The definition of sin

ShamashUruk said:

Christianity is certainly popularized, but that is about it for that religion, there are mega congregations, mega churches, etc...I have to say I do enjoy Benny Hinn, in my opinion he definitely represents Christianity, right next to Joel Osteen.

Click to expand...

Are you trolling?

The term "angel" doesn't exist in Sumer, that is an invention much later on.

Click to expand...

So... everything in relation to spiritual realities to you is an invention?

genez said:

Are you trolling?






So... everything in relation to spiritual realities to you is an invention?

Click to expand...

Not trolling, but Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn sum up Christianity nicely.

I was talking about the term "angel" it isn't a term in Sumer.

ShamashUruk said:

Not trolling, but Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn sum up Christianity nicely.

Click to expand...

If that's what you think is good Christianity? I have no point in trying to reason any further.

genez said:

If that's what you think is good Christianity? I have no point in trying to reason any further.

Click to expand...

That is what I think the underlying premise of Christianity is.

Of course on the other hand there are guys like Ray Comfort, and a new apolgetic Jeff Durbin all to give you that warm and Christian feeling.

Christianity is what it is, an amalgamation of religious beliefs. You want to call faux on other religious beliefs, and belittle those that predate Judeo Christian ideologies. In my opinion I'm cool with all Abrahamic faiths so long as they know their polytheistic origins.

ShamashUruk said:

In my opinion I'm cool with all Abrahamic faiths so long as they know their polytheistic origins.

Click to expand...

God called his people out from the polytheistic world. He called his people and set them apart.

As I learned in Hebrew school while yeat as a Jew... Abraham's father was a polytheistic priest. God called Abraham out from polytheism. Abraham did not one day decide he was going to create his own religion. Abraham worshiped Jehovah alone. The Jews were later formed upon Abraham's model.

genez said:

God called his people out from the polytheistic world. He called his people and set them apart.

As I learned in Hebrew school while yeat as a Jew... Abraham's father was a polytheistic priest. God called Abraham out from polytheism. Abraham did not one day decide he was going to create his own religion. Abraham worshiped Jehovah alone. The Jews were later formed upon Abraham's model.

Click to expand...

Abraham leaves Ur and moves onto Canaan, this is well established in Biblical literature. However, in Canaan he will engage in Polytheistic practices with Melchezedik. The noun "God" is not proper terminology if you are talking about the early Israelite's, either it is going to be El or Yahweh. The problem we have is that El and Yahweh are both Canaanite deities, Bible only asserts Abraham leaving Ur. Whether he was involved in other communities at the time is a different topic, Canaan is travelling distance from Ur as is in Mesopotamia at the time and Canaan is (I believe above what is now known as Jerusalem). Also, whether or not Abraham existed is another debated issue among scholars, most likely the reflections of Abraham are from Yahwehist's hence, the Old Testament (shekinah) which is consequently earlier in Mesopotamia a female God.

Biblical literature unfortunately doesn't provide timelines per se. There isn't much on the character Abraham and even Biblical literature is scarce.

ShamashUruk said:

Abraham leaves Ur and moves onto Canaan, this is well established in Biblical literature. However, in Canaan he will engage in Polytheistic practices with Melchezedik. The noun "God" is not proper terminology if you are talking about the early Israelite's, either it is going to be El or Yahweh. The problem we have is that El and Yahweh are both Canaanite deities,

Click to expand...

El may be same word is the word used in their languages in reference to Deity. But, its not a proper name, Especially in Judaism when seen in Elohim to reveal the plurality of God. My boss my be Jonathan Smithson... But we all call him "the boss." His name is not boss.

Where do you get Melchizedek worshiping multiple gods from? You are only assuming that.

That's quite a big hat you got there. I wonder what you are going to pull out of it next.

genez said:

El may be same word is the word used in their languages in reference to Deity. But, its not a proper name, Especially in Judaism when seen in Elohim to reveal the plurality of God. My boss my be Jonathan Smithson... But we all call him "the boss." His name is not boss.

Where do you get Melchizedek worshiping multiple gods from? You are only assuming that.

That's quite a big hat you got there. I wonder what you are going to pull out of it next.

Click to expand...

Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, the Canaanites worshiped a wide variety of Gods. Melchizedek isn't a Canaanite priest because he is a monotheist, you cannot be a monotheist and be a Canaanite priest, that isn't the Canaanite culture. The Israelite's arise out of Canaan as a mix of races from Canaan, the Israelite's are originally Canaanite's.

Elohim is only a plural of the word El, but can be used singularly.

Pantheon of Canaanite religion
The Canaanite pantheon was conceived as a divine clan, headed by the supreme god El; the gods collectively made up the elohim. Through the centuries, the pantheon of Canaanite gods evolved, so that El and Asherah were more important in earlier times, while Baal and his consorts came to fore in later years. Many of the Canaanite deities found their way into the Greek and Roman pantheon. For example, the characteristics of both El and Baal may be seen in Zeus, while Astart resembles Aphrodite, Anat is similar to Athena, Yam to Poseidon, and Mot to Hades or Thanatos. Some of the deities listed below are mentioned only briefly in the Canaanite texts, while others were important locally or nationally—such as Chemosh—but not throughout the region. Still others, such a Moloch, are known mainly from Hebrew texts

• Anat—goddess of war, ever-virgin sister-wife of Baal, honored as a protector, agent of vengeance, and bearer of life
• Asherah—early semitic Mother goddess, "Lady of the sea," consort of El, also called Athirat, the mother of 70 gods
• Astarte—goddess of love and fertility, sometimes the consort of Baal/Hadad
• Baalat or Baalit—the chief deity of Byblos, also identified with Astarte and Aphrodite
• Ba'al—meaning "Lord," god of rain, thunder, and fertility, sometimes synonymous with Hadad; also used as a title prefixing the names of local deities
• Baal-Hammon—god of fertility and renewal in the Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean
• Chemosh—the national god of Moab, referred to in both Moabite and Hebrew texts
• Dagon—god of crop fertility, sometimes identified with Hadad
• El—the chief deity, god of the sky in Canaan, father of many lesser gods and ruler of the divine assembly, also worshiped by the Israelites
• El Elyon—Special title of El as "God most High"
• Eshmun—Phoenician god of healing
• Kathirat—a group of goddesses appearing in the Ugartic texts as divine midwives
• Kothar—full name Kothar-wa-Khasis, the skilled, clever god of craftsmanship and weapon-making
• Lotan—the seven-headed sea serpent or dragon, the pet of Yam or Yam's alter ego, related to the biblical Leviathan
• Melqart—also called Baal-Melkart, the god who is king of the city, the underworld, and the cycle of vegetation in Tyre, also the patron of the Israelite queens Jezebel and Athaliah
• Moloch—title for the god who is "king," probably identical with Milcom and known mainly from the Hebrew Bible as the deity to whom child sacrifices were offered
• Mot—god of the underworld, sterility, death, and the waterless desert

• Nikkal—goddess of fruit and orchards, married to Yarikh
• Qadeshtu—the Holy One, goddess of love, also a title given to Asherah and related to the Egyptian goddess Hathor
• Resheph—God of plague and healing
• Shalim and Shachar—twin gods of dusk and dawn
• Shamayim—the god of the sky or the heavens
• Shemesh—Mesopotamian god of the sun also worshiped in Canaan, meaning "sun" in Hebrew possibly related to the hero, Samson
• Tanit—Phoenician lunar goddess, worshiped as the patron goddess at Carthage, and sometimes identified with Astarte or Anat
• Yam—god of the sea
• Yarikh—god of the moon, after whom the city of Jericho was named; Lord of the sickle, provider of nightly dew; married to the goddess Nikkal
• Yahweh—The Israelite god, worshiped not only by the Hebrews but also by eastern Canaanites such as the prophet Balaam(Numbers 22) and the Shashu of Edom

