- Jul 19, 2017
- 563
- 71
- 44
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Private
Also, if you can look at the dialogue between myself and Quid Est Veritas. Check my other postings, thanks.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The history of religion in anthropology is that over some 40,000 years the original truth concerning
the Creation has been corrupted and lost.
However, Jesus the Creator of our living planet and us humans, put into action a rescue plan
to bring again knowledge and experience of the truth.
He formed a man named Adam, separated him from the rest of humankind, and from him would
come the lineage and generations to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, who would -
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:
and because of Jesus' atoning death for our sins and alienation from God, his burial, and his resurrection from death, Jesus gave to his disciples the Kingdom of God and the promise of life eternal.
Furthermore, because Jesus returned back to his Father in victory true worshippers are now able to
worship God (the Father and the Son) in spirit and in truth.
Disciples of the full gospel of salvation are able to be baptized with the indwelling Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of truth.
By this connection and interaction with the living God of creation, the God of Israel, we are able to
discern spiritual truth.
Satan and his hordes have done much to corrupt religion and the spiritual during human history.
One can study the work and influence of satanic false religion from Mesopotamia to China to the Americas. He is after all a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
Fortunately for all of us Jesus came to earth to put things right.
And now we have access to the truth about God, salvation and how to enter the Kingdom of God.
So this is my remake of the longer response I was writing, I know it has been a while in coming, but details take time. I ignored a lot of the things I considered irrelevant. Feel free to bring something up if you think I missed something important.
I don't think this is the most conducive environment for the kind of discussion you want to have. If you're really hoping to start a wider debate, you would be better off publishing your arguments in academic literature, and defending them in the ensuing discussion.
Melchizedek is said to be a Priest of El Elyon, (God Most High), it is important to note that El is never used in the Bible to mean a personal Caananite deity in the Bible, it is only ever used as a generic term for God,* So Elyon is the only possibility for a personal name of a deity in this case, but there is no such deity outside the Bible** and "most high" is never attributed to El in the Ugaritic texts***
*Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
**Dr. Richard Hess, Earl S. Kalland Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary
Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith
***Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. Theologische. A Rift in the Clouds : Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990.
It's not an issue of being believable, it's an issue of having a distinct theology. Sure, symbols and motifs might be the same, as Genesis was written in large part as a response to other creation narratives, but more as a rebuttal or an alternative with a distinct theology for Israel as opposed to a syncretism, or adoption. (iow "Marduk didn't create the world, Yahweh did" human nature isn't like that, it's like this… etc )
Gardens, snakes, trees, these are all motifs, they're details yes, but they're not really any evidence of theological adaption, the similarities are about communicating to their culture. As I've noted, they teach a distinctive theology. If I were a literalist though, I might argue that these things are merely evidence of people making mistakes about the real story.
Which is fine, because Genesis even describes the garden in that location.
Similar inspiration would imply similar philosophical/theological constructs/propositions from the narratives. We don't see that. Quite the opposite in fact.
Deductive fallacy, your premise doesn't imply your conclusion. There's no reason one couldn't understand monotheism conceptually just because polytheists had more social cache in the first languages we're aware of.
I'm seeing technical arguments as I search them. Even if you didn't accept their technical arguments, they're not merely asserting.
Also, regarding the claim that El and Yahweh have different behaviors in the Bible, that is apparently very debatable.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?q=JC+De+moor+Yahweh+el&safe=active&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&ei=qf91WYHaPOXajwSwo5mYBw&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el"
Daniel Porter, God Among Gods: An Analysis of the Function of Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deut. 32 and Psalm 82 Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg VA, 2010
Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith
How about rather than demanding I explain the entirety the possible cultural influences on the Bible, you pick a particular topic that you think supports your point and we can discuss it.
Is this the example you want to use? It seems irrelevant to your grand argument.
Anyway, like I said earlier in my response, I don't think this particular format is the most conducive to the discussion you want to have, it doesn't look like a lot of people bothered responding.
Christianity was instigated by no less than God himself as the author of truth.Well I think you are replying to "The problem of discussing Christianity as its own origin is that it is not essentially, it is an adaptation (rightfully so) of older stories."
First I'd like to know how it is a false premise? Please provide how it is a false premise.
Christianity was instigated by no less than God himself as the author of truth.
All religions are promulgated by spirit beings, whether good or evil.
The religions of Mesopotamia mimic Biblical accounts because Satan had already began the process
of destroying truth and the worshipping of the one true God, the Creator.
Thankfully, Jesus has compassion for his creation and is aware of the deceiving works of the Adversary.
And now even more than the giving of the Law to Moses we can worship God in spirit and in truth.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from death is the ultimate victory of all other false religions and
whatever stories and doctrines they have.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6
Thank God I am not dependant on academic unbelief, nor their suppositions on the development of
religion in human history.
Religion does not evolve through human imaginations, but rather is a product of our connections and
experiences with the spirit world.
Not all angelic beings have our best interests in mind.
No what is absurd are academics and intellectuals who are writing about things they know nothing about.Don't get me wrong, I like Christian folklore but to assert that it predated polytheism and then to further contend it didn't develop from polytheism is just absurd.
I wonder if the depiction of winged humans and winged gods is derived from actually
interacting with 'flying' entities like angels pretending to be gods to the Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians?
View attachment 202500
No what is absurd are academics and intellectuals who are writing about things they know nothing about.
Religion is revelation and experience. Your academics are blind and know nothing of the true history
of gods, angels and the Almighty warring over our souls.
The anthropology of religion is as flawed and crappy as the theory of evolution.
The blind leading the blind.
Okay so keep in mind that my assertion is that monotheism develops from polytheism, whether directly or indirectly. Also, polytheism develops from polytheism as well, and henotheism develops from polytheism. It is an adoption, not an exact copy that occurs, the creation epic in Genesis is not an exact copy of the Enuma Elis in Babylon, or even the Epic of Atum, but we can see similarities and conceptualizations, most people ignore this and assume that exact parallels are what is attempting to be shown, this is not the case.
As far as posting, didn’t think you were going to respond so I posted elsewhere. Don’t know why you think it isn’t beneficial? People not responding to the post is kind of an expectation.
Also, pre Semitic language is Sumerian language, and the Sumerian’s are polytheistic. So you’d have dispute that Sumer didn’t have a Pre Semitic language and you’d have to dispute that the Israelite’s were pre Sumer in order to have a foundation that there was no cultural diffusion whether directly or indirectly.
Melchizedek, we know from Genesis 14, was the Jebusite (a tribe of Canaan) priest of El-Elyon, and it seems natural to hold that the royal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek reflects a fusion of the Israelite and Jebusite royal ideologies affected soon after the conquest of the city.
In that case the mythical sounding reference to the dawn in Ps. 110.3 could well derive from the same source.
Thirdly, what further bares this out is the very name of the city of Jerusalem. It is generally accepted that in origin this denoted 'the foundation of [the god] Shalem', Shalem being the god of dusk (cf. Jeruel, 'foundation of El' in 2 Chron. 20.16). It is interesting that Shahar (dawn) and Shalem (dusk) are brothers in Ugaritic mythology, as they were begotten at the same time by the god El (KTU2 1.2.3). If the god Shalem ('dusk') was prominent in Jebusite Jerusalem mythology, it is only natural that his brother Shahar, 'dawn', would appear there as well.
In Biblical literature “El is never used in the Bible to mean a personal Canaanite deity in the Bible, it is only ever used as a generic term for God,” I don’t know if I totally agree with this and here is why.
The issue of 'El' in the Old Testament as a Reflection of Canaanite El and eventually, of course, the name El simply became a general word for 'God' in the Old Testament, and so it is found many times. For example, there is the well-known phrase about Yahweh's being 'a jealous God' ('el qannd'), which clearly reflects the unique distinctiveness of Yahwism rather than anything to do with the Canaanite god El. Also, in many other instances throughout the Old Testament there is no doubt that 'el is simply a general name for God without any reflection of the Canaanite background. This has rightly been noted by R. Rendtorff.
However, there are several instances where the use of the word 'el does seem to reflect the Canaanite background. Where a strong case can be made for this is in those instances in which the Old Testament employs the word 'el in a context that is particularly suggestive of the Canaanite El, especially if such a usage occurs more than once. Thus, for example, just as El was the leader of the divine assembly (the sons of El), so the name 'el is twice found in this context. In Ps. 82.1 we read that 'God has taken his place in the divine council' ('elohim nissdb ba'a dat-'el; cf. Ugaritic (dt. 'ilm, 'assembly of the gods', in KTU2 1.15.II.7, 11). This divine council consists of the 'sons of the Most High' in v. 6, who are here sentenced to death, having previously had jurisdiction over the nations of the earth (v. 8), and in Jewish thought they were numbered as seventy. There can be detected here a connection with the seventy sons of God in Deut. 32.8, deriving from the seventy sons of El, discussed above.
The divine assembly didn't have much use in the Bible, it seemed simply a motif for recognizing the greatness of Yahweh.The divine assembly is also referred to in Isa. 14.13 by means of a word from the same root as in Ps. 82.1, where the Shining One, son of the dawn boasts, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God ('el) I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly (har mo'ed)'.
Except that "sons of" according to Anderson can be just a reference for the divine realm. Which is likely in this case.It will be recalled that at Ugarit El's assembly of the gods did indeed meet on a mountain. It is also interesting that the name of 'el (God) is mentioned in the phrase 'stars of God', and that the stars and the sons of God are sometimes equated (Job 38.7; cf. KTU2 1.10.1.3-4).
That cherry-pick was so arbitrary, I'm in shock.It may, therefore also be significant that the first half of Psalm 19, which highlights God's role as creator, specifically refers to him as 'el (v. 2, ET 1).
So strange then that so much of the Bible opposes worshipping idols.Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22). In this case I depict Ba’al in Ugaritic texts, Ba’al is equated with El in iconography.
That is fine, but keep in mind Genesis would have to adopt a Garden in order to have one in its legend, as it is already a concept that is passed around orally. Genesis is written around 1700 bc or so, also if you are making the claim that Genesis is not an exact copy of other culture’s writings and it must be unique, if that is what you are attempting it is a bad claim. None of those culture’s writings directly reflect each other, hence my stance on polytheism influencing polytheism.
We don’t have previous copies of the Bible beyond 1200 bc or so. I don’t see how the Genesis is any more of rebuttal than Enumal Elish is to Eridu Genesis, what is your point here?
Any concept of God, and understanding of God is a type of theology, be it ancient or modern. Labeling something this or that has no bearing on the underlying concept. As far as theology developing over time, it can develop over time, or it can be relatively quickly revealed. And this is the problem I see the most with your argument, you focus on similar names and pictures and symbols, but I haven't heard you say anything about the israelite concepts of sin, and redemption and everything else.Regardless of theology there still is an adoption of subject matters, motifs, spiritual and political inspiration is being accepted between the cultures. Theology develops over time, so I can see theology being important. But a little more on theology, biblical scholars have used the label “Israelite ‘myth’” for Israelite material paralleled by the Ugaritic myths, and virtually equate “Israel’s religious "myth” with its “theology.” “Theology,” a label often restricted to texts sacred to modern religious tradition, has been applied more recently to ancient Near Eastern texts besides the Bible.
In the words of J. D. Levenson, the two “reinforce each other: history concretizes cosmology, and cosmology lifts history above the level of the mundane.”
For your deductive fallacy, you’d have to show that the people of Sumer were monotheist, which they were not. In order to have a one God prevailing over mankind and creating humans, and everything else, he’d have to be a singular God. But, with the people of Sumer we don’t see that and prior to Sumer we don’t see monotheistic civilizations in existence. So I have no clue what you are getting at?
Right and I assert that El and Yahweh have different characteristics, this can be debated. Your thoughts, thou it doesn’t really mean much either in scope of monotheism and polytheism and developments pertaining thereto.
I'm not sure most people outright ignore similarities, but it is important to understand the distinction between popular cultural motifs and sources of theology. You may have many similar motifs and very different theology, especially in polemical literature.
Eh actually I thought you posted this on a different forum for some reason. I actually wonder if my jumping on this didn't cheat you out of an even better opponent.
Language doesn't create religion, even if the ancient Israelites had the exact same language (with the exception of the use of the word el), that doesn't really mean anything with regards to their theology. I don't see any argument here for you.
Aaaaand this is what I mean by jumping to conclusions. If it's not one deity it's another, but none of your previous arguments even apply to this one, so you're basically starting over. It seems like the solution to you is "any solution whereby the monotheism of ancient Israel came from polytheism", any position seems acceptable except the obvious. You might have one argument for this polytheistic origin and another for that, but they can keep being shot down. Regarding Melchizedek as a Jebusite, scholars aren't clear on whether the author of Genesis intended him to be understood as a Jebusite, or part of an earlier group.
Come again? Melchizedek was believed to be a priest in the temple of zedek, not El. Beyond that a mythical figure. Cherry-picking the word "dawn" out of the psalms(the psalms no less which are supposed to be poetic) as some kind of proof-text evidence doesn't equate to any kind of substantial evidence. I could cherry-pick any random word I wanted like "spear" and say it's connected to a new testament quote from Jesus about "swords" because spears and swords go together often. That's basically the equivalent of the argument you made.
So another point for me.
According to Daniel Block, "Gods of the Nations" 2000, this argument is far fetched, and he and an author I previously cited go on to offer a few rebuttals.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?q=JC+De+moor+Yahweh+el&safe=active&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&ei=qf91WYHaPOXajwSwo5mYBw&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el"
The divine assembly didn't have much use in the Bible, it seemed simply a motif for recognizing the greatness of Yahweh.
Except that "sons of" according to Anderson can be just a reference for the divine realm. Which is likely in this case.
That cherry-pick was so arbitrary, I'm in shock.
So strange then that so much of the Bible opposes worshipping idols.
Rebuttals are written after the work they're rebutting. There's no problem with that. Culture that happened to be polytheist influenced Israelite Monotheism, but polytheism was obviously not part of that influence. The Israelites had very distinct opinions on their theology, and the relationship between humanity and God which was not reflected in the surrounding religious systems. To really understand influence you have to take yourself out of the world of images and pictures, and start looking at the concepts behind their ideas and identities. Otherwise you'll never develop a strong argument.
Any concept of God, and understanding of God is a type of theology, be it ancient or modern. Labeling something this or that has no bearing on the underlying concept. As far as theology developing over time, it can develop over time, or it can be relatively quickly revealed. And this is the problem I see the most with your argument, you focus on similar names and pictures and symbols, but I haven't heard you say anything about the israelite concepts of sin, and redemption and everything else.
No, you're equating language with theology. Language doesn't matter here. Theology matters if you want to prove something about monotheism or any theism for that matter.
Neither do yours. The point is, you're stating certain things as if they're factual, but I'm challenging them because they're not.
At this point, I actually think I'm going to withdraw, not because I couldn't keep going, but because these posts take a lot of time. In spite of the fact that you've obviously done a lot of research on this topic, I don't think you are headed down the right track with this argument, because you seem to be over focused on trying to wring out interpretations of the bible that you can claim have some kind of root in polytheism, a lot of them have been pretty well shot down by Daniel Porter in this article here that I've cited before.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?q=JC+De+moor+Yahweh+el&safe=active&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&ei=qf91WYHaPOXajwSwo5mYBw&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el"
Furthermore, I think the real origin of Monotheism, whether it was intuited in the days of yore, before or after polytheism, or God found some polytheists and revealed himself specifically to them, is forever lost to antiquity.
But I'll leave you all to discuss that in my absence. Have fun. I might poke back every once in a while to see how its going. God bless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?