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

by TerryWalstrom 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Viviane

  The part that needs a citation is the assertion that the church invented it.

  That was your own reference. The one you said was reputable.

  as far as El being the Ugarit pantheon father. This was never disputed by me. Fact: this God was Abrahams God known as Elshaddai. The God was later known as yahweh

  Absolutely not true. Yahweh was around when El was, only later, when Yahweh became the primary god for the Hebrew semitic peoples was he backported to El. 

  This God had at least one prophet he spoke to who wasn't in the tribe of Israel. In numbers 22 balaam lives in Pethor. This suggests that the God had other prophets in the area who weren't Israelites. so it would seem there were others besides Israelites who accepted the God El as their God. Just because the gods worship was changed or evolved does not make it a new God. 

  Well... no. That doesn't even make sense. What IS true is that that story was written LONG after the purported events were supposed to have happened (which, by the way, most certainly did NOT happen). Yahweh have already been backported to be the supreme god by then, mixed with El. 

  It is an inescapable FACT that El and Yahweh were separated and that Yahweh eventually, in Hebrew semitic culture, was fused with El, but ONLY there. That is a well supported and demonstrable thing, your own sources agree. 

   In arguing this I would submit that the surrounding nations evolved the God into something completely different from its original preserved by Melchizadek. So that THEY took on a new God, while Israel preserved the original. 

  Except that's the opposite of every piece of evidence, including your sources that you said were reputable.

  But this is a theological argument, not a historical one.

  No, that's a historical argument. A historical argument, such as this, is how gods evolved in culture. A theological argument would be whether or not that god was real.

   From history we can assert that El was Abrahams God, that Melchizadek was this gods priest and this priest blessed Abraham. Then Abraham passed the worship of this God alone onto his descendants.

  That's fine. History also shows that the Hebrew semitic peoples also backported their God into El, making him more important and powerful than he was (and also divorcing his wife). 

  catholics worship differently. Jehovah's witnesses worship differently. Protestants worship differently. Do they worship the same God? Yes. 

  That's not a modern day example. At all. 
• 

  myelaine

  dear Viviane...

  We were commenting on the first commandment. You  said that it admits to and allows for worship of other gods. I disagreed because monotheism doesn't allow for worship of other gods. You responded:

  "The Bible shows that, at most, the Israelites and Hebrews were henotheistic. Monotheism was a much later addition. Hence why they had many gods, a continuum of divinity, men becoming god and gods becoming me."

  the text says that when moses was on the mountain with God the israelites were making gods for themselves. God told moses to get down there because they were corrupting themselves by doing contrary to what He had commanded. exodus 32:1,7-8. 

  the ten commandments that were delivered to the israelites started with exodus 34:14,28.

  I don't know what you mean when you say monotheism was a much later addition. It appears to me that israelite belief in and worship of only one God was on the agenda as far as God and moses were concerned...at the time the first of the ten commandments was written. (I'm not disputing the fact that the israelites did fall into false worship but, monotheisim had already been introduced and the first commandment didn't allow for worship of other gods as you suggest)

  
  

  
  
• 

  Viviane

   I disagreed because monotheism doesn't allow for worship of other gods.

  Ah, I see the problem, you don't do what monotheism means. Monotheism means the belief in only one god. Henotheism means worship of one or a primary god while believing others exist. The Israelites and Hebrew semitic peoples were clearly henotheistic even if they only worshiped a single god (or were supposed to, anyway).

  I don't know what you mean when you say monotheism was a much later addition. It appears to me that israelite belief in and worship of only one God was on the agenda as far as God and moses were concerned

  If they didn't believe in other gods, there would be no proclamation against worshiping them. If no one had ever stolen anything, there would be no laws against it. If no one had ever used credit, there would be no credit laws or counseling. 

  Similarly, there were prohibitions against worshiping other gods and angels precisely because the Hebrew semitic peoples and Israelites believed in them. Baal was a great example.

   (I'm not disputing the fact that the israelites did fall into false worship but, monotheisim had already been introduced and the first commandment didn't allow for worship of other gods as you suggest)

  Well, false or not is a theological argument, one we aren't having. Either way, the first commandment NEVER EVER says not to worship other gods, just worship Yahweh before all others (or no worship together, depending on your view). Never, not once says "you can't believe in other gods".
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @viv

  do you have or are you pursuing a degree in history or theology?
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @viv

  also could you list your references being used?

  i really don't want to have a circular discussion with you. You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so. You're arguing about the same God being worshipped in different ways. It's not an argument worth having. The only thing you are proving is that the God is older than the Israelites, and that only gives it more credence not less. 

  If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't. The Ugarit Tablets only show the God known by the biblical patriarchs is truly very old (dated to around 2000 B.C.E.). You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

  upon further research, I'm only seeing more biblical harmony. All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example). And it appears that in deut el Shaddai is shown to be a subordinate to El (requires more research, I literaly just read this). If this is the case, then that is only a better harmony. It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.
• 

  Viviane

  also could you list your references being used?

  I am using your sources, among others.

  You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so

  Wow. Way to twist my words. El was the supreme god in semitic cultures. Yahweh was a lessor, minor god, brother of Ba'al. Later, the Hebrew people's, the Israelites, who claimed Abraham as their founder, just as Muslims do, who worshiped Yahweh, began to give him qualities of El. El and Yahweh were not the same. Later semitic peoples merged two distinct gods into one, but ONLY for a very small subset of the semitic peoples that shared this pantheon of Gods.

  I am drawing a distinction because that is what the evidence supports.

  If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't.

  The Bible clearly shows the evolution of the merging of these two distinct gods, even your own sources.

   You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

  You seem to think the default should be "Bible until proven otherwise". It's not. BTW, God choosing anyone is a theological argument, not a historical one. It's got no place in a discussion on history.

  All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example

  That's a perfect example of people taking things written in one context and backporting the idea to mean something entirely different! Jesus, specifically, was not predicted in the OT. A similar thing happened to Yahweh.... things written about a completely different God, El, were eventually claimed to be about Yahweh and eventually their distinct identities were merged by Hebrew semitic peoples.

  It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.

  That's an incredibly tortured, pretzel logic interpretation of what you are reading. Sadly, that's what happens when you try to make the facts fit your beliefs and not the other way around.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  It wasn't a backport. You see it as such because you are looking back at it. What is being suggested is that they knew all along. 

  Let me ask you again:

  1. Do you have or are you pursuing a degree in theology or history?

  2. List your sources, as in, list the references YOU own and have read and studied. 

  My own answers to the above,

  1. I have begun pursuing education in scholarly studies, in hopes of becoming s New Testament scholar. 

  2. Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops - owned, studied.

  Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado - owned, studied

  The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan - owned, currently studied to page 265.

  The History of the Hebrews by Frank Knight Sanders - owned, studied (slightly aged)

  Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, owned

  A copy of the bible in each of the following translations: KJV, NIV, NASB, and of course NWT. Each owned and studied with notations from start to end, containing references to Strongs hebrew and Greek index. - all owned, all studied separately and completely.

  The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Owned, used as reference tool

  Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament words by W.E Vine. Owned, used as reference tool

  ----

  i have studied more books, but as pertaining to this thread, only these have been called on by memory. 

  please provide the names of the sources you actually own, and have studied yourself. 

  
  

  
  
• 

  Viviane

  It wasn't a backport. You see it as such because you are looking back at it. What is being suggested is that they knew all along. 

  Jesus was never called Emmanuel. Every man born was born of a woman. Lots of people were called King. Lots of people were beloved by little children. But, most importantly, NONE, not ONE of those scriptures says anything other than a very generic thing that never says who or what specifically it is about or when. Saying "this means Jesus" is adding on extra meaning by later readers to the text, not simply letting the text speak for itself. 

  You are using tortured, pretzel logic in an attempt to make the facts fit your predetermined beliefs rather than follow the evidence objectively and draw conclusions based on that. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I'm going to assume then that you have no such sources and have spent no time actually studying this beyond what you can find on the Internet, or your own uneducated cursory reading of scripture

  Until this is proven wrong, I will not take anything you say as a serious educated discussion. 
• 

  Viviane

  I'm going to assume then that you have no such sources and have spent no time actually studying this beyond what you can find on the Internet, or your own uneducated cursory reading of scripture

  No such sources? As I said, I am, in part, using yours, the sources you claimed were reputable. Why would you make such an ignorant assumption? If you are attempting to be an NT scholar, you should learn to not make ignorant assumptions.

  Until this is proven wrong, I will not take anything you say as a serious educated discussion. 

  I am doing my best to educate you. I can't make you learn.