In Numbers 22:22-35 Balaam, a non-Israelite seer, sets out on a journey, an act that incurs God's wrath. God responds by dispatching his celestial messenger, the malak YHWH, described as a satan, who stations himself on the road upon which Balaam is travelling. Balaam is ignorant of the swordwielding messenger but his donkey sees the danger and twice avoids the messenger, for which Balaam beats the animal. The messenger then moves to a place in the road where circumvention is impossible. The donkey lays down, and is again beaten. At this point Yahweh gives the donkey the ability to speak, and she asks why Balaam has beaten her. A conversation ensues and then Yahweh uncovers Balaam's eyes so that he can see the sword-wielding messenger, and Balaam falls down to the ground. The messenger asks why Balaam struck his donkey and then asserts that he has come forth as a satan because Balaam undertook his journey hastily. The messenger states that, had the donkey not seen him and avoided him, he would have killed Balaam. Balaam then admits his guilt, saying that he did not know that the messenger was standing on the road, and offers to tum back if the messenger judges the journey to be wrong. The messenger gives Balaam pennission to continue, but adjures him to speak only as instructed. Prior to the work of GROSS (1974) most scholars attributed the above passage to the J source, which would have made it the earliest context in which the noun satan is applied to a celestial being. However, since Gross' study the tendency has been to date the passage to the sixth century BC or later. With the exception of the above story, which obviously ridicules Balaam, he is characterized in an extremely positive way in Num 22-24. Outside those chapters, the first clear indications that he is being viewed negatively are attributable to the P source (Num 31: 16) and Dtr 2 (Josh 13:22), both of which are typically dated to the sixth century. Thus the available evidence suggests that Balaam was viewed positively in earlier, epic tradition, but negatively in later sources. Given that the story under discussion views Balaam negatively, the story most likely stems from a later source. As can be readily seen, the heavenly being who acts as a satan in Numbers 22 has very little in common with later conceptualizations of Satan. He (satan) is Yahweh's messenger, not his archenemy, and he acts in accordance with Yahweh's will rather than opposing it. Indeed, Yahweh's messenger here, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, is basically an hypostatization of the deity. Hence, as KLUGER (1967:75) has remarked, the 'real' satan/adversary in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh himself.

ShamashUruk said:

Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, the Canaanites worshiped a wide variety of Gods.

Click to expand...

The Bible says his origin was unknown. He was simply settled in that area when he and Abraham met.

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. Genesis 14:18-20

Now was there ever a Canaanite god that was the creator of everything? Did they have a Most High God above all the other gods? The Canaanites had many gods. Many gods that they accredited to victory in battle. Their gods were vile in behavior. Melchizedek does not fit that mold at all.

genez said:

The Bible says his origin was unknown. He was simply settled in that area when he and Abraham met.

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. Genesis 14:18-20

Now was there ever a Canaanite god that was the creator of everything? Did they have a Most High God above all the other gods? The Canaanites had many gods. Many gods that they accredited to victory in battle. Their gods were vile in behavior. Melchizedek does not fit that mold at all.

Click to expand...

Pantheon of Canaanite religion

• El Elyon—Special title of El as "God most High"

Genesis 14: 19 Blessed be Abram by God Most High (El Elyon)

El Elyon is a Canaanite God.

Melchizedek is a Canaanite name meaning “My King Is [the god] Sedek” or “My King Is Righteousness” (the meaning of the similar Hebrew cognate). ...

The god whom Melchizedek serves as priest is “El ʿElyon,” again a name of Canaanite religion designating the high god of their pantheon.

Yes, Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, God most high means El Elyon in Canaan.

Nihilist Virus said:

Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, does not always want things to be clear. If, for instance, a clear outcome is expected after a session of prayer, then the effectiveness of prayer will be shown to be statistically equivalent to randomness.

Click to expand...

Hello NV
At face value it would appear your conclusion is based on a very subjective and assumptive conclusion with really no statistical data to back up your assertion. According to Harvard Medical School, which is not historically well known for any strong stance on theism, faith and healing are very much linked. During its 2015 symposium on faith and healing Neal Krause of the University of Michigan School of Public Health submitted that more than 3,000 studies indicate that religion has a potentially beneficial effect on health. That speaks not to statistical randomness or a null hypothesis when put to the test but to a definitive connection between the two.

