Hellenic Polytheism

[Wicked Willow]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely unfamiliar with the current scholarly consensus (or even debate) with regards to religious studies. Instead, you counter with the sort of theological rationalizations that used to be the status quo prior to the advent of historical criticism.

Congratulations! You are citing references that are not only slightly dated, but have been refuted and discarded in a scholarly context for CENTURIES now. Allow me to bring you up to date.

(Oh, and just because the documentary hypothesis isn't used in an unmodified form any longer hardly means that the scholarly community fell back to the traditional "Moses wrote it all!"-explanation. That one's off the table, once and for all.
What's being debated now is how many authors worked on the text, how many stages of editing can be detected, and WHEN these processes took place. As a matter of fact, the reason why the documentary hypothesis isn't used as-is any longer is mostly that the text is possibly even YOUNGER than Wellhausen thought possible.)

 

[sidhe]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely unfamiliar with the current scholarly consensus (or even debate) with regards to religious studies. Instead, you counter with the sort of theological rationalizations that used to be the status quo prior to the advent of historical criticism.

Congratulations! You are citing references that are not only slightly dated, but have been refuted and discarded in a scholarly context for CENTURIES now. Allow me to bring you up to date.

(Oh, and just because the documentary hypothesis isn't used in an unmodified form any longer hardly means that the scholarly community fell back to the traditional "Moses wrote it all!"-explanation. That one's off the table, once and for all.
What's being debated now is how many authors worked on the text, how many stages of editing can be detected, and WHEN these processes took place. As a matter of fact, the reason why the documentary hypothesis isn't used as-is any longer is mostly that the text is possibly even YOUNGER than Wellhausen thought possible.)

^This.

I'd highly recommend The Book of J, one critic (Howard Bloom, if I'm correct...which is akin to saying "God" in some critical circles) and translators effort at extracting the J-Writer's work from the surrounding text. The conclusion Bloom reached was that the J-Writer was quite possibly a woman writing a semi-satire of the status quo.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely unfamiliar with the current scholarly consensus (or even debate) with regards to religious studies. Instead, you counter with the sort of theological rationalizations that used to be the status quo prior to the advent of historical criticism.

The article never even stated the hypothesis is the consensus among modern scholar, it says the hypothesis influences the debate.

Congratulations! You are citing references that are not only slightly dated, but have been refuted and discarded in a scholarly context for CENTURIES now. Allow me to .

What references did i cite? I simply said i found the hypothesis unconvincing

(Oh, and just because the documentary hypothesis isn't used in an unmodified form any longer hardly means that the scholarly community fell back to the traditional "Moses wrote it all!"-explanation. That one's off the table, once and for all.
What's being debated now is how many authors worked on the text, how many stages of editing can be detected, and WHEN these processes took place. As a matter of fact, the reason why the documentary hypothesis isn't used as-is any longer is mostly that the text is possibly even YOUNGER than Wellhausen thought possible.)

Most Christians don't even hold to the "Moses wrote it all" theory. We believe a good deal of the Torah was written by Moses and the rest was added later from oral teachings taken from Moses. The article similarly doesn't state that the document hypothesis is the sole working hypothesis like you seem to think it is. Consensus doesn't equal fact, there was consensus that the world was flat once to. What i find most unconvincing though is that none of these "independent sources" that the books of the Torah were allegedly compiled from exist today and if they existed they are likely lost forever which is why this hypothesis will always be just that a hypothesis it is fundamentally a historical "what if" scenario. So at the end of the day your hypothesis and mine are equally valid.

 

[morningstar2651]

"Us" is indicating the Trinity not other Gods, in fact that verse and a few others in the first chapters of Genesis are used to support Trinitarian doctrine of them, Genesis 1:26 is the most supportive.

I was unaware that the Jews believed in a trinity. These Jews don't seem to at all.

Trinity

You don't get what the point of the first commandment was do you? It was not to state that there were no other gods, that was already well established among the Israelites when Moses penned the first commandment.

Um...you're wrong. One only has to turn to the Bible to prove this claim wrong. What were the Israelites doing while Moses was receiving the commandments?

Turning to actual ancient texts from the time and location that Judaism comes to us, rather than a revisionist history where Judaism appeared in a vacuum all grown up and in its present form, we find that its roots are in the polytheistic tribal religions of the area. Ideas and beliefs change over time. What was once polytheism morphed into henotheism, which later made the transition to monotheism.

Modern religions have a tendency to be very different from their ancient counterparts. Even the Catholicism of today is very different from 50 years ago, let alone 500 years ago. Priests used to face the same direction as the rest of the congregation instead of looking at them, and mass used to be in Latin. Today there are Catholics that have never experienced Catholicism in this way because the religion has changed within the last century.

The point of it was to tell us that we will not put anything above (or before) God in importance. For example if i put myself before god does not my ego become my god? You are once again taking the verse out of it's historical context and reading into it what you want to be there.

This is a terrible interpretation of the first commandment - you're forcing an English idiom into a Hebrew translation. It doesn't say "You shall have nothing before Me" - it says "You shall have no other gods before Me".

How many people think food or water are gods? Obviously everybody that stops praying to eat and drink has put their own survival before God and worshiped bread and blasphemed against god with water. However, this is not forbidden. This is silly.

The Lord showed he was more powerful than the false gods of Egypt. I don't see the contradiction here, and i doubt most scholars would either.

What does this have to do with...anything? We're not talking about which god or pantheon is cooler. We're talking about the polytheistic roots of Judaism.

Though, following this derailment a bit more - why would god need to show he's more powerful than something if that something doesn't exist? The Bible says nothing about the Greek pantheon - does this mean he isn't more powerful than the Greek pantheon, or does this mean that the Greek pantheon doesn't really exist...but the Egyptian pantheon does?

John Calvin explains this verse well in his commentary:

14. Ye shall not go after. In this passage Moses commands the people not to turn away from the simple service of God, although examples of superstition may present themselves to their sight on every side. For this was a very destructive temptation, that none could be anywhere found who subscribed to the doctrine of the Law, although the respective nations had some religion, or at any rate the name of it existing among them. Since, therefore, these various forms of worship were so many temptations to forsake the right way, it was needful to provide against the danger betimes, and so to establish the authority of the One God, that the Jews might have courage to despise the common belief of all the Gentiles. A threat is added, that vengeance would not be far off if they should fall away into these superstitions, since God is a jealous God, and dwelling among them. As to the former epithet, I am about to say more under the Second Commandment. Meanwhile, let my readers observe that God is called jealous, because He permits no rivalry which may detract from His glory, nor does He suffer the service which is due to Him alone to be transferred elsewhere. When He reminds the people that he dwells among them, it is partly to inspire terror by reason of His presence, and partly to reprove indirectly their ingratitude, if they should forsake Him, and seek for themselves gods who are afar of.

Why should I accept the authority of Calvin on any topic apart from Calvinism? He's a great authority on the topic of Calvinism, but a terrible choice when it comes to Judaism or Hellenic Polytheism. I don't turn to a Rabbi to teach me about Catholic doctrine, and I don't ask a baker to explain open heart surgery.

Just because it says "gods of the Amorites" does not mean it recognizes them as true. In fact the audience the book was meant for would have obviously know that the "gods of Amorites" were false.

You claim to know a lot about the knowledge of ancient people. How did they come to know that the gods of Amorites were fake while the god of Israelites was real? I doubt they had well reasoned debates with each other or discovered that their god was really just a large sock puppet on the hand of the high priest... Well, it looks like we already have your answer quoted below.

. . .If the Lord was but one of many gods, why did the other gods not stop the Lord when he took over their lands? Why did they not ally themselves against the Lord and stop him when he began to spread across Europe? Surely a whole host of gods and goddesses could have stopped the Lord when he had but one lowly people to serve him. The gods of Egypt were much more numerous than the Lord and they had many more worshipers, but they still could not stop the Lord when he visited the plagues upon Egypt, why? Why i ask you, why could these other gods not stop the Lord?

So here's the core of your argument (emphasis added by me). Your god is true because the people that worship your god could conquer people that worshiped other gods. You view your god as the greatest...conqueror - the one victor out of many gods, and to the victor must go the spoils of war.

This view is so wrongheaded that I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps with the assumption that military might proves religious truth. If a Christian kills a lot of non-Christians in the name of Jesus, then his religion must be really true. But what if an Islamic extremist kills twice as many Non-Muslims? Does that make Allah twice as true as Jesus?

Or how about with the idea that deities own land?

Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sidhe]

The article never even stated the hypothesis is the consensus among modern scholar, it says the hypothesis influences the debate.

Then put forth a rival hypothesis, please. Some other thought on how it came together, supported by linguistic and literary evidence.

All I did was skip the "documentary hypothesis" and go straight to the root of it - the text depicts an evolving and changing view of G-d, from polytheistic (ALHIM) to henotheistic (IHVH ALHIM). While modern Judaism maintains that there is no god but God (though even that can vary by individual), linguistically, Proto-Judaism indicates henotheistic or polytheistic thought. The strict monotheism of Judaism dates to the Deuterocanonical period, if I'm correct.

What references did i cite? I simply said i found the hypothesis unconvincing

But you didn't state why. The ideas you cited - such as the notion that polytheism is a degradation of monotheism - are largely outdated and not supported by either archaeology or sociology. Furthermore, you by your own admission don't read Hebrew, and thus are basically dismissing my argument by saying "Nuh-uh, that's not what I read!", and then applying the Christian interpretation to the verses. I'm talking comparative literature - that means that we're doing historical criticism, not Christian interpretation of the scriptures. That means dismissing that ALHIM is plural with "It's the trinity" isn't acknowledging that the writers wouldn't have ever considered such a thing...but that in an environment where the surrounding cultures were worshiping diverse deities, henotheism would seem like a logical option.

Most Christians don't even hold to the "Moses wrote it all" theory. We believe a good deal of the Torah was written by Moses and the rest was added later from oral teachings taken from Moses. The article similarly doesn't state that the document hypothesis is the sole working hypothesis like you seem to think it is. Consensus doesn't equal fact, there was consensus that the world was flat once to. What i find most unconvincing though is that none of these "independent sources" that the books of the Torah were allegedly compiled from exist today and if they existed they are likely lost forever which is why this hypothesis will always be just that a hypothesis it is fundamentally a historical "what if" scenario. So at the end of the day your hypothesis and mine are equally valid.

A "what if" supported by linguistics and archaeology is a bit different from a "what if" supported by cart-before-horse logic. Your argument comes down to "Modern Christianity is monotheistic, therefor everything in the Bible must support monotheism." The text and the language do not support this idea, nor does the plethora of mid-eastern beliefs surrounding Judaism. Canaanite religion, Sumerian religion, Egyptian religion, Phoenician religion, Philistine religion...all these were present with Judaism in the era when the Torah tradition was set down.

And, to address your claim that Elijah was not performing magick (not magic...magic is sleight of hand, magick is creating change in accordance with will), let's look at the relevant section, 1 Kings 18:30-38:

30. Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD which had been torn down.
31. Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name."
32. So with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he made a trench around the altar, large enough to hold two measures of seed.
33. Then he arranged the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood.
34. And he said, "Fill four pitchers with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood." And he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time. And he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time.
35. The water flowed around the altar and he also filled the trench with water.
36. At the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and I have done all these things at Your word.
37. "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."
38. Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

Okay, what does he do first? He repairs the altar and sets it aright - that means he was preparing the area. How does he do this? He gathers 12 stones - one for each tribe of Israel - saying to the stones "Israel be your name" and from those builds the altar. He's created a symbol of the Israelite nation as a whole offering up the sacrifice as 12 stones named "Israel" becomes the altar holding the sacrifice up to G-d. Next, a large trench is dug around the altar, one would presume in a circle, defining the sacred space in which Elijah is working. Then once the sacrifice has been cut in pieces and placed upon the altar, he has it washed with four pitchers of water three times. Four pitchers of water reflect the four letters of the name of G-d, as well as represent a purifying of the offering. Furthermore, four multiplied by three yields twelve, representing each tribe of Israel again purifying and cleaning the offering.

When the time for the sacrifice comes, Elijah does not dance around, he does not cut himself, he stands and addressed G-d directly, almost as an equal. He uses the proper name - IHVH - and the title "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel." While he does say that he is G-d's servant, he does not grovel, he only asks G-d politely to act to turn the people back towards G-d, to show - not G-d's power - but that Elijah is right.

Symbolism, creation of an sacred space, purification, prayer and appeal to a higher power - that's theurgic magick, almost akin to using Enochian calls.

 

[Aesjn]

Symbolism, creation of an sacred space, purification, prayer and appeal to a higher power - that's theurgic magick, almost akin to using Enochian calls.

All the time when I hear Catholic and Orthodox priests talking about something they end talking about Hermeticism. I almost wanna scream "You know, you guys are Hermeticists, right?" Which is exactly why the early church had the problem with everyone saying they were doing the same thing as other people had already been doing. The church fathers even had to come up with an explaination for it: They didn't deny it was there like modern Christians do, they just said satan knew what was going to happen and created a counterfeit before Christ came and called it "diabolical inspiration."

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

I was unaware that the Jews believed in a trinity. These Jews don't seem to at all.

I was arguing in a Christian context not a Jewish one

Um...you're wrong. One only has to turn to the Bible to prove this claim wrong. What were the Israelites doing while Moses was receiving the commandments?

There are multiple interpretations of the ten commandments the first included

Turning to actual ancient texts from the time and location that Judaism comes to us, rather than a revisionist history where Judaism appeared in a vacuum all grown up and in its present form, we find that its roots are in the polytheistic tribal religions of the area. Ideas and beliefs change over time. What was once polytheism morphed into henotheism, which later made the transition to monotheism.

