The Plurality of God in Old Testament

by Clambake 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Clambake
    Clambake

    So

    I am not going to claim to be any kind of bible expert or a good writer or anything like that but do you ever notice how the WTS has completely whitewashed this idea or anything relating to this.

    From the  beginning of the bible “ In the beginning god said let US make man in our own image “, to the term Elohim which literally means “ Gods “, to the Angel of the Lord in the old testament which is identified to being with god and god himself.

    It is just kind of interesting when you read the book of John in the new testament and you start to read things like “ the word was with god and the word was god “ or “ No one has seen the father only the son “ it kind of makes sense without really fully understanding it. Even when you go to the writings of Paul and see how he uses the tetragrammaton and old testament quotes “ Call on the name of name of LORD an you will be saved “.  What did Paul mean by using these quotes ?

    Now a well-trained JW would be over a statement like that how can you faith in something you don’t fully understand? I am not really sure I do but I tend to prefer to look at the intent of the authors and I do believe there was a belief in the plurality of god.

    Please save the atheist/agnostic comments about the bible. You people are more annoying than uber dubs.  Yeah we get it, we know how you feel.

  • Aroq
    Aroq

    I like your thinking. What about Jehovah sending fire from Jehovah at Genesis 19:24?

    If you read the original manuscripts and not the NWT, it literally states : "and Yahweh caused it to rain on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh from the heavens"

    Funny how the RNWT has changed the scripture to say "then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah-it came from Jehovah, from the heavens"

    The difference is subtle, but its there. The original states fire by Yahweh from Yahweh, where as the RNWT tries to remove this and keep with a singular view, Jehovah.


    The obvious is that Yahweh is the one causing this, who else could? So why would Moses need to write from Yahweh also?

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    I usually don't post when visiting this website. But I've done extensive research on this so I'll share what I've found. 


    Check out out the following:


    genesis 48:15,16, Israel (Jacob) refers to an angel, "who has redeemed me from all evil" as, "the God who has been my shepherd." He invokes both God and this angel (referred to as God) as separate entities but appeals to both for his blessing. 


    Then in hosea 12:3-5 reference is made to genesis 32:24-30 where Joseph wrestles with the angel. In genesis Jacob refers to this angel as seeing the face of God, and in Hosea the angel is referred to with the Tetragrammaton as yahweh.


    john 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and there's another escaping me at the moment, both testify to Christ being a co creator. 


    John 5:22,23 Christ himself states that all should honor (in Greek Timao, which means to prize or revere) the son JUST AS (equally) they honor the father and in this way they show due reverence for the father who sent him.


    since the bible demonstrates Christ a co creator of man, in the lords prayer at Matthew 6:9 it is curious that the word in Greek Pater is used, since this word refers to ones immediate father or possibly a forefather - but since the bible testifies we have two fathers would not this then address both of them? 


    Hebrews 1:5-12, shows the Angels bowing down to worship Christ, and also in verse 10 applies an Old Testament scripture in psalms 102:25 to Christ even though it's talking about Yahweh all through out the chapter leading up to that statement. This pattern of using Old Testament references to Yahweh in application to Christ is found all through the new Testament. Another I have noted in my journal is 1 peter 2:6-8, where Christ is referred to as the stone of stumbling in Isaiah 18:13-14, but in Isaiah it is talking about Jehovah or Yahweh.


    however the bible at the same time clearly demonstrates they are separate people. Such as 1 Corinthians 15:24 where at the end of his reign Christ as king hands the kingship back over to his father, and at john 14:28 where Christ clearly shows that the father is superior to him. Along with all the instances where Christ prayed to the father who obviously just have been there to hear him and the fact that the father resurrected the son when he died. 


    Christ certainly seems to be referenced as our God, but not the almighty God. Larry Hurtado, a New Testament scholar, posits very convincing evidence of a binitarian view held by the first century Christians; a view these scriptures certainly demonstrate. 


    This also demonstrates the impersonality of the Holy Spirit, since its reference in john 14 shows that Christ does not have authority over the Holy Spirit, but must petition for the father to send it; yet, Hebrews demonstrates that Christ has authority over all things but the father. Yet he must petition for the father to send the spirit. So this all comes together painting a very binitarian view of the father almighty being superior to the son but both being the creators together of all things and therefore both deserving of our reverence as God.  

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy

    One needs to research what and who these writers were talking about. A lot of bible scholars believe that the original god of the Jews was the same as El or Elyon, Ea/Enki. Other gods were created and that is why the word Elohim his used and not El or just God. In-fact in Genesis its believed that the discussion between God and the Adversary (Satan) was actually Ea or Enki and his half brother Enlil. In the Epic of Gilgamesh these two gods were key figures in the story but other gods were also present. This is where the Jews got the story of the flood from. This may help to explain the Pluarity of these verses.

    I also agree with the last post. Jesus was viewed by 4th century Christians as the god they worshiped. Just like previous god before him, he like Marduk and Hadad defeat the dragon and death and gets elevated to the position as highest god or the king of the gods even though he isn't the original creator god. The Book of Revelations seams to confirm this because in the early chapters Jesus is not the Alpha and Omega but by the end chapter he has become the Alpha and Omega.

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    Crazyguy is on point, the reality is the Jews did not create monotheism and archeologically and even in the OT even though it is condemned most the time they were involved in pagan worship. The reality is like most things in jewish religion and the OT and even NT, the ideas were borrowed (plagiarized) from Egypt. Egypt at one point had a pharaoh that changed things, the name escapes be at the moment, but they had a similar belief system with a hierarchy with the sun god as the "almighty chief god" as it were. they went from pagan, to monotheism back to polytheistic paganism. Really genesis simply does refer to pluralism very early on..."let us make man in our image. Now from now looking back (2+2=5) we say "oh that was jesus he was talking to". 

    Bottom line the OT probably wasn't written by moses, but  concocted by a much much later isrealite king as a political tool. This is why the bible is patchwork of old pagan ideas that were recorded well before even the supposed writing of the bible.

    If you do some research on the archeology of the Canaanites, the jews arch nemesis in the bible pages, you find they in fact worshiped YHWH... just one of the their gods, and that infact the jews were not the enemies of the canaanites, but WERE canaanites. 

    Rewriting ones past in order to control people in the present is nothing new, its that what the "Society" is doing?

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    I don't think either one of those last comments is on topic. The OP is looking for evidence of plurality in OT, which I muself went a little off using the NT but he didn't ask for anyone's opinion on how the Israelites may or may not have done something. 


    Both of these last comments are pure conjecture for which there will never be any proof or documentation because archeology isn't going to be able to uncover specifics from so long ago almost everything is dust. 


    Also id point out that what archeology has found regarding the pagan rituals and history demonstrates your both incorrect. history attests to the reality that the pantheon of what was known as the pagan gods originated in babel, spread to Egypt, then to Greece, and then to Rome. They always had a pantheon and stories about their immortal heroes who ascended to the heavens as constellations, because babel invented the zodiac so far as we can tell. This pagan system provided a great deal more freedom in terms of morality and ethics because the people didn't want to be strapped down by law. 


    i don't particularly want to go on because it's off topic. But this is the reason why I don't post here and usually stick to reading. Why post something that is absolutely not factual? And again, not even on topic at all. 


    I know now thisnis rather confrontational but, seriously - don't stop reading when you find something that supports what you want history to be, which is easy to do. I have no idea where you got all of that, but compared to the vast majority of resources to say otherwise that information above is certainly in the minority; I've never even heard of it and I have a small library of religious history and culture. Which include ridiculous amounts of references inside them as to their sources of information and quotes. 


    *signs out to lurk eternally  

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Great! we get three for the price of one with this God  

    Helluva bargain ...

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    Jonathan Drake. Sounds like you know exactly what you are talking about. And when you refer to babel (ot reference) I'm guessing what you meant to say is Sumer... correct?
    I wouldn't get into a debate about what is the oldest pagan religion when really no one knows. The shamanic origins of paganism could go back further than we imagine. Can you tell me how old the sphinx is in Egypt?? I can't and I wouldn't claim to. What I am getting st is not a debate about that. But that the bible could be loaded with plurality language that pops in and out and monotheists try to smooth it out now to all sound like one god throughout. But none of it matters. 
    Religion. Comedy for the intelligent. Reality for the ignorant. 
  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Well then my apologies. I'm really touchy right now for a variety of reasons. Maybe that's why I didn't see that as your point. 


    From my my own studies of the Old Testament i agree that there was always a plurality in the religion of Yahweh. This isn't because of the use of Elohim though, which while it does mean plurality doesn't necessarily mean that was the intent. At the moment I dont have my notes and can't speak as to the reason that is. Elohim I mean. But testimony of the old and new testament definitely paint a plural picture, yet do so all the while asserting the superiority of one. 


    Basically, it has been posited very pursuasively that technically there are two in the bible credited with creation - one being created by the other and then both creating the rest. So that yes there is one almighty father, and one son, but one God FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE being both of them. If that makes sense. 


    from the human perspective in the bible they might as well be equal even though they aren't. 

    oh and regarding babel, I have one book that if I remember suggests babel might be Sumer, but I could be wrong. Most are dealing with various scholar views of the OT so they just use the name Babel. I can check that later if needed. 


    the most persuasive position that I see, and I will grant some opinion involved here but history sure seems to back it up. Emphasis on seems. 


    But it is this. If we position the flood as a historical event. It has been argued that the Melchizadek of Jerusalem (salem) who blessed Abraham was actually Shem, Noah's son. According to an ancient Egyptian story, depicting a man usin the power of his mouth to kill someone significant, it has been suggested that Shem headed up worship of the God yahweh which included the same restrictions which society spurned before the flood and was destroyed. There is very strong evidence suggesting nimrod may have been responsible for spearheading a false religion in the face of a God who would kill so many. And that the Tower of Babel was set up so that they could survive if it ever happened again by climbing to the top. Anyway, according to what a few references I have suggest, Shem, seeing nimrod leading mankind down a similar path to what caused the flood, went to Egypt to pursuade them to stop him before another catastrophe happens. So Egypt, with the flood legend so fresh in their minds, called nimrod down to their country where he was cut to pieces which were sent throughout the land in the patriarchal fashion of warning which is also recorded in the bible. This is positioned as a possibly explanation for the long period of time in which idol worship seems to disappear in history and then reappear - because it was under ban while Shem lived to prevent it, and any practice of it must have been secret. 


    Something that seems to support this is how Abraham was blessed by Melchizadek. Because if the latter was Shem, then the recorded story of Abraham burning all the idols in his home town before he left would certainly garner shems approval  and blessing. 


    But the reason I say this is because what history can be asserted with almost surety, shows that worship of Yahweh (whether plural in nature or not, though very likely so) came before the pagan system was adopted - but was still always centered around a promised messianic deliverer. This is the reson why you find a trinity of father becming the son as promised and returning to heaven in each pantheon of history. And when that pattern is so clear, while the originality of it MIGHT not be the system set up by this Melchizadek, the likelyhood seems extraordinarily probable that Melchizadek came first with his religion that was then taken and reformed.



    And remember, some of the above is theory since archeology can only go so far back. But I find it very persuasive. Also, it isn't my primarily research subject - I mostly only study the bibles testimony to know what it says about subjects rsther than history this far back. But I've come across some very interesting information, this theory being one of them. And it presented all the historical references used to position the factual information used which I took the time to verify. Since you seem interested in the pagan system I thought I'd share it. 

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    We agree :)

    If you get into the occult and other crazy gnostic teachings it really stretches your brain out. Not that I agree with any of it, it just makes you realize that interpreting it one way or another is never simple, and I guess that is why we have so many religions.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit