What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

Jane_the_Bane · Nov 7, 2011

Robban said:
Because I,ve checked it out, that,s how.

How? What were your sources?

If you say "the Bible" or "the Tanakh" - oh well, I hate to break it to you, but there's very little verified history contained in the Abrahamic legends as they appear in Genesis:

"It is generally recognised by scholars that there is nothing in the Genesis stories that can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium: none of the kings mentioned is known, Abimelech could not be a Philistine (they did not arrive till centuries later), Ur could not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, and Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, notes that the past four or five decades have seen a growing consensus that the Genesis narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires. Blenkinsopp describes two conclusions about Abraham that are widely held in biblical scholarship: the first is that, except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," he is not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile ; the second is that he became, in the Persian period, a model for those who would return from Babylon to Judah. Beyond this the Abraham story (and those of Isaac and Jacob/Israel) served a theological purpose following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship: despite the loss of these things, Yahweh's dealings with the ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built. There is basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary and originated when he became identified as the father of Jacob and ancestor of the northern tribes; his association with Mamre and Hebron, on the other hand (in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah), suggest that this region was the original home of his cult." (Source)

razeontherock · Nov 7, 2011

It always amuses me when academia has to put such simple things in ways like that, and then congratulate themselves that they've done something. Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just recognize that when things got written down, names and places were recorded in a fashion that would have meaning to the audience? The meaning was preserved until that time, and they passed it along in a form that would be meaningful for quite some time. That most of the significance is lost on us now, is what necessitates hermeneutics.

Robban · Nov 7, 2011

Jane_the_Bane said:
How? What were your sources?

If you say "the Bible" or "the Tanakh" - oh well, I hate to break it to you, but there's very little verified history contained in the Abrahamic legends as they appear in Genesis:

"It is generally recognised by scholars that there is nothing in the Genesis stories that can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium: none of the kings mentioned is known, Abimelech could not be a Philistine (they did not arrive till centuries later), Ur could not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, and Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, notes that the past four or five decades have seen a growing consensus that the Genesis narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires. Blenkinsopp describes two conclusions about Abraham that are widely held in biblical scholarship: the first is that, except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," he is not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile ; the second is that he became, in the Persian period, a model for those who would return from Babylon to Judah. Beyond this the Abraham story (and those of Isaac and Jacob/Israel) served a theological purpose following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship: despite the loss of these things, Yahweh's dealings with the ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built. There is basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary and originated when he became identified as the father of Jacob and ancestor of the northern tribes; his association with Mamre and Hebron, on the other hand (in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah), suggest that this region was the original home of his cult." (Source)

Hate to break it to you, but I did not bother reading your post.

Jane_the_Bane · Nov 7, 2011

Robban said:
Hate to break it to you, but I did not bother reading your post.

Oh, by all means, don't let facts interfere with your superstitions!

Have a nice day!

GuardianShua · Nov 7, 2011

Rationalt said:
Something on Elohim the plural:From a jewish site.
Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El, leads them to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods. This plural form, however, can be explained as a "royal" plural. Several other aspects of the account of Hebrew religion in Genesis also imply a polytheistic faith.
The earliest Hebrew religion was animistic, that is, the Hebrews seemed worship forces of nature that dwelled in natural objects.

As a result, much of early Hebrew religion had a number of practices that fall into the category of magic: scapegoat sacrifice and various forms of imitative magic, all of which are preserved in the text of Genesis .

Early Hebrew religion eventually became anthropomorphic, that is, god or the gods took human forms; in later Hebrew religion, Yahweh becomes a figure that transcends the human and material worlds. Individual tribes probably worshipped different gods; there is no evidence in Genesis that anything like a national God existed in the time of the patriarchs.

Elohiym is a plural name title because it means "God of Beings." The word "Beings" makes it plural. A plural name or name title does not make a plural being.

durangodawood · Nov 7, 2011

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:
Other gods were created by mankind to compete against Yahwah. And that is the reason for Polytheism.