Honestly this idea only came around when Darwin introduced the theory of evolution, which in turned spawned various counter parts in other fields. In this case the theory of religious evolution. As you no doubt know evolution states more complicated organisms (religions in this case) evolved from less complicated organisms (religions), but this theory leaves out any possible miraculous factors, and miraculous factors are the very defining aspect of any religion. I would also like you to tell me how when and why we allegedly "revised" history. I would also like you to provide me with the names of these "Ancient texts". I'll say this again your view, like the theory of religious evolution leaves out any possibility of the miraculous.

Modern religions have a tendency to be very different from their ancient counterparts. Even the Catholicism of today is very different from 50 years ago, let alone 500 years ago. Priests used to face the same direction as the rest of the congregation instead of looking at them, and mass used to be in Latin. Today there are Catholics that have never experienced Catholicism in this way because the religion has changed within the last century.

I know, but that is development, not evolution. Judaism didn't appear in it's current form in a vacuum. It wasn't even Judaism until they became monotheistic. Judaism has been developing since Abraham began teaching the Israelites the ways of the Lord, and it will continue to develop for years to come. You are confusing development with evolution.

This is a terrible interpretation of the first commandment - you're forcing an English idiom into a Hebrew translation. It doesn't say "You shall have nothing before Me" - it says "You shall have no other before Me".

Like i said different interpretations of the first commandment are allowed in Christianity.

How many people think food or water are gods? Obviously everybody that stops praying to eat and drink has put their own survival before God and worshiped bread and blasphemed against god with water. However, this is not forbidden. This is silly.

That is over simplifying it.

What does this have to do with...anything? We're not talking about which god or pantheon is cooler. We're talking about the alleged polytheistic roots of Judaism.

It was more along the lines of sidhe's argument a ways back that the Hebrew God was just one of many

Though, following this derailment a bit more - why would god need to show he's more powerful than something if that something doesn't exist? The Bible says nothing about the Greek pantheon - does this mean he isn't more powerful than the Greek pantheon, or does this mean that the Greek pantheon doesn't really exist...but the Egyptian pantheon does?

Once again this was along the lines of sidhe's earlier argument about how the Hebrew God was but one of many. My point was compared to all the other "gods" the Hebrew God was in a very weak position and some how triumphed completely against the other thousands of gods.

Why should I accept the authority of Calvin on any topic apart from Calvinism? He's a great authority on the topic of Calvinism, but a terrible choice when it comes to Judaism or Hellenic Polytheism. I don't turn to a Rabbi to teach me about Catholic doctrine, and I don't ask a baker to explain open heart surgery.

Once again i am arguing from a Christian context not a Jewish one.

You claim to know a lot about the knowledge of ancient people. How did they come to know that the gods of Amorites were fake while the god of Israelites was real? I doubt they had well reasoned debates with each other or discovered that their god was really just a large sock puppet on the hand of the high priest... Well, it looks like we already have your answer quoted below.

I don't claim to know a lot about ancient people. Anyway the Israelites came to know that the Lord was true because of all the miracles and things he did for them. Every time they would turn to worshiping other gods the Lord punishes them, like he did in the Babylonian exile. They see these other gods can not help them so they know the other gods are false.

So here's the core of your argument (emphasis added by me). Your god is true because the people that worship your god could conquer people that worshiped other gods. You view your god as the greatest...conqueror - the one victor out of many gods, and to the victor must go the spoils of war.

No that is not my point. My point was that if these other gods were real and had power they would have stopped this renegade middle eastern god with a small rag tag group of followers before he did all this. Take for example the Hebrews during the time of the Romans they were by all means a regional religion, sure there were some Jews in Greece and Egypt, but they were very few. Suddenly Jesus is crucified and Christianity burst onto the scene, 300 years later Christianity has conquered the Roman Empire ideologically not militarily. In 300 short years over a thousand years of Roman paganism is trampled underfoot and the worship of the Lord reigns supreme.

This view is so wrongheaded that I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps with the assumption that military might proves religious truth. If a Christian kills a lot of non-Christians in the name of Jesus, then his religion must be really true. But what if an Islamic extremist kills twice as many Non-Muslims? Does that make Allah twice as true as Jesus?

For the most part neither Judaism or Christianity spread through military conquest as shown above. Look up the account of Saint Boniface and Thor's Oak for another good example.

At any rate we have majorly derailed the thread and we probably need to get back to the original topic of Hellenic Polytheism.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Then put forth a rival hypothesis, please. Some other thought on how it came together, supported by linguistic and literary evidence.

I don't have one that you or secular textual criticism scholars will accept mine relies on faith that God inspired the Scriptures

All I did was skip the "documentary hypothesis" and go straight to the root of it - the text depicts an evolving and changing view of G-d, from polytheistic (ALHIM) to henotheistic (IHVH ALHIM). While modern Judaism maintains that there is no god but God (though even that can vary by individual), linguistically, Proto-Judaism indicates henotheistic or polytheistic thought. The strict monotheism of Judaism dates to the Deuterocanonical period, if I'm correct.

I'm arguing why this is not convincing to a Christian

Furthermore, you by your own admission don't read Hebrew, and thus are basically dismissing my argument by saying "Nuh-uh, that's not what I read!", and then applying the Christian interpretation to the verses. I'm talking comparative literature - that means that we're doing historical criticism, not Christian interpretation of the scriptures. That means dismissing that ALHIM is plural with "It's the trinity" isn't acknowledging that the writers wouldn't have ever considered such a thing...but that in an environment where the surrounding cultures were worshiping diverse deities, henotheism would seem like a logical option.

Let me ask you this, The word Elohim (ALHIM) can be used as a "plural intensive" right? Meaning that even though the word is plural it can have a singular meaning when governing a singular adjective or verb.

Like i said before I'm arguing as to why this is not convincing to a Christian. We believe God inspired scripture so God could have very well hinted at his nature by using the word "Elohim". You will no doubt dismiss this as "wishful thinking"

A "what if" supported by linguistics and archaeology is a bit different from a "what if" supported by cart-before-horse logic. Your argument comes down to "Modern Christianity is monotheistic, therefor everything in the Bible must support monotheism." The text and the language do not support this idea, nor does the plethora of mid-eastern beliefs surrounding Judaism. Canaanite religion, Sumerian religion, Egyptian religion, Phoenician religion, Philistine religion...all these were present with Judaism in the era when the Torah tradition was set down.

A "what-if" supported by very little evidence is still a "what-if". The archaeological support for the Document hypothesis is non-existent, because for it to have archaeological support we would have to have the Pentateuch's alleged source documents, and we obviously don't have those. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no hard external evidence for the Document hypothesis. What religions were around the Israelites have nothing to do with whether the Bible supports monotheism or not. Similarly there is no archaeological evidence that Judaism was ever polytheistic as all of Judaism's early writings are monotheistic.

And, to address your claim that Elijah was not performing magick (not magic...magic is sleight of hand, magick is creating change in accordance with will), let's look at the relevant section, 1 Kings 18:30-38:



Okay, what does he do first? He repairs the altar and sets it aright - that means he was preparing the area. How does he do this? He gathers 12 stones - one for each tribe of Israel - saying to the stones "Israel be your name" and from those builds the altar. He's created a symbol of the Israelite nation as a whole offering up the sacrifice as 12 stones named "Israel" becomes the altar holding the sacrifice up to G-d. Next, a large trench is dug around the altar, one would presume in a circle, defining the sacred space in which Elijah is working. Then once the sacrifice has been cut in pieces and placed upon the altar, he has it washed with four pitchers of water three times. Four pitchers of water reflect the four letters of the name of G-d, as well as represent a purifying of the offering. Furthermore, four multiplied by three yields twelve, representing each tribe of Israel again purifying and cleaning the offering.

When the time for the sacrifice comes, Elijah does not dance around, he does not cut himself, he stands and addressed G-d directly, almost as an equal. He uses the proper name - IHVH - and the title "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel." While he does say that he is G-d's servant, he does not grovel, he only asks G-d politely to act to turn the people back towards G-d, to show - not G-d's power - but that Elijah is right.

Symbolism, creation of an sacred space, purification, prayer and appeal to a higher power - that's theurgic magick, almost akin to using Enochian calls.

The point is that Christian and Jewish tradition makes no use of "magick" nor does it claim that "magick" has any power neither religion has ever claimed other wise. You have to apply your theology to the verse to get your interpretation and if the verse is a literal one (like the Books of Kings are thought to be) then your interpretation can't be used because it relies on symbolism. Like i said before i seriously doubt Elijah thought he was doing magick. For me to accept your interpretation of the verse i would have to accept the power of magick and i would have to accept that magick was practiced in Judaism even though it was condemned. As you know i can accept neither of those premises

ANYWAY. We have seriously derailed the topic for a while now and out of respect to the OP we should get back to the topic of Hellenic Polytheism. I will happily continue this side discussion in another thread or via PM's or if you agree to we can stop the argument altogether as i am rather tired of this back and forth.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

huh...yeah..so..back to the OP lulz. I used to be a adherent of Religio Romana (Roman Polytheism) ..its kinda similar to Hellenic Polytheism.

 

[sidhe]

I don't have one that you or secular textual criticism scholars will accept mine relies on faith that God inspired the Scriptures

...so, you don't have one based on evidence? Then why are you arguing?

I'm arguing why this is not convincing to a Christian

This I find amusing...I first learned about textual criticism and these various linguistic oddities from a priest - as in, Sunday mass type. That Judaism was once a henotheistic or polytheistic religion didn't seem to matter to his faith. Dealing in absolutes is bad news.

Let me ask you this, The word Elohim (ALHIM) can be used as a "plural intensive" right? Meaning that even though the word is plural it can have a singular meaning when governing a singular adjective or verb.

Um, that's the issue. No, it doesn't. ALHIM seems to be almost like saying "The Smiths." You're referring to a singular family, but made up of multiple individual members. IHVH ALHIM is like saying "John Smith," you're referring to a particular member of the clan "Smith." That it is translated as a singular noun seems to be due to religious dogma rather than grammar. It's a plural noun, and it takes plural verb conjugations.

Like i said before I'm arguing as to why this is not convincing to a Christian. We believe God inspired scripture so God could have very well hinted at his nature by using the word "Elohim". You will no doubt dismiss this as "wishful thinking"

No, I'd dismiss that as a matter of faith. You can believe what you want concerning the text - if you want to believe that Elohim hints at the Trinity, that's perfectly fine, and in a Christian context it makes sense. Though, in that case, I'd really like to see some acknowledgment that the early church saw the Holy Spirit as feminine...the Sophia.

However, you don't get to dismiss history because it doesn't agree with you. Believing something in spite of the evidence is the very definition of faith..."Blessed is he who has not seen, and yet believed."

A "what-if" supported by very little evidence is still a "what-if". The archaeological support for the Document hypothesis is non-existent, because for it to have archaeological support we would have to have the Pentateuch's alleged source documents, and we obviously don't have those. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no hard external evidence for the Document hypothesis. What religions were around the Israelites have nothing to do with whether the Bible supports monotheism or not. Similarly there is no archaeological evidence that Judaism was ever polytheistic as all of Judaism's early writings are monotheistic.

But, the very use of a plural word for deity tells us that the writings are at the very least henotheistic. Hebrew has a singular word for deity, which is furthermore masculine - el. Aleph-Lamed. AL. The root of "ALHIM," and linked to the Arabic "Allah," which is also singular for "God." If they have a singular word for God (AL), and a proper name for God (IHVH), then why use a plural noun to describe deity? The Christian answer is that they're hinting at the Trinity. The academic answer is henotheism or polytheism.

The point is that Christian and Jewish tradition makes no use of "magick" nor does it claim that "magick" has any power neither religion has ever claimed other wise. You have to apply your theology to the verse to get your interpretation and if the verse is a literal one (like the Books of Kings are thought to be) then your interpretation can't be used because it relies on symbolism. Like i said before i seriously doubt Elijah thought he was doing magick. For me to accept your interpretation of the verse i would have to accept the power of magick and i would have to accept that magick was practiced in Judaism even though it was condemned. As you know i can accept neither of those premises

So...could you accept that he performed a ritual using symbolism to properly address God, leading up to a prayer that God act on his behalf and that that's perfectly okay? If not, don't go to Mass - the robes, the procession, the text are all symbols and reminders of the Catholic faith leading up to the prayer that God change the bread and wine into flesh and blood.

Also, cite where magical arts are condemned in the OT.

ANYWAY. We have seriously derailed the topic for a while now and out of respect to the OP we should get back to the topic of Hellenic Polytheism. I will happily continue this side discussion in another thread or via PM's or if you agree to we can stop the argument altogether as i am rather tired of this back and forth.

I'm pretty tired of it, too. Though, if you didn't really want to know, you shouldn't have asked.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I was arguing in a Christian context not a Jewish one

Exactly. And you did so in reply to a post where I already pointed out that I'm familiar with the Christian rationale - and that this can hardly apply to the historical context.

Look here: by the time Christianity appeared on the stage of world history, introducing the concept of the trinity, the Torah had been around for centuries - possibly for approximately 500 years. What do you think the original scribes and readers thought of when the text said: "See, man has become like one of us", after the text refered to the Elohim ("gods") before?
The father, son, and holy ghost? Hardly.

There are multiple interpretations of the ten commandments the first included

Right. And the Christian one is decidedly anachronistic, not fitting into the historical context in any way, shape, or form.
Do you even know which deity was usually represented as a golden calf or cow in Egypt? "Making things your god" would have been an alien concept in the ancient world.

Honestly this idea only came around when Darwin introduced the theory of evolution, which in turned spawned various counter parts in other fields.

Can you say "EPIC FAIL"? Religious studies as an academic pursuit had been around for DECADES before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species".
I grant you that the 19th century did indeed subscribe to the misconception that monotheism was "more civilized/advanced" than polytheism, based on the imperialist/colonialist bias of the times - yet that does not subtract from the fact that people did begin to unearth archaeological and/or textual evidence that *did* contradict the Biblical literalist world view with regards to the history of religion.

In this case the theory of religious evolution. As you no doubt know evolution states more complicated organisms (religions in this case) evolved from less complicated organisms (religions)

Actually, that's a faulty interpretation of the Theory of Evolution (although I grant you that people in the 19th century did indeed hold such views):
evolution is not about a linear progress from "less evolved" to "more evolved" - it is a constant process of adaptation to the circumstances, emphasizing traits that are needed in a particular environment as a favourable selective feature.

I would also like you to tell me how when and why we allegedly "revised" history.

By projecting the concept of the Trinity upon a text that was written hundreds of years before the advent of Christianity.
It's the equivalent of a muslim finding references to Muhammad in the New Testament.

I would also like you to provide me with the names of these "Ancient texts".

Ugaritic literature, for starters.

No that is not my point. My point was that if these other gods were real and had power they would have stopped this renegade middle eastern god with a small rag tag group of followers before he did all this.

We're talking about what people *believed*, not about the actual presence of deities. Notice the difference? In a henotheistic context, Proto-Judaism simply asserted that their god was more powerful than the others. Remember what Aaron's snake-staff did to the snakes summoned by the Egyptian priests? That wasn't about a true miracle vs. a fake miracle: it was about YHVH demonstrating that he was stronger than all the rest.

Take for example the Hebrews during the time of the Romans they were by all means a regional religion, sure there were some Jews in Greece and Egypt, but they were very few. Suddenly Jesus is crucified and Christianity burst onto the scene, 300 years later Christianity has conquered the Roman Empire ideologically not militarily. In 300 short years over a thousand years of Roman paganism is trampled underfoot and the worship of the Lord reigns supreme.

Which had anything to do with politics, and nothing whatsoever to do with supernatural patronage.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

I'll answer i few points, but like i said in previous posts i do not wish to hijack this thread any further

Can you say "EPIC FAIL"? Religious studies as an academic pursuit had been around for DECADES before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species".
I grant you that the 19th century did indeed subscribe to the misconception that monotheism was "more civilized/advanced" than polytheism, based on the imperialist/colonialist bias of the times - yet that does not subtract from the fact that people did begin to unearth archaeological and/or textual evidence that *did* contradict the Biblical literalist world view with regards to the history of religion.

I said that the idea came from the theory of evolution spawning counter-parts (other theories) in other fields. I in no way stated that the field of Religious studies as an academic pursuit hadn't been around.

Actually, that's a faulty interpretation of the Theory of Evolution (although I grant you that people in the 19th century did indeed hold such views):
evolution is not about a linear progress from "less evolved" to "more evolved" - it is a constant process of adaptation to the circumstances, emphasizing traits that are needed in a particular environment as a favourable selective feature.

Yeah i know, but then we have to get into Macro and Micro evolution, and neither of those concepts applies to religion.

By projecting the concept of the Trinity upon a text that was written hundreds of years before the advent of Christianity.
It's the equivalent of a muslim finding references to Muhammad in the New Testament.

You don't get the Christian concept of divine authorship of scripture do you? If we are to assume for even a second the Bible is of Divine authorship then we can then assume that God could have "known the end before it happened" and used Elohim to describe his nature.

We're talking about what people *believed*, not about the actual presence of deities. Notice the difference? In a henotheistic context, Proto-Judaism simply asserted that their god was more powerful than the others.

I wasn't even arguing along the point you addressed, but anyway

Remember what Aaron's snake-staff did to the snakes summoned by the Egyptian priests? That wasn't about a true miracle vs. a fake miracle: it was about YHVH demonstrating that he was stronger than all the rest.

Both Christian and Jewish tradition hold that these "secret arts" of the Egyptian magicians involved the use and summoning of demons. Which is why Christian and Jewish scholars will not attribute these verse to proving a "henotheistic" view.

Which had anything to do with politics, and nothing whatsoever to do with supernatural patronage.

Constantine's vision can indeed be attributed to "supernatural patronage". Ultimately he is the only one who can say if it was or not.

Now as i said earlier i do not wish to to derail the thread further. We can go around and around like this for years and years to come, but it is pointless and am willing to stop the argument here and now. Both of us have better things to do than bicker on the Internet. Agreed?

 

[morningstar2651]

Doublepost

 

[morningstar2651]

No that is not my point. My point was that if these other gods were real and had power they would have stopped this renegade middle eastern god with a small rag tag group of followers before he did all this. Take for example the Hebrews during the time of the Romans they were by all means a regional religion, sure there were some Jews in Greece and Egypt, but they were very few. Suddenly Jesus is crucified and Christianity burst onto the scene, 300 years later Christianity has conquered the Roman Empire ideologically not militarily. In 300 short years over a thousand years of Roman paganism is trampled underfoot and the worship of the Lord reigns supreme.

For the most part neither Judaism or Christianity spread through military conquest as shown above. Look up the account of Saint Boniface and Thor's Oak for another good example.

At any rate we have majorly derailed the thread and we probably need to get back to the original topic of Hellenic Polytheism.

I'd like to follow this line of thought a bit further before returning to Hellenic Polytheism because it's one that you're trying to avoid... and you probably shouldn't.

My point was that if these other gods were real and had power they would have stopped this renegade middle eastern god with a small rag tag group of followers before he did all this.

I've italicized a couple of points. First, why would the gods band together to stop your god, and what do you mean "before he did all this"? You make it sound as if He did something terrible.

In 300 short years over a thousand years of Roman paganism is trampled underfoot and the worship of the Lord reigns supreme.

Three hundred years is not short. And what happened after Constantine introduced compulsory Christianity?

"If we take a traditional (and predominantly Christian) view of the collapse of Rome, then conventional wisdom tells us that Rome was destroyed by decadence, sunken beneath the rising scum-line of its orgies, of its own sexual permissiveness. The merest skim through Gibbon, on the other hand, will demonstrate that Rome had been a heaving, decadent and orgiastic fleshpot more or less since its inception. It had fornicated its way quite successfully through several centuries without showing any serious signs of harm as a result. Once Constantine had introduced compulsory Christianity to the Empire, though, it barely lasted for another hundred years." - Alan Moore
​

The "holy" Roman Empire is far from a good example. If we turn to history, we find that many of the church's dogma and doctrine was politically motivated by the various Emperors. One even held the Pope hostage. Today it's called an "ecumenical council".

For the most part neither Judaism or Christianity spread through military conquest as shown above.

I refer you to the "conversion" of the Frisians.

"From the time of Constantine onwards, a concerted effort was made to Christianize the various ‘heathen’ peoples that inhabited much of Western Europe. Redbad, the leader of Frisia from 679 – 719 AD, is the greatest folk hero of the Frisians and was a devoted heathen. Previous to his rule, Christian missionaries had been let into Frisia. He soon saw to their expulsion and burned their churches behind them. After Redbad’s death, Charles Martel, ‘The Hammer,’ managed to defeat the Frisians at the Battle of the River Boorne in 734 AD. In the following years missionaries once again ‘converted’ the Frisians. This was only a superficial arrangement and almost certainly was mainly a lip service paid by the Frisian leaders. However, the church influenced the ruling class to stamp out the oral tradition of the Frisians by silencing the heathen priests and skalds or bards who had sung the epic poems of Frisia. It is reported that in 793 AD there was only one bard left alive, Bernlef. Most consider the actual defeat of heathenism in Frisia as the date when Charlemagne, Martel’s grandson, defeated the alliance of East Frisia and Saxony in 785 AD. However, it is interesting to note that when Charlemagne codified the laws of all the conquered people sometime after 800 AD, the Frisians produced not only the Lex Frisonium but also a pagan legend accompanying its creation. The tale revolves around the 12 Asegas, or ‘law-speakers,’ of Frisia. When asked for their laws, they inform Charlemagne that they cannot agree upon them and so he sets them adrift in a ship without a helm. After a time spent in prayer, a thirteenth person appears with them; a god with a golden axe, presumably Fosite, the god of justice, who proclaims Frisian law to the Asegas. It is obvious, then, that Frisian paganism existed well past the time of their ‘conversion.’" - Catherine Buma​

Ugaritic literature, for starters.

Exactly what I had in mind.

Here are some links.

Ugarit and the Bible
iTanakh > Texts > Ugaritic Texts
What's Ugaritic Got to Do with Anything?

Returning to the original topic, have you heard of the Theoi project? It's been a great help to me. For example, when I was looking up information about the ancient cults of Aphrodite:

CULT OF APHRODITE 1 : Ancient Greek religion
CULT OF APHRODITE 2 : Ancient Greek religion

Both Christian and Jewish tradition hold that these "secret arts" of the Egyptian magicians involved the use and summoning of demons. Which is why Christian and Jewish scholars will not attribute these verse to proving a "henotheistic" view.

And now for the final riff on polytheism to tie this post together. The word demon comes to us from a Greek word Daimon.

It means "lesser god".

Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Nooj]

Hi! Id like to ask members of this forum about their opinions or questions about Hellenic Polytheism (Greek Polytheism)

Thanks,
Deukal

Hello Deukal. What attracted you to the worship of Hellenic gods?

 

[Eudaimonist]

A daimon is a conscious being of a stature in between that of human beings and the gods. It's a broad category, and may include both "good" and "evil" beings. The concept does not correspond well to either Christian or Hebrew categories, as it comes from a different mythological system.

Some Greeks apparently believed that every human individual was alotted a daimon at birth to impart wisdom, which probably carried over into the Catholic concept of "guardian angels".


eudaimonia,

Mark