gentho

Doctor X,

I understand what you mean by this; that theological understanding has changed over time. What has caused these changes in theological understanding? As far as I know the OT itself has remained unchanging over time, so with this constant, what would cause interpretation or belief to differ?

The origin may not be Christian but the Christians utilize this text in their religion, right? So, to go along with the above question, what has caused the change from polytheistic to monotheistic understanding?

I'm having a little trouble understanding a certain concept which once again might be because of the change in theological understanding over time. In the mind of a standard Christian monotheist, do they believe that there is one god for all people, and only the Christians are able to see the "reality" that it is their god which is the god. If so what do they think of people who believe in other religions; is the Christian's god also these people's god but these people just cannot see that "truth"? I'm not sure if I'm getting across my question clearly enough, if not I'll do my best to further clarify my query.


Pervy Hobbit Fancier,

When referring to the Egyptian "gods" (not capitalized in OT, significant?) it truly means a god in the sense that the God of Abraham is a "God"? They aren't simply labeling them as such to portray the Egyptian’s supposed naive belief that they are actual gods? How can a Christian-monotheist counter this without the imaginary gods stance?


CX,

What caused the transition from Yahwist to other forms of Hebrews and Christians? The difference between monotheism and polytheism hardly seems like a trivial difference in belief, what could cause such radical change?

Thank you Doctor X, Pervy, and CX for increasing my understanding, I appreciate it.

Doctor X

gentho:

Actually it did change in that the OT is comprised of texts--some of which are combinations of texts. The texts rather argue against one another. Anyways, the short answer is that at some point there was a move to centralize the religion and get rid of the competition. A good introduction to the process is Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?. Anyways, I am not sure if the popular religions ever became completely monotheistic; however, certainly YHWH would be cast as "Big Daddy" over any other deity.

Yes, but you asked why Exodus had such language when Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Exodus was written without any conception of Christianity so one can not really recast it, though Christians tried. By the time of the beginning of Christianity, Judaism was probably about as monotheistic as it was. I state it that way, because I do not know how much the Hellenization of some Jews made them pagan in conception, whether or not all conceptions of other gods disappeared. Certainly, there was not "one Jewish faith" just as there was not one Christian faith. Jewish gnosticism is one example which seems to me to have had other deities--with the YHWH of Genesis being an evil demiurge!

So, where early Christians monotheistic? Well, start with the ones who believed Junior was divine. He is cast as a "son of a god" by Mk. Mk does not at all deal with the issue of a divine Junior who prays to a god. Is it "one" or "two?!" The whole trinity comes much later to deal with the "problem" of multiple divine entities. Anyways, a "son of a god" is a rather common thing for religion of the time.

I think I understand. Go back in time [Cue Go Back In Time Effect--Ed.] and the standard explanation was that everyone had their own god--locative religion. If my guys conquer your guys, I had two basic approached. I can claim "your gods" were really "my gods," or I can claim "my gods" have conquered "your gods." Both were used.

Move along into modern times, people rather assume--given the global economy and ability to travel and that MTV--that "their god" runs everything--not just their people. So . . . what about "other people's gods?"

Either they are "wrong"--BURN THEM!--or they just do not know "their god" is really "our god!" Obviously this works best with a monotheistic religion! Do they really believe it? For example, just as a Christian claims to worship the "same god" as a Jew or a Moslem, I must admit I feel many have the assumption that the "other guys" are completely wrong since the conception cannot blend--you cannot get a Junior as divine in Islam and Judaism as it is practiced today!

--J.D.

Rymmie1981

What I'm surprised no one has brought up yet, is when Moses performs his miracles for Pharoah.

Ex. 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.


And there you have the reason why the Hebrews had the Law of Moses instead of the Law of YHWH(who supposedly wrote it).

Junior's understanding of who gave the law:

Jn. 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jn. 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Mat. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat. 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


Kind of weird, what with YHWH's inferiority complex, that Moses would get all credit for the law He wrote with His own Finger on the mountain, unless you factor in that Moses was a god, too. In fact, Moses had to be a god in order to be equal with Pharoah, who was the son of an Egyptian god, according to Egyptian beliefs. But, then, Joseph springs to mind. He was considered equal with Pharoah. That makes Joseph, and his brothers by default, gods. But, then that makes Jacob(Israel) a god, and Isaac and his brother, and Abraham, etc...

Sorry, got off track there with all that mythology. I guess that the OT says that by virtue and inner strength, a man can ascend to godhood. Or, this could be a crackpot theory brought on by the medication.

Peers! Review!

LP675

I wonder if skeptics think fundamentalist Christians should feel obliged to defend the OT from the charge of being ‘polytheistic’.

Christianity is certainly a monotheistic religion, and the Christian bible includes the OT. But just because OT passages affirm that people worship supernatural beings other than Yaweh, or even that those supernatural beings actually exist, I can’t see that this is any sort of attack on Christian theology.


yep.

Photon

I thought YHWH was just the Hebrew tribal god of war that was part of the pantheon of gods, the "elohim". The Hebrews invoked YHWH to have success in battle, and they were so good at it that they made him their "only god". Didn't this pantheon contain other gods like El and Baal? Or am I wrong on this?

Doctor X

LP675:

By definition a fundamentalist Christian adheres to the fundamentals--methinks there were twelve of them--of which "the Bible is inerrant and every word true" is one of them. Thus, passages such as the Psalms that presume polytheism become a problem for a fundamentalist. Someone who does not chain the Bible around his neck like a millstone will not have this problem.

Depends on the Christian and his theology. A fundamentalist will face problems with the NT as well.

While a Christian may consider himself monotheistic, he will still deal with the problem of two gods--a father and a son. The Trinity explanation never solved the problem. It is a "let us not discuss it" solution. One can ask:

"Do you pray to God?"

"Yes."

"Do you pray to Jesus?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

The problem is they are conceived as two separate figures no matter how much one wants to insist they are not. Gods generally do not pray to themselves.

Photon:

It appears it did. It also appears that El was the primary god and was, for a time, worshipped as well. There also seemed to be some confusion if not equivalence between YHWH and Baal. There was also Asherah which the texts and separate inscriptions and iconography suggest was a consort to YHWH.

--J.D.

[Edited to respond to Photon.--Ed.]

spin

What on earth makes you think that? All that 3rd and 4th century blather about the "trinity"? In modern day terminology that's called a kludge. Christianity is only monotheistic in propaganda. When you scratch the surface you have at least two gods.

Can you think of anything more absurd than an omniscient deity talking to himself, saying, "not what I will, but what your will"? Sounds schizophrenic if you believe the trinitarian dogma, doesn't it?

It's sort of Orwellian, holding up three fingers and asking how may fingers does one see, expecting the answer, "one". And you start to feel ok when you actually see only one.


spin

Dean Anderson

There is no real significance in the lack of capitalisation here. That is just an artefact of the translator who wrote that particular English version. Don't forget that the translator (working at least 2000 years after the document was originally written) had an existing belief that Yahweh was a special 'God' and no other gods existed. Of course the translator would not capitalise the word 'gods' when referring to the Egyptian ones.

Don't forget that in the period we are talking about here, Yahweh (or Jehovah) is not considered the 'omni-max' is-everywhere-and-can-do-anything god that he is considered by modern Christians and Jews.

Yahweh is a local tribal god like the Egyptian ones - he walks around, wrestles with people, is unable to defeat iron chariots, is unable to find people, etc.

The point that the writer is making here is that Yahweh (the Hebrew's local god) is bigger and stronger than the Egyptians' local gods.

If you only read the recent English translations (which, of course, were translated by modern Christian monotheists so use biased and skewed language) then it is easy to imagine that Yahweh is the only 'God' and the things that he smote were the Egyptian statues of their imaginary gods - but the Hebrew says that their 'gods' would be smitten (smited? smote? I don't know how these stupid tenses work!) by Yahweh, and this contrasts with other places in the OT where various 'idols' or 'statues' are being destroyed (like Aaron's calf, for example).

There are basically three options for this verse:

1) Yahweh is going to smite the actual Egyptian gods to prove that he is bigger and tougher than they are. With a literal reading of the verse, this is the clearest meaning. However, it doesn't sit well with modern monotheists, so other interpretations are used.

2) Yahweh is going to smite the imaginary Egyptian gods. While this would fit a literal translation of the verse, it doesn't make any sense. How can you smite something that doesn't exist?

3) Yahweh is going to kick over the Egyptian statues. This is the interpretation that most modern Christian apologists would use. While it is possible that this is what was meant - it raises the question that if this is what the original writer meant, why didn't he actually write this (like he does in other places where statues to 'false' gods are mentioned)?

Of course, there is also the classic first commandment in Exodus 34:14...
Yahweh never says 'I am the only god'. He always commands people to 'worship no other god but me'.

You would think that if the writers believed that Yahweh was the only god in existence, then they would have not put these words in his mouth - they would have made him say that he was the only god.

Instead he just keeps saying that he is jealous of the worship that other gods get and that he should be the only one that the Hebrews worship.

LP675

What’s with the ‘Boo hiss’? You don’t like the label, or is it merely an amusing parody of the revulsion fundies may feel toward those so labeled?


No, my point is that even if the OT describes supernatural beings of some sort being worshipped, and even if the OT affirms the actual existence of these supernatural beings, that is not incompatible with Christian theology, and neither does it contradict NT writings. The Christian would say when the OT describes some other god, it is either nothing (i.e. A figure in the imagination of the pagan, and merely an inanimate piece of wood or whatever if idolism is involved), or a supernatural being called a demon.

The OT hints that the ‘gods’ were either nothing or demons:
Deut 32:16-17 “They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to demons, which are not God-- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear.�

Isaiah 37: “19 They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands.�

Jer 2:11 “Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols.


It is clear however the OT commanded the faithful to be ‘monotheistic’ in the sense of worshipping only the God of Israel:
2 Kings 17:35 “When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: "Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them.

The New Testament affirms this view, that the only supernatural beings worshipped by mankind are either demons, or nothing at all:
Rev 9: 20 “The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk.�


1 Cor 8:4 “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Just because the Psalms or other passages refer to such beings as actually existing, this isn’t a challenge to Christian theology. Even if the OT doesn’t specifically declare the origins of these demonic beings, from a Christian perspective the NT gives further information, that they are created beings, not on a level with Yahweh who is not a created being:

Col 1:16 “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.�

So the idea "the Bible is inerrant and every word true" is not from the perspective of Christian theology in this instance false. So again I would say:

LP675

The words of Paul and Jesus.
I’m not interested in debating Trinitarian theology, which is probably one of the only topics you could name on which I wouldn't consider my own stance as orthodox. For the purposes of this argument lets agree Christians are monotheistic in the sense that there is only one God (who is three persons mutually indwelt), and other spiritual realties outside this ‘Godhead’(or 'three Gods' if you like) are not God’s in the same sense (they are created beings).
(edited to add "(or 'three Gods' if you like)"