Nihilist Virus said:

However, a religion like Islam, as far as I understand, makes it absolutely clear what is considered right and wrong. Any contradiction in scripture is resolved by the understanding that a later statement overrides an earlier statement. So Muslims have a clear understanding of what is expected of them (even though most, fortunately, ignore the clear commands to murder people). While being easily the world's most despicable religion, Islam is nevertheless clear, concise, and well defined by religious standards.

Click to expand...

While you propose to speak for the consensus of Muslims your statement is subjective and without the merit of any factual information to back up your position. I'm not sure you realize how varied Muslims are in their beliefs but in my opinion the comparison between Christianity and Islam falls flat with respect to being anything that is significantly debatable by means of forum.

Nihilist Virus said:

Christianity, on the other hand, does not make it clear what is right or wrong. One might think that the rules are similar to Islam in that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, but that does not seem to actually be the case. Jesus and Paul, the two main founders of Christianity, did away with much of the Old Testament, but John - the fourth most important founder of Christianity behind Peter - says in 1 John 3:4 that "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." It would seem to make sense that the law as dictated by God through Moses is the "objective morality" that some Christians refer to, which would mean that sin is defined as defiance of any of the 600+ commandments in the law. Yet, essentially no Christian on earth would attest to the absolute authority of everything listed in the Mosaic law.

Click to expand...

The Church, the bride of Christ, is of course founded "in Christ" by the means of our proclamation of faith in the Son of God as our Lord and King. It is He who governs and directs us - but the Christian Church actually began on Pentecost with the infilling deposit of the Holy Spirit upon the faithful. So there are no other founders with respect to the persons of the saints who were moved by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Good News of Christ, whether they did so in verbal or in literary form, which was coupled and made manifest with God given power from on High.
Without the Holy Spirit no man can follow Christ and perhaps this may be your dilemma in understanding the Way in which a Christian conducts their actions. During our temporal tenure on earth we live in the light of God's sanctifying grace that keeps that holy deposit unto the day of the Lord for redemption.
Can we falter in our steps? Yes, but it is a walk of overcoming all our obstacles that stand in the way of following Christ. In many ways the Christian walk is symbolized by Jesus' walk to Calvary and we may be called upon to endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. It is not about rules and regulations whereby we follow after the letter of the Law, which the natural man could not keep; for even Moses disobeyed. The Law was fulfilled and obeyed in Christ Jesus alone. He is the fulfillment of the Law and He calls us not to a systematic religious belief but to follow Him and obey Him both as Lord and Savior. Mankind has spent millennia trying to save themselves by their own religious means only to be defeated. The victory is not to be found in self regulatory religions but by trusting in Christ who has already won the victory over sin on the cross and God's proof is the resurrected Christ and the gift of His Holy Spirit upon those who believe and entrust Him as their Lord and King. As Saint Paul echoed:
1 Corinthians 2
it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

It is thus God's Holy Spirit which instructs us and affirms His Word as well as our conscience. At times we will wrestle with sin even as we wrestle with God in fulfilling His purposes within us. We may knock our hip out of joint in the struggle but ultimately the battle has already been won and the love of Christ will be fully formed in the soul of the believer as we persevere in following Him. Whatever is not of faith in God is not of God and is sin. We are to live to God and to live in God and this is our perfect freedom and perfect joy - for as Jesus said:
“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. - John 8:36

Nihilist Virus said:

I've never gotten a clear answer on this issue. Worse, I don't know if I've ever even seen two Christians agree on this. Worst, this is the criteria by which we will be evaluated as worthy of eternal hellfire, and yet we have no access to this criteria.

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful. If you think my expectations are unreasonable, please explain why Islam is capable doing this.

Click to expand...

Becoming Christian by putting one's faith in Christ as Lord and Savior is the first step in the genesis of our walk with Jesus. What we perceive prior to our submission to Christ as opaque comes to light in the newness of faith. Godly understanding becomes clear as the Spirit of God abides in us and as we grow as children of light in the love of God. One may ask, "What might that walk of faith look like?" I think Jesus answered the question in Matthew 22
The Summation of All Commandments and Prophecy.
(Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–28 )
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

If our life hasn't begun to reflect that, and if our life does not give glory to Christ as Lord and Savior, I think one needs to ask themselves if they are really following the Spirit of God verses the spirit of disobedience and ruin. Again it is important to understand our growth happens through faith by the grace of God who loves us and gave Himself for us. It is not by our striving but by our believing that God creates inroads within us that will flourish and astound us in His good works both internally and externally from us - we are co heirs with Christ because He has made us co-workers on mission with Him to the lost world He loves and died for.

Two thousand years ago He stated He would not return and the age would not end until the Gospel was preached to every ethnic tongue. Considering He had only 12 Apostles that was a bold statement I'm sure some would have been in unbelief over. Even over the next 5 or so decades, when all the Gospels had been written, it remained a bold claim for the Good News. However, here we stand today on the cusp of having the Gospel published in every ethic language on earth 6500 of them and despite all obstacles His promise and proclamation is being fulfilled by His Church's Great Commission. And so the love of God is spreading and given our hope wings to soar.

ShamashUruk said:

Pantheon of Canaanite religion

• El Elyon—Special title of El as "God most High"

Genesis 14: 19 Blessed be Abram by God Most High (El Elyon)

El Elyon is a Canaanite God.

Melchizedek is a Canaanite name meaning “My King Is [the god] Sedek” or “My King Is Righteousness” (the meaning of the similar Hebrew cognate). ...

The god whom Melchizedek serves as priest is “El ʿElyon,” again a name of Canaanite religion designating the high god of their pantheon.

Yes, Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, God most high means El Elyon in Canaan.

Click to expand...

So why are we told... The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And, not the gods of Esau, nor Ishmael?

genez said:

So why are we told... The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And, not the gods of Esau, nor Ishmael?

Click to expand...

To generalize the term "God" is a misnomer, when this is done the noun "God" named is then only shown without a jussive (i.e. there is no expression of command) due to the fact that a generalization of character is completed.

Each "God" in each culture plays a role. In the Israelite Pantheon Yahweh is a storm God, thus he is equated as Ba'al in Canaan who is a storm God. Yahweh for example is only adopted into the Israelite pantheon, but doesn't originate with the Israelite's, he originates with the Canaanite's, as does El (pluarl Elohim), El Elyon. Granted these are all "God" nouns, but each one serves a function respective to their cultures.

Go look at Biblical Patriarchs which include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Ishmael. By the time these texts are written you will need to examine the P, E, J, D sources where Biblical writ originates from. All 5 Bible characters are classified as Patriarchal, yet, we find distinct issues within the fray of each concerning a litany in early Rabbinic textual's and later Christian theology.

Since we can't prove that moʊzɪz (Moses) penned the Pentateuch there is a lot of disambiguation between early Judeo texts from about 1200 BC and on.

Bible for example contends that Esau is the progenitor of the Edomite's, however, the wife of Esau and an Edomite chief share the name Oholibamah, "tent of the high place." Also, without a theophoric element are the names of two metaphorical sisters in Ezekiel: Oholah "tent-woman" representing Samaria, and Oholibah "my tent is in her" representing Jerusalem. We find the names are metaphors for dwelling places, as the Israelite's used symbolism to explain their surroundings. Tents, were commonly shown as dwelling structures and as well had divinity values. Also, when the Israelite's separate from Canaan they set to distinguish themselves, Esau's wife is a Canaanite or I should say wives.

There is a lot of disdain for Esau as well. Gideon approached Succoth (to be identified with Tell Deir cAlla), and more to the south Penuel (most likely Tullul ed-Dahab) at the mouth of the Jabbok river, both cities being located in northern Trans-Jordan. These cities were requested to supply Gideon's army (here called cam) with "loaves of bread", the intention most likely being food provisions in general, especially as the text emphasizes that the Israelite soldiers were faint with hunger. Gen. 25:29-30 (concerning Esau, coming from the field being 'ayef and he commands Jacob to feed him).

You have one Patriarch commanding another Patriarch, this doesn't go over well. Also, note that Biblical literature only names the most important characters in play (this does happen in other religious texts as well).

Concerning Ishmael you'd have to look at ethnographic names, which Ishmael is included. A genealogy embraces twelve sons, like the Israelite and Ishmaelite systems, consisting of two descent groups—eight sons by his wife Milcah, and four sons by his concubine Reumah. The twofold division here is seemingly geographical: the wife's descendants represent tribal and geographical entities in the Patriarchs' ancestral homeland in Mesopotamia, whereas the sons of the concubine represent place-names in northern Canaan. Nahor's genealogy is quite similar to the Israelite model where Jacob (alias Israel) is the founding ancestor of twelve sons (or tribes) who are born of two wives, Leah and Rachel, or their respective handmaidens, Zilpah and Bilhah

This is where we start dividing tribes up, but this phenomona doesn't just happen with the Israelite's, we see this in other cultures as well, where tribes are made and procolomations are made as to who is worshiping the "true God".

The Akhenaten for example exodus from Egypt as they are Egyptian Monotheists, Amunhotep (IV), Akhenaten ruled Egypt for a mere fourteen years (ca. 1352-1338 BCE), a relatively short reign by the standards of the day during the Amarna Period. We see a separation of Egyptian Monotheists from Polytheistic Egypt. The Akhenaten will claim they worship "the one true God" who is thought to be Aten only in Egyptian Akhenaten religious writ.

Hence, tribes are created and separations happen to claim a name for the "one true God", but as I wrote earlier the term "God" is a misnomer, it is a broad generalization. Whether it is Christian mythology, Sumerology, Assyriology, etc... the term or noun "God" is only widely applied.

ShamashUruk said:

To generalize the term "God" is a misnomer, when this is done the noun "God" named is then only shown without a jussive (i.e. there is no expression of command) due to the fact that a generalization of character is completed.

Each "God" in each culture plays a role. In the Israelite Pantheon Yahweh is a storm God, thus he is equated as Ba'al in Canaan who is a storm God.

Click to expand...

If He was the same God? As you apparently seem to be claiming? Did God demand of His people the Jews? The same things Baal did of his worshipers? If not? How can He be the same god/God, other than in name only?

I am almost bored. Another gimmick approach is being developed by a recruited mind. Seen this sort of thing too many times to want now to try to waste too much time thinking you can be reasoned with. Well?

You have your game to play and are setting up the board to make your moves. But, you must either be totally ignorant of the differences between the God of Israel and the god of the Canaanites? Or, you simply must ignore the glaring differences to make your thesis work.

Yahweh for example is only adopted into the Israelite pantheon, but doesn't originate with the Israelite's, he originates with the Canaanite's, as does El (pluarl Elohim), El Elyon. Granted these are all "God" nouns, but each one serves a function respective to their cultures.

Click to expand...

As most likely the word used for "king" was passed along. Even the word 'priest' probably originated at another time for another people who spoke a similar language. That does not mean the priests of Judah were the same kind of priests of Baal.

Go look at Biblical Patriarchs which include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Ishmael. By the time these texts are written you will need to examine the P, E, J, D sources where Biblical writ originates from. All 5 Bible characters are classified as Patriarchal, yet, we find distinct issues within the fray of each concerning a litany in early Rabbinic textual's and later Christian theology.

Click to expand...

Which were all written after the fact...

Since we can't prove that moʊzɪz (Moses) penned the Pentateuch there is a lot of disambiguation between early Judeo texts from about 1200 BC and on.

Click to expand...

You can not prove many things you accept by faith. Can you?

Bible for example contends that Esau is the progenitor of the Edomite's, however, the wife of Esau and an Edomite chief share the name Oholibamah, "tent of the high place." Also, without a theophoric element are the names of two metaphorical sisters in Ezekiel: Oholah "tent-woman" representing Samaria, and Oholibah "my tent is in her" representing Jerusalem. We find the names are metaphors for dwelling places, as the Israelite's used symbolism to explain their surroundings. Tents, were commonly shown as dwelling structures and as well had divinity values. Also, when the Israelite's separate from Canaan they set to distinguish themselves, Esau's wife is a Canaanite or I should say wives.

Click to expand...

You have missed your calling. You should be teaching some kids in a college classroom who naively believe professors are wise and always correct.

I am not impressed. Most likely you have a photographic memory. I hope you find a better audience for it. Try a forum for atheists perhaps? They will like you. They need to be convinced. I do not. I already know what you have failed to find. Sorry... But, you have no idea what you are missing. Intellect alone can not find God. Descartes learned that bitter lesson years ago.

genez said:

If He was the same God? As you apparently seem to be claiming? Did God demand of His people the Jews? The same things Baal did of his worshipers? If not? How can He be the same god/God, other than in name only?

I am almost bored. Another gimmick approach is being developed by a recruited mind. Seen this sort of thing too many times to want now to try to waste too much time thinking you can be reasoned with. Well?

You have your game to play and are setting up the board to make your moves. But, you must either be totally ignorant of the differences between the God of Israel and the god of the Canaanites? Or, you simply must ignore the glaring differences to make your thesis work.

Click to expand...

Hosea 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.

The LORD YAHWEH in Hosea 2:16 says do not call me BAALI (master) BAAL (lord), these are used in Canaan to describe BAAL, but call me ISHI (husband, a symbolical name used in Hosea 2:16). BAAL or BAALI is referred to as BAAL in Canaan

YES, Yahweh demanded blood sacrifice, go read Deuteronomy 12:27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.

BAAL would often require blood sacrifice and so would YAHWEH, what is so confusing about this? There are no differences between BAAL and YAHWEH. The Israelite's separate themselves and attempt to make themselves Monotheistic, they "steal" BAAL and make him YAHWEH.

Your own Bible contradicts itself, I do not need to go far to research, it's in your own Bible.

YAHWEH AS A STORM GOD AND WARRIOR: Biblical descriptions of Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut. 33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this underlying unity and pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337 Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorological progression underlying the imagery of Yahweh as warrior.

BAAL AS A STORM GOD AND WARRIOR: Baal’s theophany in the storm (KTU 1.4 V 6-9, 1.6 III 6f., 12f., 1.19 I 42-46) or his role as warrior (KTU 1.2 IV, 1.5 I 1-5, 1.119.26-29, 34-36; RS 16.144.9 334). These two dimensions of Baal are explicitly linked in KTU 1.4 VII 29-35, 1.101.1-4, and EA 147.13-15 as well as some iconography. F. M. Cross treats different descriptions of Baal as a single Gattung with four elements, which appear in these passages in varying degrees. The four components are: (a) the march of the divine warrior, (b) the convulsing of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power, (c) the return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship, and (d) the utterance of the divine warrior’s “voice” (i.e., thunder) from his palace, providing rains that fertilize the earth.

genez said:

As most likely the word used for "king" was passed along. Even the word 'priest' probably originated at another time for another people who spoke a similar language. That does not mean the priests of Judah were the same kind of priests of Baal.

Click to expand...

The word Priest originates in Sumer and is the noun Isib, which are exorcist priests as well another connotation is Gala for lamentation priest, or an Abrig purification priest. In the original term a priest is a priest, but they have differing roles.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek a Canaanite priest is the highest priest of El or El Elyon.
The order of Melchizedek

genez said:

Which were all written after the fact...

Click to expand...

Everything in the Bible is written down "after the fact". Doesn't exclude that they are in origin P, E, J, D sources.

genez said:

You can not prove many things you accept by faith. Can you?

Click to expand...

You can't prove to an atheist anything by faith either, you make no point here. Also, this is not a "faith" issue, this is a linguistics and archaeological as well theological issue.

genez said:

You have missed your calling. You should be teaching some kids in a college classroom who naively believe professors are wise and always correct.

I am not impressed. Most likely you have a photographic memory. I hope you find a better audience for it. Try a forum for atheists perhaps? They will like you. They need to be convinced. I do not. I already know what you have failed to find. Sorry... But, you have no idea what you are missing. Intellect alone can not find God. Descartes learned that bitter lesson years ago.

Click to expand...

You are a Christian, the Christian kind evolves from Polytheism into Monotheism. Christianity is a shallow and replicated religion.

Also, you failed to answer half of the postings I respond to, meaning for me that you either don't know or have no answer. I will take the latter as you have no answer. You want history to fit your Christian warm and fuzzy pet theory and it does not, when all the studies have concluded and all the Biblical texts have been scrutinized it fails.

ShamashUruk said:

Hosea 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.

The LORD YAHWEH in Hosea 2:16 says do not call me BAALI (master) BAAL (lord), these are used in Canaan to describe BAAL, but call me ISHI (husband, a symbolical name used in Hosea 2:16). BAAL or BAALI is referred to as BAAL in Canaan

Click to expand...

Yes! But?

You do not understand the background leading to that proclamation. Please, read the entire chapter! The Jews had turned away from God! And, to the gods of the Canaanites!

God was speaking through His prophet Hosea and warning the Jews that they would be disciplined.. and that after, His people will be then restored to Him.

That is why it says they would not longer call their god Baal! No longer called "Master" (Baal). For, they will return to their first love! And will call their true God "Husband." Ishi.


The same chapter tells us how God was to discipline the wayward Jews who had gone after Baal worship.

genez said:

Yes! You do not understand the background leading to that proclamation. Please, read the entire chapter! The Jews had turned away from God! And, to the gods of the Canaanites.

God was speaking through His prophet Hosea and warning the Jews would be disciplined and that His people will be then restored to Him. That is why it says they would not longer call their god Baal! No longer called "Master" (Baal). For, they will return to their first love! And call their God "Husband." Ishi.


The same chapter tells us how God was to discipline the wayward Jews who had gone after Baal worship.


10 So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.
12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13 I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the Lord.

Click to expand...

I am aware of the "background" as you call it, the Israelite's go back to being polytheistic and Hosea doesn't like it, so he gives warning. That wasn't point, the point was that Yahweh no longer wants to be referred to as Baal, this is typically what Christians will do to avert the actual issue being raised.

The warning from Hosea is only circumstantial in context, the Israelite's have a long history being Polytheistic/Monotheistic/Polytheistic...the cycle continues. And really this has little to do with the warning of Hosea, obviously by the time of Hosea they are in the company of a different prophet. Your statement is misleading and dishonest to the origins of the Israelite's, it is obviously and abundantly clear that they become Monotheistic. If I didn't know any better I'd say that aspect of Hosea's warning is proper, but it is not.

Earlier in Leviticus when the Israelite's sacrifice their children to Moloch they are afforded in Leviticus 16 atonement for their sins, the expiation or Hattat rituals wherein Aaron smears blood on the temple door and the goat is sent to the wilderness to Azazel. There are numerous reasons why they engage in expiation rituals or dispatch of the goat to the wilderness, the Israelite's are not punished for this, but are "cleansed of their sins" so to speak during the time of Leviticus.

ShamashUruk said:

I am aware of the "background" as you call it, the Israelite's go back to being polytheistic and Hosea doesn't like it, so he gives warning. That wasn't point, the point was that Yahweh no longer wants to be referred to as Baal, this is typically what Christians will do to avert the actual issue being raised.

Click to expand...

You can't focus with intellectual honesty. Don't bother to try to draw me back into this discussion. Its been deemed hopeless.

genez said:

You can't focus with intellectual honesty. Don't bother to try to draw me back into this discussion. Its been deemed hopeless.

Click to expand...

You are the one who contacted me.

I am at the assertion that you have a learning disability, I do not know why you contacted me to begin with. Doesn't matter, it's better that trash is left where it belongs.