Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jonathan Drake

  A second point I will make as well, because I went on to read your other post, is that the many gods came after the one not before it. 

  The many gods worshipped in the pagan customs find their originality in the region where babel was founded (which I can't remember what the whole region is called off the top of my head). The one God, was worshipped in Salem by Melchizadek long before these other gods popped up created by the people living in the babel region. There are many historical references that I can bring into this that provide their reasons for making this assertion if you like. The conclusion is drawn by tracing the cultural customs back, and it ends up being that these people didn't want to live by the rules melchizadeks God enforced and went off to make their own gods, and their own way of living, free of those requirements. 
• 

  Viviane

  A second point I will make as well, because I went on to read your other post, is that the many gods came after the one not before it.

  There is ample evidence demonstrating many Semitic gods before Yahweh.

  The many gods worshipped in the pagan customs find their originality in the region where babel was founded (which I can't remember what the whole region is called off the top of my head).

  Back up. Pagan, at the time, had no meaning for that region. You are pushing back a modern world view into a vastly different culture. You're speaking of the Levant area of West Asia and parts of North Africa. It was populated with Semitic peoples who had common language and religious root. They were the proto-Hebrews, Cannanites, Phonecians, Assyrian, Akkadian, etc.. They shared the same background for language, writing and religion. The Israelite/Hebrew religion was born in this melting pots of gods, goddesses, angels, demons and a continuum of the divine.

  You're attempting to separate out the Hebrew/Israelite religion as unique to all the others when, in reality, it sprang from the same source and shares many of the same features. Over time it evolved into something different, as did all the others, but in no way was it's origin unique.

  The one God, was worshipped in Salem by Melchizadek long before these other gods popped up created by the people living in the babel region. There are many historical references that I can bring into this that provide their reasons for making this assertion if you like.

  I would love to see actual historical evidence that Yahweh pre-dates the Semitic religion from which he came.
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Ok. 

  well as of your last post I'm not going to continue responding. You've demonstrsted your ignorance with astounding loyalty to it, and I think you're really only interested in arguing, which I am not. Unlike you, I have read the bible many times, which is why I was able to show you where you are incorrect and reference scriotures that are showing a far earlier monotheistic stance. I also know, for sure, that the Greek phrase, "ho huios tou anthropou" is only found in the gospels. Okay? The bible wasn't written in English and your insistence otherwise is showing your ignorance. That Greek phrase, and it's expressed meaning in Greek, IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPELS.

  now I'm done posting on the topic. If you still ensist otherwise please feel free to contact any New Testament scholar of your choosing to inform them they are wrong and you are right. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  My argument was not that yahweh predates the semetical region. 

  
  

  You re like an expert on the "straw man", you've done it fantastically. Were you in a pioneer school at some point? Because that would explain it.

  
  
• 

  Viviane

  well as of your last post I'm not going to continue responding. You've demonstrsted your ignorance with astounding loyalty to it, and I think you're really only interested in arguing, which I am not

  Well, bye. I find it interesting that, right after you claim to have evidence of your position, you run away when asked for it.

  Unlike you, I have read the bible many times, which is why I was able to show you where you are incorrect and reference scriotures that are showing a far earlier monotheistic stance.

  Except that you've not done that even once. Also, you've no idea how many times I've read the Bible. Don't make ignorant claims.

  I also know, for sure, that the Greek phrase, "ho huios tou anthropou" is only found in the gospels. Okay?

  Yes, it would be truly amazing if a Greek phrase were found in something written in not-Greek. That was never the point. You claimed the phrase "son of man" was unique to Jesus and only appeared in the NT. That is demonstrably untrue. Changing your argument after the fact is a weasel move.

  The bible wasn't written in English and your insistence otherwise is showing your ignorance

  I never said it was. Only an idiot would claim that or attempt to claim I said it.

  That Greek phrase, and it's expressed meaning in Greek, IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPELS.

  Yes, I would expect the Greek form of a phrase to be written in Greek. In the Hebrew form, it would be written in Hebrew, exactly as it was in the OT, predating Jesus and not unique to the NT.

  now I'm done posting on the topic. If you still ensist otherwise please feel free to contact any New Testament scholar of your choosing to inform them they are wrong and you are right.

  Why would I contact a New Testament scholar to "ensist" (sic) that you are not done posting on this topic and they are wrong about that? How would I even know what their opinion on you posting on this topic is?
  
• 

  Viviane

  My argument was not that yahweh predates the semetical region.

  I know. I said religion, not region. You said you have evidence. Do you?
  

  You re like an expert on the "straw man", you've done it fantastically. Were you in a pioneer school at some point? Because that would explain it.

  Ah, look at you, trying to change the subject and insult me at the same time. Dear, that's not gonna work. You can't insult me and I'll stay on topic (if you don't run away, you've already posted after you said you were done).
  

  
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Let's leave it at this, it's evident that you and I have an issue communicating. For whatever reason you can't grasp what I'm actually saying, and apparently from your expressions nor I you. 

  Therefore it is best we go our separate ways. You seem convinced you are right rather than interested in a discussion, and I'm not going to talk up to you. References won't matter really, as I would assume you have your own and believe them to be fact rather than theory since there is no way to be sure absolutely 100% what was going on that far back. But I can say I am very convinced when comparing the various cultures that the worship of the one God, which you are correct would have been called El, is much older than the gods that sprang up later. According to the bible, aside from the cultures, the God previousky known as El Shaddai was not known by name until he revealed it, giving him a distinction that didn't preciously exist because el is not a name it's a title. 

  He had no reason to provide a distinction previously, as he was the only one called God. From what I have read in two of the books I have currently, this seems most likely. 

  Having said that, I'll leave you to your own beliefs about it, and I apologize for getting somewhat heated. It is frustrating to me when I am being misunderstood and it appears that isn't going to change in this instance. I will also say I am willing to acquire any reference you think I should read from which you have built your position and read it myself. but I am now going to step away from this thread and only check it for any reference you believe I should read. 

  Pas to my own referenced I have one trustworthy and one not as much. "The first is the Oxford history of the biblical world" which I confess only being half through. The second is a copy of the two Babylons by Alexander hislop. The second isn't quit as trustworthy, and the entire book is about attacking the Catholic Church. However: in doing so he does site a lot of good points using sound historical sources such as Eusebius and many others which I took the time to verify myself - and he uses these to show the origins of the idolatrous world around Melchizadek. If you check this book however, I can't stress enough how important it is to check his sources, because over half of his book is complete garbage, but the first half is full of bery sound, referenced, observances of the ancient world. 

  The former book, which is far more reliable and much larger, includes a great deal of information about el which, whether they noticed or not, matches the book of Enochs discription of the ancient world very well. The book explains that El Shadday is better translated as the mountain one, and the el was the father of the pantheon made around him. You may not have read Enoch I'm not sure, but according to that book, Angels were sent to teach mankind early technologies and these Angels settled on a mountain from which they came to teach. It was these Angels who began to mingle with human women and teach things they weren't supposed to and ended up imprisoned for their deeds and precipitating events tat lead to the flood. 

  So from what I've read of the God El, it fits fully with the ancient manuscripts depictions of the God who was yahweh. Also, this book shows that el came first, he is called the father of the other gods in the pantheon according to the ancient texts. There were evidently some who felt this worship of the others were wrong however, and they stuck to the one God. From these who worshipped the one God you find men such as Melchizadek, who only worshipped Elshaddai (the God of the mountain) while the others around him took to worshipping the entire pantheon developed around this God. And according to Gensis, abraham claimed this god as his, and as soon as he left his idolatrous home land he sought out Melchizadek, the priest of the one God. 

  This history, and the sources referenced in the book as the ancient sources, demonstrate el was the first God to be worshipped. And only later was a pantheon created around him by the people of the ancient world.

  
  
• 

  myelaine

  dear Viviane...

  you said, "El (the supreme God) and Yahweh are distinct and different gods, along with Asherah, who was ALSO worshiped. El, in proto-Hebrew Semitic religion (from which the Hebrew religion sprang), El Elyon was dad and Yahweh and Ba'al were brothers... so, exactly what I said. Yahweh is their national God, the one they worship FIRST, but they also worship many others."...

  The religion of the hebrews sprang from encounters with God. In their efforts to conceptualize for themselves Who this God they encountered was, what He did, what He would do etc. they drew on local mythologies to express themselves. The God they encountered did exist prior to the local god Yahweh (as JD pointed out with reference to Melchizadek, Abraham and jacob). The God they encountered is creator of earth, God of the earth and He chose the hebrews. Some of these actions in time resemble actions attributed to a local god named Yahweh...that NAME and what it means is a perfect expression of who their  one God is. That's how Yahweh can pre-date the semetic religion from which he sprang.

  one reason I think that the commandment to worship no other God before Me means in my presence or in front of me (instead of your interpretation, worship Me as the highest God of many gods you can worship) is in the israelite sacrificial system itself. The sacrifices and offerings that were required throughout the year appear to be something that is required by other gods as a means of worship...a god of the harvest, a god of  livestock...a god of tribal protection/preservation etc. All those "things" that were distributed to many gods by other tribes for gain were to be given to one God.

  love michelle
• 

  Viviane

  Let's leave it at this, it's evident that you and I have an issue communicating.

  I grasp what you are saying, it's just wrong. The phrase "son of man" appeared prior to the NT and was not unique to Jesus. In the OT it was written in Hebrew because that's the language they wrote in. In the NT, Greek for the same reason. We are writing in English because, well, self evident reasons. The phrase itself, though, regardless of language, absolutely pre-dates both Jesus and the NT.

  Therefore it is best we go our separate ways. You seem convinced you are right rather than interested in a discussion, and I'm not going to talk up to you.

  Me being right isn't the issue. It's that you say something demonstrably false and later change your argument while insisting it stayed the same all along.

  References won't matter really

  Reference matter a great deal. You said you had proof and would show it and now won't.

  I would assume you have your own and believe them to be fact

  You shouldn't ignorantly assume what you can't possibly know.
  

  rather than theory since there is no way to be sure absolutely 100% what was going on that far back.

  No one ever said it was. Straw man red herring.
  

  According to the bible, aside from the cultures, the God previousky known as El Shaddai was not known by name until he revealed it, giving him a distinction that didn't preciously exist because el is not a name it's a title.

  El is both a name and a title, depending upon context (see pages 53 and 54 of the Oxford History of the Biblical World).

  So from what I've read of the God El, it fits fully with the ancient manuscripts depictions of the God who was yahweh.

  El was well known throughout the Semitic lands (with Yahweh being known but not as much.). They were distinct and separate in every other source than Hebrew writings. El was ONLY associated with Yahweh in the Hebrew outgrowth of Semitic religions. From the Oxford Companion to World Mythology: It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE.
• 

  myelaine

  In my comments I'm trying to make a distinction between the words deity (that which is worshipping) and divinity(that which merits "special" appreciation. ie: hebrews 13:17)

  "It's a false distinction. The fact that ancient Jewish writings had prohibitions against worshiping angels proves that worship of the divine (and not deity) was happening in the Jewish community. You're making a distinction without difference."...

  doesn't the fact that religious authorities made prohibitions against worshiping angels show that they saw a distinction between deity and divinity?