and unless you are religious a thoroughly ruthless and effective way to get power on earth. Excommunication was a fearful threat to use on a king or an emperor who has the most power, a king or the keeper of the keys to heaven? It wasn't until the protestant reformation the power of the church was truly broken.
posted by xyz
So association of Christianity with hierarchical control of society is as great a factual error as can be made- like the suggestion that it has polytheist roots.
No it's not, just read the history of the catholic church and the steps it took to keep control. You might argue that has nothing to do with Christianity but that would once upon a time have got you killed had you dared to say it out loud. It does have polytheistic roots, you can see where they have pinched bits from pagan religions or incorporated aspects they could not stamp out. The thing is of course we can spend hours debating exactly what Christianity is and is not and I suspect we would broadly agree with each other. But then Christianity and religion don't always go hand in hand do they? If only Christianity could start and stop with the new testament and Christians could live in peace with each other.
What's your take on transubstantiation as against Consubstantiation then? There's a pagan notion of ever there was one, right op there with eating the hearts of your enemies to take their strength.
Every single word in the English word (and in many other languages as well) that relates to individual freedom and rights and valuing human life per se pre-dates Christianity or come from pagan cultures - in the case of english that is angle, saxon, viking etc etc.
With Christianity you stand before god and are judged, your rulers are anointed by god and rule by divine right. regicide is a sin against god. Once we got rid of that notion we were on our way to the freedoms we now take for granted. All men are equal but not if god is deciding who rules and the priests are the ones doing the deciding on his behalf. With Christianity we got hereditary kings prior to that kings were, in a surprising number of cultures, chosen by those around them.
I have no problems with the message of JC, the religions spawned in his name are another matter but as you have probably gathered I am not religious so please don't take it that I am out to have a go at your particular set of beliefs.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
xyz;1350634 wrote: Not that such beings would have been anything other than imaginary, as the OT elsewhere points out; though again this is not an idea that might be admitted by some. I'll read it if you'll point to it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350655 wrote:
Fair comment up to a point. I haven't read her books because I don't think very much of her approach...
That's about as much of an opinion as you can have of her unless you read her books.
Leave god out of it for the moment. That point when the Israelites became monotheistic was imo when Moses came back from the mountain with the ten commandments
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
If the Israelites were monotheistic when Moses came back with the commandments then all the judges wouldn't have much of a story to tell. As you said, you've read the bible... so you must realise that the Israelites most certainly did not become monotheistic. Moses might have kept telling them to, along with all the other folk who took up the cause, but it was a rather unsuccessful endeavour for some time.
I may not have read Karen Armstrong but for your own sake don't stop at her or the old testament.
I have no idea why, every time I mention a book, you imply it's the only thing I've read. It's quite derogatory.
Oh dear, you need to do some more reading yourself
see above.
No offence intended but I can't think how else to phrase the question without sounding rude. What did you think the trinity was?
I think the trinity is a highly controversial doctrine outlined by the Council of Nicaea. I think there are quite a few people who criticise the doctrine as being polytheistic.
Fast Facts on the Trinity
The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Fair comment up to a point. I haven't read her books because I don't think very much of her approach...
That's about as much of an opinion as you can have of her unless you read her books.
Leave god out of it for the moment. That point when the Israelites became monotheistic was imo when Moses came back from the mountain with the ten commandments
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
If the Israelites were monotheistic when Moses came back with the commandments then all the judges wouldn't have much of a story to tell. As you said, you've read the bible... so you must realise that the Israelites most certainly did not become monotheistic. Moses might have kept telling them to, along with all the other folk who took up the cause, but it was a rather unsuccessful endeavour for some time.
I may not have read Karen Armstrong but for your own sake don't stop at her or the old testament.
I have no idea why, every time I mention a book, you imply it's the only thing I've read. It's quite derogatory.
Oh dear, you need to do some more reading yourself
see above.
No offence intended but I can't think how else to phrase the question without sounding rude. What did you think the trinity was?
I think the trinity is a highly controversial doctrine outlined by the Council of Nicaea. I think there are quite a few people who criticise the doctrine as being polytheistic.
Fast Facts on the Trinity
The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
- Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
- It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
- It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative
Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts
- It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
- It is not mentioned in the Bible
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350655 wrote: It's a bit pointless arguing about the semantics of english words used to translate a bible written in hebrew, translated in to greek and latin and then in to english
Where do these zany ideas come from? The word 'before' has been translated directly from Hebrew, and quite legitimately, too- except that it's ambiguous, because the English word is ok, but has at least three senses, two of them being confused here. The Hebrew word is clear and unambiguous, and it does not mean what the plainly unqualified and/or mendacious say it means. That's a very simple fact- and it's a very common problem, people with no knowledge whatever logging onto the 'net, reading the lies of people who quote the KJV because of its errors- people who might be of very doubtful character, for all they know- then repeating their lies, without bothering to check whether these 'facts' bear any relation to the truth. In truth, the level of knowledge at which these people operate is contemptible, not worth the attention of serious people; but it's also true that innocent, unsuspecting people may read their words and suppose them to be the truth.
No reader should go away imagining that this 'before' issue is merely a semantic problem, anyway. That idea is a plain falsehood.
No it's not, just read the history of the catholic church and the steps it took to keep control. You might argue that has nothing to do with Christianity but that would once upon a time have got you killed had you dared to say it out loud.
People find it difficult to become Christians because they know that they cannot even get annoyed with someone without being thought to be in need of saving grace. Yet, real Christians can apparently commit murder! Whatever has a history of violence cannot be Christianity; but Romanism is quintessentially hierarchical, as anyone exposed to the recent media must realise. It has already been made clear that whatever has a hierarchy is not Christianity, so the idea that RCism can be Christian is as much farcical nonsense as the notion that polytheism is some part of Christianity. That a religion can inspire such loyalty to a campaign to represent it incorrectly only seems to show that it is the one and only truth. Apparently, Jesus cannot lose.
It does have polytheistic roots, you can see where they have pinched bits from pagan religions or incorporated aspects they could not stamp out.
Many people say this- but they never show how it's true. It's another of those gormless internet fables that get passed around, without anyone bothering to check them out. Romanism, i.e. Roman Catholicism, yes, that's polytheistic with it's 'Trinity' invention, because Romanism is merely continuation of the old pagan religions of Rome, used by the patricians to keep the plebeians dumbed down and obedient. But the OT deity contrasts starkly with every other contemporary ancient religion because he is the sole deity in the pantheon, and there is no other even to be contemplated. Indeed, there's no pantheon in Christianity, and that was unique until fake copycat religions came along, just as prophesied.
Where do these zany ideas come from? The word 'before' has been translated directly from Hebrew, and quite legitimately, too- except that it's ambiguous, because the English word is ok, but has at least three senses, two of them being confused here. The Hebrew word is clear and unambiguous, and it does not mean what the plainly unqualified and/or mendacious say it means. That's a very simple fact- and it's a very common problem, people with no knowledge whatever logging onto the 'net, reading the lies of people who quote the KJV because of its errors- people who might be of very doubtful character, for all they know- then repeating their lies, without bothering to check whether these 'facts' bear any relation to the truth. In truth, the level of knowledge at which these people operate is contemptible, not worth the attention of serious people; but it's also true that innocent, unsuspecting people may read their words and suppose them to be the truth.
No reader should go away imagining that this 'before' issue is merely a semantic problem, anyway. That idea is a plain falsehood.
No it's not, just read the history of the catholic church and the steps it took to keep control. You might argue that has nothing to do with Christianity but that would once upon a time have got you killed had you dared to say it out loud.
People find it difficult to become Christians because they know that they cannot even get annoyed with someone without being thought to be in need of saving grace. Yet, real Christians can apparently commit murder! Whatever has a history of violence cannot be Christianity; but Romanism is quintessentially hierarchical, as anyone exposed to the recent media must realise. It has already been made clear that whatever has a hierarchy is not Christianity, so the idea that RCism can be Christian is as much farcical nonsense as the notion that polytheism is some part of Christianity. That a religion can inspire such loyalty to a campaign to represent it incorrectly only seems to show that it is the one and only truth. Apparently, Jesus cannot lose.
It does have polytheistic roots, you can see where they have pinched bits from pagan religions or incorporated aspects they could not stamp out.
Many people say this- but they never show how it's true. It's another of those gormless internet fables that get passed around, without anyone bothering to check them out. Romanism, i.e. Roman Catholicism, yes, that's polytheistic with it's 'Trinity' invention, because Romanism is merely continuation of the old pagan religions of Rome, used by the patricians to keep the plebeians dumbed down and obedient. But the OT deity contrasts starkly with every other contemporary ancient religion because he is the sole deity in the pantheon, and there is no other even to be contemplated. Indeed, there's no pantheon in Christianity, and that was unique until fake copycat religions came along, just as prophesied.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
koan;1350421 wrote: It seems highly likely.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too.
Interesting conversation, academically. Since Islam stems from Judaism (same as Christianity), I wonder if the Qu'ran hints at multiple deities.
God insists they worship Him above all other gods. God tells them to go ask their pagan god for help when they cry to him at one point... so even God acknowledges other gods... unless He is being sarcastic... in which case we need to reassess everything God says to be sure He wasn't being sarcastic. Tricky bit of humour that is.
eta: And I'm not just saying the "bad" Israelites were polytheist... the good ones who wrote it were too.
Interesting conversation, academically. Since Islam stems from Judaism (same as Christianity), I wonder if the Qu'ran hints at multiple deities.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
posted by Koan
That's about as much of an opinion as you can have of her unless you read her books.
I have looked at her books but couldn't be bothered reading them because I considered the research to be flawed and carried out only to confirm what she already believed. I usually got fed up after the first chapter or so, quite simply she is not a very good historian and ignores unpalatable facts as if they are not there when it suits her, and I am knowledgeable enough myself that I can spot when she is doing it.
posted by Koan
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
On it's own the bible is a fascinating historical document. The other peoples mentioned in it were real and you can look at the archaeological evidence and the histories of other cultures and cross reference. You can read what other nations thought of the philistines for instance rather than just the version in the bible. Many of the once thought mystical events logical explanations, some of the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions seen as manifestations of god in the bible are also mentioned in other histories. The belief that is actually god guiding the Israelites, manifesting his presence and guiding those who wrote it is just that - a belief. The bible is not pretty much about what god told the people and it's pretty silly to believe that it is. If you take god out of the picture it is easier to make sense of what is happening.
I have no idea why, every time I mention a book, you imply it's the only thing I've read. It's quite derogatory.
Because you keep holding it up as some tome of great worth. There are many articles criticising Armstrong and her approach to history if you want to look them up.
posted by Koan
I think the trinity is a highly controversial doctrine outlined by the Council of Nicaea. I think there are quite a few people who criticise the doctrine as being polytheistic.
Sadly it is not just an academic discussion though is it, people were slaughtered as heretics for not believing in it and wars were fought to settle the argument. Even now there are those who believe there is only one true christian church and we should all go back to the fold. The dude who said yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" didn't get fired. Nor did the one that said that's a great notion let's put it in. I was surprised you didn't know the part played by the nicene creed and belief in the trinity in the history of the christian church. The trinity was not up for discussion, to be christian that is what you had to believe The more I found out about the church and the history of the bible the less of a believer I became. Luckily being brought up a protestant I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. It's a stupid thing to kill people over as is the debate about Transubstantiation as against Consubstantiation but mention you think it silly to the wrong people and both sides will get upset. rational it is not. It's a subject that can raise deep passions in people.
posted by koan
If the Israelites were monotheistic when Moses came back with the commandments then all the judges wouldn't have much of a story to tell. As you said, you've read the bible... so you must realise that the Israelites most certainly did not become monotheistic. Moses might have kept telling them to, along with all the other folk who took up the cause, but it was a rather unsuccessful endeavour for some time.
True, but I think it reasonable to take that as the point when the process began.
posted by xyz
Where do these zany ideas come from? The word 'before' has been translated directly from Hebrew, and quite legitimately, too- except that it's ambiguous, because the English word is ok, but has at least three senses, two of them being confused here. The Hebrew word is clear and unambiguous, and it does not mean what the plainly unqualified and/or mendacious say it means. That's a very simple fact- and it's a very common problem, people with no knowledge whatever logging onto the 'net, reading the lies of people who quote the KJV because of its errors- people who might be of very doubtful character, for all they know- then repeating their lies, without bothering to check whether these 'facts' bear any relation to the truth. In truth, the level of knowledge at which these people operate is contemptible, not worth the attention of serious people; but it's also true that innocent, unsuspecting people may read their words and suppose them to be the truth.
It is nevertheless an english word whose meaning is derived from the context in which it is used. If it makes you happy I've always taken the meaning to be there is only one god and it's me.
Posted by xyz
Many people say this- but they never show how it's true. It's another of those gormless internet fables that get passed around, without anyone bothering to check them out. Romanism, i.e. Roman Catholicism, yes, that's polytheistic with it's 'Trinity' invention, because Romanism is merely continuation of the old pagan religions of Rome, used by the patricians to keep the plebeians dumbed down and obedient. But the OT deity contrasts starkly with every other contemporary ancient religion because he is the sole deity in the pantheon, and there is no other even to be contemplated. Indeed, there's no pantheon in Christianity, and that was unique until fake copycat religions came along, just as prophesied.
Do your own research on the subject - go to original sources and draw your own conclusions. I'm an atheist so it is not likely we will agree on the matter. Quite simply I do not belief the god of the old testament exists. You do so it doesn't really matter what evidence anyone presents you won't be swayed unless you look at it yourself, weigh it up and change your mind. You cannot prove the god of the old testament is real any more than I can prove he doesn't, believe or don't believe. I do agree with you on Roman Catholicism however. As it happen I knew a few orangemen who would as well but there are other issues we fall out over .
That's about as much of an opinion as you can have of her unless you read her books.
I have looked at her books but couldn't be bothered reading them because I considered the research to be flawed and carried out only to confirm what she already believed. I usually got fed up after the first chapter or so, quite simply she is not a very good historian and ignores unpalatable facts as if they are not there when it suits her, and I am knowledgeable enough myself that I can spot when she is doing it.
posted by Koan
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
On it's own the bible is a fascinating historical document. The other peoples mentioned in it were real and you can look at the archaeological evidence and the histories of other cultures and cross reference. You can read what other nations thought of the philistines for instance rather than just the version in the bible. Many of the once thought mystical events logical explanations, some of the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions seen as manifestations of god in the bible are also mentioned in other histories. The belief that is actually god guiding the Israelites, manifesting his presence and guiding those who wrote it is just that - a belief. The bible is not pretty much about what god told the people and it's pretty silly to believe that it is. If you take god out of the picture it is easier to make sense of what is happening.
I have no idea why, every time I mention a book, you imply it's the only thing I've read. It's quite derogatory.
Because you keep holding it up as some tome of great worth. There are many articles criticising Armstrong and her approach to history if you want to look them up.
posted by Koan
I think the trinity is a highly controversial doctrine outlined by the Council of Nicaea. I think there are quite a few people who criticise the doctrine as being polytheistic.
Sadly it is not just an academic discussion though is it, people were slaughtered as heretics for not believing in it and wars were fought to settle the argument. Even now there are those who believe there is only one true christian church and we should all go back to the fold. The dude who said yeah, leave in that part about the Trinity" didn't get fired. Nor did the one that said that's a great notion let's put it in. I was surprised you didn't know the part played by the nicene creed and belief in the trinity in the history of the christian church. The trinity was not up for discussion, to be christian that is what you had to believe The more I found out about the church and the history of the bible the less of a believer I became. Luckily being brought up a protestant I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. It's a stupid thing to kill people over as is the debate about Transubstantiation as against Consubstantiation but mention you think it silly to the wrong people and both sides will get upset. rational it is not. It's a subject that can raise deep passions in people.
posted by koan
If the Israelites were monotheistic when Moses came back with the commandments then all the judges wouldn't have much of a story to tell. As you said, you've read the bible... so you must realise that the Israelites most certainly did not become monotheistic. Moses might have kept telling them to, along with all the other folk who took up the cause, but it was a rather unsuccessful endeavour for some time.
True, but I think it reasonable to take that as the point when the process began.
posted by xyz
Where do these zany ideas come from? The word 'before' has been translated directly from Hebrew, and quite legitimately, too- except that it's ambiguous, because the English word is ok, but has at least three senses, two of them being confused here. The Hebrew word is clear and unambiguous, and it does not mean what the plainly unqualified and/or mendacious say it means. That's a very simple fact- and it's a very common problem, people with no knowledge whatever logging onto the 'net, reading the lies of people who quote the KJV because of its errors- people who might be of very doubtful character, for all they know- then repeating their lies, without bothering to check whether these 'facts' bear any relation to the truth. In truth, the level of knowledge at which these people operate is contemptible, not worth the attention of serious people; but it's also true that innocent, unsuspecting people may read their words and suppose them to be the truth.
It is nevertheless an english word whose meaning is derived from the context in which it is used. If it makes you happy I've always taken the meaning to be there is only one god and it's me.
Posted by xyz
Many people say this- but they never show how it's true. It's another of those gormless internet fables that get passed around, without anyone bothering to check them out. Romanism, i.e. Roman Catholicism, yes, that's polytheistic with it's 'Trinity' invention, because Romanism is merely continuation of the old pagan religions of Rome, used by the patricians to keep the plebeians dumbed down and obedient. But the OT deity contrasts starkly with every other contemporary ancient religion because he is the sole deity in the pantheon, and there is no other even to be contemplated. Indeed, there's no pantheon in Christianity, and that was unique until fake copycat religions came along, just as prophesied.
Do your own research on the subject - go to original sources and draw your own conclusions. I'm an atheist so it is not likely we will agree on the matter. Quite simply I do not belief the god of the old testament exists. You do so it doesn't really matter what evidence anyone presents you won't be swayed unless you look at it yourself, weigh it up and change your mind. You cannot prove the god of the old testament is real any more than I can prove he doesn't, believe or don't believe. I do agree with you on Roman Catholicism however. As it happen I knew a few orangemen who would as well but there are other issues we fall out over .
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350720 wrote: It is nevertheless an english word whose meaning is derived from the context in which it is used.
Ja. Say hello to the Panzers, people. You vill agree with Herr Obermeister Führer, who orders that you believe his interpretation of the Bible, and ignore vat those decadent scholars say.
If it makes you happy I've always taken the meaning to be there is only one god and it's me.
Of course, mein Kapitan. Your word is law. We all know that. We are all very happy to know that, mein Führer.
I do not belief the god of the old testament exists.
Who actually gives a monkey's cuss what you believe? (Not that you can prove that you don't believe that. There is extremely strong evidence that you do believe, right here in this thread.) What matters is what the Israelites believed, and on the evidence, they believed in just one deity, or were intended to believe in just one deity. And not even Herr Obermeister Führer can do a thing about it.
Ja. Say hello to the Panzers, people. You vill agree with Herr Obermeister Führer, who orders that you believe his interpretation of the Bible, and ignore vat those decadent scholars say.
If it makes you happy I've always taken the meaning to be there is only one god and it's me.
Of course, mein Kapitan. Your word is law. We all know that. We are all very happy to know that, mein Führer.
I do not belief the god of the old testament exists.
Who actually gives a monkey's cuss what you believe? (Not that you can prove that you don't believe that. There is extremely strong evidence that you do believe, right here in this thread.) What matters is what the Israelites believed, and on the evidence, they believed in just one deity, or were intended to believe in just one deity. And not even Herr Obermeister Führer can do a thing about it.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc, if you wish to discuss the godless version of the bible, please start your own thread. This one is about the religious beliefs of the Israelites about god(s) and whether or not the writers of the OT were polytheists. Removing the bits about god from the bible has no possibility of lending to the discussion.
As far as whether or not you like the books I read, it's really your personal opinion. There are a lot of people who like Armstrong's work and a lot that don't. I like her for the same reasons I like Joseph Cambell's work. They both seek to highlight the similarities instead of the differences in an attempt to bring world religions closer together.
I don't particularly care what you think about her because you've looked at the book with different goals and preconceptions than I have.
This thread isn't about Karen Armstrong. This thread isn't about an imaginary version of the bible in which God doesn't have a role. Removing God from the bible and looking at it as an historical text seems to me outrageously funny. I look forward to your thread on the subject.
As far as whether or not you like the books I read, it's really your personal opinion. There are a lot of people who like Armstrong's work and a lot that don't. I like her for the same reasons I like Joseph Cambell's work. They both seek to highlight the similarities instead of the differences in an attempt to bring world religions closer together.
I don't particularly care what you think about her because you've looked at the book with different goals and preconceptions than I have.
This thread isn't about Karen Armstrong. This thread isn't about an imaginary version of the bible in which God doesn't have a role. Removing God from the bible and looking at it as an historical text seems to me outrageously funny. I look forward to your thread on the subject.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
koan;1350727 wrote: gmc, if you wish to discuss the godless version of the bible, please start your own thread. This one is about the religious beliefs of the Israelites about god(s) and whether or not the writers of the OT were polytheists. Removing the bits about god from the bible has no possibility of lending to the discussion.
As far as whether or not you like the books I read, it's really your personal opinion. There are a lot of people who like Armstrong's work and a lot that don't. I like her for the same reasons I like Joseph Cambell's work. They both seek to highlight the similarities instead of the differences in an attempt to bring world religions closer together.
I don't particularly care what you think about her because you've looked at the book with different goals and preconceptions than I have.
This thread isn't about Karen Armstrong. This thread isn't about an imaginary version of the bible in which God doesn't have a role. Removing God from the bible and looking at it as an historical text seems to me outrageously funny. I look forward to your thread on the subject.
Silly me, there's me thinking we were having an amicable discussion about religion and the old testament. There is no godless version of the bible there is just the bible in all it's carefully edited glory. It is a historical text that stands up to examination as to it's veracity, as proof of god it is rather moot. That is what I was trying to put across. The introduction of monotheism is not necessarily the work of god but could equally be the work of religious cult seeking control and succeeding. It is a viewpoint religious people don't like but there is a good case for it. Since you have evidently decided the bible is proof of god there does seem little point discussing it with you since you are not interested in alternative perspectives. I'm not going to start a thread on the subject since you can only discuss with people who have different viewpoints. If you discuss the bible with someone that agrees it is not the word of god it tends to be a very short discussion. Believers that it is the word of god discussing it with each other can have endless fun arguing about what was actually meant word by word and even start wars over who is right. Karen Armstrong makes her case backed up with historical research. I read her words with enough knowledge to be able to decide whether her research is adequate. It's interesting in some areas sadly lacking in others. Those areas where she holds an interpretation that conflicts with actual history are enough to put me off.
posted by xyz
Who actually gives a monkey's cuss what you believe? (Not that you can prove that you don't believe that. There is extremely strong evidence that you do believe, right here in this thread.) What matters is what the Israelites believed, and on the evidence, they believed in just one deity, or were intended to believe in just one deity. And not even Herr Obermeister Führer can do a thing about it.
Silly me there's me thinking on a discussion forum like this we were having a discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You seem incapable of doing that without resorting to childish insults but happily I don't have to put up with pillocks like you. Go forth and multiply and may your god be with you.
As far as whether or not you like the books I read, it's really your personal opinion. There are a lot of people who like Armstrong's work and a lot that don't. I like her for the same reasons I like Joseph Cambell's work. They both seek to highlight the similarities instead of the differences in an attempt to bring world religions closer together.
I don't particularly care what you think about her because you've looked at the book with different goals and preconceptions than I have.
This thread isn't about Karen Armstrong. This thread isn't about an imaginary version of the bible in which God doesn't have a role. Removing God from the bible and looking at it as an historical text seems to me outrageously funny. I look forward to your thread on the subject.
Silly me, there's me thinking we were having an amicable discussion about religion and the old testament. There is no godless version of the bible there is just the bible in all it's carefully edited glory. It is a historical text that stands up to examination as to it's veracity, as proof of god it is rather moot. That is what I was trying to put across. The introduction of monotheism is not necessarily the work of god but could equally be the work of religious cult seeking control and succeeding. It is a viewpoint religious people don't like but there is a good case for it. Since you have evidently decided the bible is proof of god there does seem little point discussing it with you since you are not interested in alternative perspectives. I'm not going to start a thread on the subject since you can only discuss with people who have different viewpoints. If you discuss the bible with someone that agrees it is not the word of god it tends to be a very short discussion. Believers that it is the word of god discussing it with each other can have endless fun arguing about what was actually meant word by word and even start wars over who is right. Karen Armstrong makes her case backed up with historical research. I read her words with enough knowledge to be able to decide whether her research is adequate. It's interesting in some areas sadly lacking in others. Those areas where she holds an interpretation that conflicts with actual history are enough to put me off.
posted by xyz
Who actually gives a monkey's cuss what you believe? (Not that you can prove that you don't believe that. There is extremely strong evidence that you do believe, right here in this thread.) What matters is what the Israelites believed, and on the evidence, they believed in just one deity, or were intended to believe in just one deity. And not even Herr Obermeister Führer can do a thing about it.
Silly me there's me thinking on a discussion forum like this we were having a discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You seem incapable of doing that without resorting to childish insults but happily I don't have to put up with pillocks like you. Go forth and multiply and may your god be with you.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350736 wrote: Since you have evidently decided the bible is proof of god there does seem little point discussing it with you since you are not interested in alternative perspectives.
?
I'm interested in having a discussion with people who read my words instead of project an odd meaning onto them that suits their purpose. No where have I said the bible is proof of god. I know I haven't because that's not what I believe.
?
I'm interested in having a discussion with people who read my words instead of project an odd meaning onto them that suits their purpose. No where have I said the bible is proof of god. I know I haven't because that's not what I believe.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
gmc;1350736 wrote: Silly me there's me thinking on a discussion forum like this we were having a discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
That was brought very firmly to an end by your previous post.
That was brought very firmly to an end by your previous post.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Perhaps some clarification here. I believe that a story says as much, if not more, about an author than about the subject of the story. From the wording of the bible, complicated by it having numerous translations and editors, I'm trying to assess the world view of the authors of the OT.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Aha!!
Monolatrism. I'd never heard that word before. The Israelites are considered by some scholars to have practiced monolatry:
"The recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity"
Monolatrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monolatrism. I'd never heard that word before. The Israelites are considered by some scholars to have practiced monolatry:
"The recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity"
Monolatrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
We must have been reading much the same ground yesterday - I saw monolatrous for the first time then too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
It seems to have been coined by Julius Wellhausen, who lived from 1844-1918... so it's kind of exciting but perhaps just an example of how we keep making up words to explain things that don't fit neatly into categories.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Henotheism is another option. Either way. I think it's reasonable to say that the Israelites who wrote the OT were not Monotheistic.
And the Israelites at the time of Moses were definitely not monotheistic. He'd have had a much easier life if they had been.
And the Israelites at the time of Moses were definitely not monotheistic. He'd have had a much easier life if they had been.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
Some Israelites practiced Baalism, which they learnt from the Cannaanites. It included child sacrifice, orgies, bestiality etc. Each Cannaanite town had it's own patron Baal. It's second Samuel that you see the turn around. Where it uses the words Ishbo-seth and Mephibo-seth , instead of ishbaal and mephibaal. (bo-seth meaning shame.) Even Jehovah was called Baal at one stage. It's not until the 2nd testement that it is referred to again.
Baal means owner or master and jehovah/yaweh was considered the owner of the Israelites. It's similar to these days how everyone see God as god but has many different ways of worshipping him . In the Iraelites apostacy it was confused.
Baal means owner or master and jehovah/yaweh was considered the owner of the Israelites. It's similar to these days how everyone see God as god but has many different ways of worshipping him . In the Iraelites apostacy it was confused.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
I thought Moloch was the god connected most to child sacrifice from those parts.
Of course Jephthah burnt his daughter to crispiness for the Israelite God too, but that was just a matter of bad wording when he made his promise.
Of course Jephthah burnt his daughter to crispiness for the Israelite God too, but that was just a matter of bad wording when he made his promise.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
He was but not so much by the Israelites. But moloch and ashtereth were associated with Baal worship. Jezebel, introduced a more virile form of baal worship called Melkart the god of Tyre. Calf worship was also high on the list ........Blame Solomon and all his wives of 'the nations' for the widespread practice.
It actually depended on which area of Israel/palistine as to what and who practiced which form of Baalism. I'ts equivalent to Catholisism where they have many saints etc and you'll find different churches dedicated to different saints/gods . Like in every catholic altar is a remnant of a saint and the saint is supposed to over see that particular congregation.
It actually depended on which area of Israel/palistine as to what and who practiced which form of Baalism. I'ts equivalent to Catholisism where they have many saints etc and you'll find different churches dedicated to different saints/gods . Like in every catholic altar is a remnant of a saint and the saint is supposed to over see that particular congregation.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
fuzzywuzzy;1350905 wrote: He was but not so much by the Israelites. But moloch and ashtereth were associated with Baal worship. Jezebel, introduced a more virile form of baal worship called Melkart the god of Tyre. Calf worship was also high on the list ........Blame Solomon and all his wives of 'the nations' for the widespread practice.
I preferred to blame God for sending Joseph to Egypt to become the pagan Pharaoh's right hand man.
I preferred to blame God for sending Joseph to Egypt to become the pagan Pharaoh's right hand man.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
method behind the madness though.
But getting back the polytheist thing . It seems that there was a struggle between two groups as to what the (for lack of another term) "state religion" would be. And there was a distinct but very fine line or divide that seperated the two. One, Baal (meaning owner or master) and the other yaweh meaning "husbandly master" . "Husbandly" was the key, God was married to the Israelites but Baal was master of them like they were owned like slaves , so to speak. Being a husband of the the Israelites meant you couldn't adulterate yourself against him . Where as Baal owned you , you had no choice between April through to September.
But getting back the polytheist thing . It seems that there was a struggle between two groups as to what the (for lack of another term) "state religion" would be. And there was a distinct but very fine line or divide that seperated the two. One, Baal (meaning owner or master) and the other yaweh meaning "husbandly master" . "Husbandly" was the key, God was married to the Israelites but Baal was master of them like they were owned like slaves , so to speak. Being a husband of the the Israelites meant you couldn't adulterate yourself against him . Where as Baal owned you , you had no choice between April through to September.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
It kind of reads like Yahweh was the go to god when you needed to win a war. They forgot about Him after they won then remembered Him when they fell under oppression again.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
sort of ...The israelites still worshipped Yahweh (or gave lip service) but when it came to crops and fertility rights etc they panicked and worshipped Baal dieties
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
fuzzywuzzy;1350905 wrote: He was but not so much by the Israelites. But moloch and ashtereth were associated with Baal worship. Jezebel, introduced a more virile form of baal worship called Melkart the god of Tyre. Calf worship was also high on the list ........Blame Solomon and all his wives of 'the nations' for the widespread practice.
It actually depended on which area of Israel/palistine as to what and who practiced which form of Baalism. I'ts equivalent to Catholisism where they have many saints etc and you'll find different churches dedicated to different saints/gods . Like in every catholic altar is a remnant of a saint and the saint is supposed to over see that particular congregation.
The purpose of these 'saints' is to provide an easy route to 'heaven', to provide religion which will not motivate people to be honest citizens who will cause problems for the corrupt. It may well be that ignorant people in Third World countries actually believe in these characters, but we don't, and we can be perfectly sure that the people in the Vatican don't, either. All they want is large, stupid populations that will do as they are told, pleading interminably to the non-existent, for non-existent benefits. Now whether that applied to ancient Israel, with crooked monarchs setting up their Ashtoreth poles etc. to dull the minds of Israelites, or whether the Israelites colluded in the pretence that these other deities existed, we don't know. But we can likewise be very sure that at least some of the Israelites knew very well that there was just one God, the God who had brought them out of Egypt and given them commandments; and they really didn't like either him, or them.
And it's just the same today, in the affluent West, as well as the poverty-ridden Third World. There are people claiming to be atheist, but they are actually very sure that the Bible deity exists- the wretchedly and farcically dishonest way they debate trumpets that belief. What they don't like is those commandments, particularly the one about homosexuality, when one gets to the bottom of it. Which is fair enough, and only to be expected of them. But what should not be ignored is the political aspect, and the aforementioned corruption, so maybe homosexuals should ask themselves whether they would prefer to live in the dreadful conditions that prevail in much of the Third World, and be homosexual, or live in decent conditions and forgo their sexual preference.
It actually depended on which area of Israel/palistine as to what and who practiced which form of Baalism. I'ts equivalent to Catholisism where they have many saints etc and you'll find different churches dedicated to different saints/gods . Like in every catholic altar is a remnant of a saint and the saint is supposed to over see that particular congregation.
The purpose of these 'saints' is to provide an easy route to 'heaven', to provide religion which will not motivate people to be honest citizens who will cause problems for the corrupt. It may well be that ignorant people in Third World countries actually believe in these characters, but we don't, and we can be perfectly sure that the people in the Vatican don't, either. All they want is large, stupid populations that will do as they are told, pleading interminably to the non-existent, for non-existent benefits. Now whether that applied to ancient Israel, with crooked monarchs setting up their Ashtoreth poles etc. to dull the minds of Israelites, or whether the Israelites colluded in the pretence that these other deities existed, we don't know. But we can likewise be very sure that at least some of the Israelites knew very well that there was just one God, the God who had brought them out of Egypt and given them commandments; and they really didn't like either him, or them.
And it's just the same today, in the affluent West, as well as the poverty-ridden Third World. There are people claiming to be atheist, but they are actually very sure that the Bible deity exists- the wretchedly and farcically dishonest way they debate trumpets that belief. What they don't like is those commandments, particularly the one about homosexuality, when one gets to the bottom of it. Which is fair enough, and only to be expected of them. But what should not be ignored is the political aspect, and the aforementioned corruption, so maybe homosexuals should ask themselves whether they would prefer to live in the dreadful conditions that prevail in much of the Third World, and be homosexual, or live in decent conditions and forgo their sexual preference.
Were The Israelites Of The OT Polytheist?
koan;1350662 wrote:
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
I apparently need to explain that my thinking God's character is too important to the story to remove does not mean I think God wrote the book in which He is a character. Much as I don't think A Christmas Carol would work without the ghosts.
In other news: I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's The Bible and it's got lots of relevant stuff right off the start. I'm only six pages in so I'll save the quotes for when I've got more context.
That's just silly. How can you leave god out of the bible? It's not much of a story without god. The bible is pretty much about what God told the people so we kind of have to look at what He said.
I apparently need to explain that my thinking God's character is too important to the story to remove does not mean I think God wrote the book in which He is a character. Much as I don't think A Christmas Carol would work without the ghosts.
In other news: I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's The Bible and it's got lots of relevant stuff right off the start. I'm only six pages in so I'll save the quotes for when I've got more context.