Thats purely a statement of faith.
.

Greg1234 · Nov 7, 2011

Rationalt said:
Something on Elohim the plural:From a jewish site.
Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic; the curious plural form of the name of God, Elohim rather than El, leads them to believe that the original Hebrew religion involved several gods. This plural form, however, can be explained as a "royal" plural. Several other aspects of the account of Hebrew religion in Genesis also imply a polytheistic faith.

"Polytheism" better defined as idolatry. Hence its role as the initiative force suggests the primitive, materialistic commencement of religion rather than a unified, transcendent basis (why do you think it's so important to Darwinists that polytheism precedes monotheism?). Defined otherwise it doesn't realy mean anything. It's like saying a man who calls you by your name is "monoadamic" while later in the afternoon he becomes "polyadamic" when he refers to you by your constituents.

What is actually happening here is the multifaceted nature of a single being being emphasized and while multiple, it is still one. "A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps 82:1). "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD."(Deut 6:4).

— The earliest Hebrew religion was animistic, that is, the Hebrews seemed worship forces of nature that dwelled in natural objects.

"Animism" persists simultaneously with the One. Natural objects (viz., a human, plant, etc) are animated by the spirit. God is omnipresent.

— As a result, much of early Hebrew religion had a number of practices that fall into the category of magic: scapegoat sacrifice and various forms of imitative magic, all of which are preserved in the text of Genesis .

This was explained in Heb 9.

— Early Hebrew religion eventually became anthropomorphic, that is, god or the gods took human forms; in later Hebrew religion, Yahweh becomes a figure that transcends the human and material worlds. Individual tribes probably worshipped different gods; there is no evidence in Genesis that anything like a national God existed in the time of the patriarchs.

How exactly do they "eventually became anthropomorphic" when the very prophets were recognized the human forms of God (Jn 10:34-35)?

Greg1234 · Nov 7, 2011

Jane_the_Bane said:
How? What were your sources?

If you say "the Bible" or "the Tanakh" - oh well, I hate to break it to you, but there's very little verified history contained in the Abrahamic legends as they appear in Genesis:

"It is generally recognised by scholars that there is nothing in the Genesis stories that can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium:

Who said that history was confined to "Canaan of the early 2nd millennium?"

none of the kings mentioned is known, Abimelech could not be a Philistine (they did not arrive till centuries later), Ur could not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, and Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century. Joseph Blenkinsopp,

Chaldea and Aram existed long before that date. An identifiable political entity? Is that what someone has to be to be Aramean?

Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, notes that the past four or five decades have seen a growing consensus that the Genesis narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires.

Funny how it goes back further than that and the earliest copies don't represent the original. Bible may be centuries older than thought - UPI.com

Rationalt · Nov 7, 2011

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:
Elohiym is a plural name title because it means "God of Beings." The word "Beings" makes it plural. A plural name or name title does not make a plural being.

There were No beings at the time of creation.

Here is One of The creation verses:

Genesis 1:26 And God(Elohim) said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...

Obviously there are Gods .

Rationalt · Nov 7, 2011

Greg1234 said:
"Polytheism" better defined as idolatry. ...

Not necessary.Worship of Multiple deities is polytheism.

What is actually happening here is the multifaceted nature of a single being being emphasized and while multiple, it is still one. "A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps 82:1). "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD."(Deut 6:4).

God standeth in the congregation of God is meaningless unless it is " God(Elohim) standeth in the congregation of Gods(Elohim).I was told that Elohim can be used in both singular and plural terms in hebrew.The verb used decides it.

multifaceted nature of a single being

Perhaps that is what Cananites were doing .

Ishraqiyun · Nov 7, 2011

Missionaries are often known for biasing writings in favor of their religion and against other competing religions. It's their job to make their religion look good and others look bad. Not the first place I would look for an unbiased account.

Rationalt · Nov 7, 2011

Missed this..

"Animism" persists simultaneously with the One. Natural objects (viz., a human, plant, etc) are animated by the spirit. God is omnipresent.

Yahweh desiring the blood of animals can be termed as animism.
ex:Leviticus17-11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

and there are other references like Genesis 9:4 ,Leviticus 17:14 etc

durangodawood · Nov 7, 2011

razeontherock said:
It always amuses me when academia has to put such simple things in ways like that, and then congratulate themselves that they've done something. Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just recognize that when things got written down, names and places were recorded in a fashion that would have meaning to the audience? The meaning was preserved until that time, and they passed it along in a form that would be meaningful for quite some time. That most of the significance is lost on us now, is what necessitates hermeneutics.

Yes it would be simpler to generalize, and avoid the specifics of any particular case. Those pesky "academics", harping on about their particular area of expertise!
.

GuardianShua · Nov 7, 2011

Rationalt said:
There were No beings at the time of creation.

Here is One of The creation verses:

Genesis 1:26 And God(Elohim) said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...

Obviously there are Gods .

The words "Let us" is actually the word "We" in Hebrew. The Hebrew language has what is called a "Royal We", for which is really referring to ones self. In that case of interpretation, it would be more accurate in the English language to say "I". But because it makes the Trinitarians feel good, they gave it the interpretation of "Let us." The correct TRANSLATION for the English language would have been "I." According to the bible the people in the kingdom of heaven are called gods because they have life immortal. The bible also says that it is only Yahwah who is a true God. Meaning, He came into being upon His own.

razeontherock · Nov 7, 2011

Rationalt said:
Yahweh desiring the blood of animals can be termed as animism.

Sorry but no. There are many fine points to this and from your statement(s) I can't tell where the misunderstanding lies, but you're missing something to draw this conclusion.

razeontherock · Nov 7, 2011

durangodawood said:
Yes it would be simpler to generalize, and avoid the specifics of any particular case. Those pesky "academics", harping on about their particular area of expertise!
.

Their specifics miss the forest for the trees, in this case.

Rationalt · Nov 8, 2011

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:
The words "Let us" is actually the word "We" in Hebrew.

Evidence please?.None of the Jewish sites support your argument.

The following Jewish sites refute your argument.

Genesis 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Jewish Bible (JPS 1917) - Bereshit Chapter 1

The second site supports the translation of First jewish site which i already gave.
[SIZE=+1]Genesis1:26 And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' The Elohim is clearly talking to others before the creation.

[/SIZE]

The hebrew breakdown for Genesis 1:26

[FONT=&quot]צַלְמֵנ[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]ְ[/FONT]
b·tzlm·nu
in·image-of·us
[FONT=&quot]תֵנ[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]דְמ[/FONT] $[FONT=&quot]ִ[/FONT]
k·dmuth·nu
as·likeness-of·us

Rationalt · Nov 8, 2011

Psalms 82:

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the gods:
6 I said, You are gods;
you are all sons of the Most High.

Greg1234 · Nov 8, 2011

Rationalt said:
Not necessary.Worship of Multiple deities is polytheism.

Then it makes no sense. Even if I recognize you by your constituents that doesn't mean I'm saying you're numerous.

God standeth in the congregation of God is meaningless unless it is " God(Elohim) standeth in the congregation of Gods(Elohim).I was told that Elohim can be used in both singular and plural terms in hebrew.The verb used decides it.

Actually, it is meaningless until you recognize that God is both one and many. The seven spirits of God mentioned in Revelation are Elohim.

Greg1234 · Nov 8, 2011

Rationalt said:
Missed this..

Yahweh desiring the blood of animals can be termed as animism.
ex:Leviticus17-11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

and there are other references like Genesis 9:4 ,Leviticus 17:14 etc

Heb 9

What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

What came first?

Monotheism came first.

Polytheism came first.

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

-----------

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

re Member

In the beginning was El

In the beginning was El

Newbie

Newbie

Fanning the Divine Spark

Newbie

re Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

In the beginning was El

In the beginning was El

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency