dog-on

You assume that this is universal, as opposed to local, ie. to the Hebrews. Besides, what does it mean for an omnipresent being be "far off", even not "far off"

Again, you assume universality. A Christian conception.

Do you consider fortune tellers omniscient?

Why does he ask Satan what he was up to?

Again, you are assuming omniscience. In fact, it doesn't say as much.

Again, you assume universality. The concept you are trying to attribute here seems anachronistic. For as many times as you provide something you think shows God as tri-omni within the OT, one can find another passage which will dispute the position. Never forget those blasted iron chariots...

Like I have said, you are inserting a later Christian concept into the older materials.

avi

Thank you dog-on for your patience, and clarity in responding so promptly.

I interpret this, perhaps incorrectly, or perhaps, as you would note, through the rose-colored spectacles of modern era christianity, (to which I was exposed as a child,) as indicating that Yahweh was pointing out that his power was limitless, his sight not impeded by distance or intervening structures, even if they were made of granite.

Maybe my interpretation of the "old testament" is flawed, in that regard.

I interpret this passage as suggesting that Yahweh's power and authority were not trifles, to be limited by humans. I see the passage as reaffirmation that Yahweh is almighty, and those of us who oppose him, will fail, because his power is limitless. If that is a "christian" interpretation, then, I have failed, miserably, to comprehend the Jewish "old testament".....

Surely not, but, that is not the important question. Of importance to this thread is whether or not someone who can predict the future may be accorded the epithet: omniscient?

In other words, if the passage from the old testament includes text to the effect that someone did possess that gift, then is it fair to conclude that such a person has displayed one of the criteria for omniscience? I believe he/she has, and that accordingly, one may safely call such an individual, in this case, Yahweh, omniscient.

I don't doubt that conclusion. You may well be correct, on this point. The question isn't what "I think", or what "I interpret". The question is, WHAT IS WRITTEN in the text?

You have claimed, not without good cause, that I have misinterpreted the text, in part, or in whole, because I view the text from the perspective of a 21st century Christian......

I claim to have been influenced by Christians, not even one iota. I am simply reading the text of LXX, which, to my eyes, supports the notion, that the old testament contains an adequate elaboration of omniscience as a character trait possessed by Yahweh.

avi

Russellonius

Rule number one: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

There were other gods. That rule is about worshiping them.

Did Israel play the harlot? Yes, Israel worshiped other gods – it’s a theme that runs throughout their history.

Why did Peter, James, John and the elders tell Paul to teach others not to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Did they represent other gods? Sounds like henotheism to me.

Paul's reasoning in permitting the eating of food sacrificed to idols was because the gods they represent have no real existence. Does this not mark the emergence of strict monotheistic thinking within Judaism?

Dualism was introduced in the Persian period. The Hebrew henotheistic tradition did not allow an analog of Ahriman, the evil god from the dualistic system of the Persian sponsor, to be assimilated into Jerusalem theology as an equal to Yahweh, who was the highest and only god worthy of worship. So the problem of evil is solved by its originating with Yahweh’s disobedient minions, not by another god’s power. Canonical NT theology maintains this unequal in-house dualism.

I don’t know enough about Marcion to contribute to this discussion, but it strikes me that this Pontic idea is similar to the demiurgos of the Gnostics in Egypt and Rome.

My sense is that assimilated Jews valued some parts of their traditions but were embarrassed by others and were tired of trying to defend those parts within their mixed social environments.

Plus devaluing all other gods might have created a mythological vacuum inviting speculation. If the only god worth worshiping causes some embarrassment and the others have no value at all, restructuring could result in the one high god getting a demotion.

But this resulted in, as maryhelena points out:
Grafted onto the root won out. "In making religious choices, people will attempt to conserve their religious capital." (Proposition 33. Acts of Faith Rodney Stark and Roger Finke. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

*

Please note the lateness of avi’s citations supporting Yahweh’s omniscience. This suggests that attribution of omniscience may have arisen late in OT times.

avi

Thank you for pointing that out, BR, but, how does a relatively late date for those four passages, alter one's perception of the attribute of omniscience for Yahweh, prior to the arrival of the Christians?

The fundamental question remains: how could Paul/Marcion claim to be loyal to the text of the old testament, while concurrently preaching dualism?
This is incomprehensible to me.
Sorry to be so dense.
How could Marcion have accepted any part of Luke, and also be a practicing Jew?
How could he believe in Judaism, and also believe in a second god, with power comparable to Yahweh?
So, BR, as an ignorant, here, I would have written, contrarily, that, while compelled to live in Babylon, Jews modified their prior polytheistic tendencies (thou shall have no other gods before me), to conform to the Zoroastrian precept of monotheism, not dualism.

avi

Russellonius

Persians kicked Babylonian butt while Jews were in exile there. Jews were henotheistic both before and after - many gods but only one worth worshiping. Persian rulers Cyrus and Darius expected their client states to have a locally functioning religious system with standard texts. Ezra was chosen to create the texts, working, of course, off of traditionally accrued materials which had been consolidated/reworked/created by Jerusalem elites during exile. (Persia funded construction of the Second Temple.)

The Persian god Ahura Mazda created only good. Nothing evil emanated from this all-good god. His counterpart Ahriman/Angra Mainyu was chaos/evil - originator of all things bad. The two had nearly equal power and it was humans who had to tip the balance in favor of good's ultimate victory by their good thoughts and deeds executed by free will. This was a dualism of equals, but with one side destined to fail, contingent upon human effort. It is considered monotheistic because only the good god had the power to create, as opposed to destroy, stuff.

Paul's dualism was the traditional contemporary Jewish one. Rebellious angels of Yahweh are the source of evil. He added Greek concepts of archons, etc, for his Greek audience.

The satan character had evolved from being a good angel sent from heaven for an adversarial purpose, found in texts such as the Balaam story, to being a bad angel who defied Yahweh and was cast from heaven, becoming a lesser evil deity and taking the heat off of Yahweh as to why evil exists. Yahweh had been the source of both good and evil prior to the casting down of Satan and his minions (which is found in the non-canonical Enoch, but worked its way into the canon - even from the mouth of JC himself). This change occurred during the Persian period.

Ahriman was not a disgruntled former employee of 'the Good God' as was the case with Satan. He was CEO of a different company.

Marcion's dualism was quite different from the canonical NT specifications including Paul's. Marcion may be proto-gnostic, as might Paul, but not for the same reasons. The issue seems to have been: if we're going to alter the divine hierarchy by having 'the God' send a human envoy with a message of change, then everything is up for grabs.

(Side point: Why do we need the Jews to borrow the idea of resurrection from the Greeks when we know they already got it from the Persians?)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I console myself for my own ignorance by reassuring myself that it only seems ignorant by comparison to the standard set by the many learned people who post here. I have enjoyed reading your posts, avi, and they certainly help to forward discussion.

I think the answer might be that to make an accurate assessment we have to look at what beliefs were contemporary to the time we are examining. If the belief of Yahweh's omniscience arose during the late OT period, it would have been present at the start of Christianity.

avi

Thanks for the kind words, BR, much appreciated.

Umm, well, this is a thread about a new book addressing the heretical nature of Marcion. The notion was expressed by some forum members, that both Marcion and Paul were dualists, and from that, we got caught up in a challenge to demonstrate that omniscience as a trait, for Yahweh, existed prior to the onset of Christianity....

So, the question now on the table is this:
Do those four references to old testament passages suffice to convince anyone that omniscience as a trait assigned to the character of Yahweh, was widely appreciated, prior to the arrival of the Christians?

avi

dog-on

Perhaps this will help.

Do you think that Christians believe that God can error?

and

Based on your reading of the OT, does God ever error?

and

Can a perfect being error?

show_no_mercy

Sorry, that's the best pun I could come up with :blush:

Marcion realized that the Jewish Bible was "true" (of course, any Christian would), but had to reconcile this with the Jesus presented in Mark and/or Paul who is incompatible with the Jewish god. Marcion probably realized that the Jewish bible did not predict someone like Jesus coming and being the Jewish messiah (the same argument that Jews make) but he still wanted to keep his Jesus. So the only logical thing to do was to make the obvious divorce between the two.

Marcion believe that the messiah promised to the Jews had not come yet, and the god that penned the Hebrew bible would eventually deliver. But Jesus was not the messiah of this god.

avi

Thanks very much dog-on. Let me first answer your questions:
a. I don't know what "Christians" believe, any more than I could answer that question if the subject were Muslims, or Buddhists, or any other religion. In my ignorant opinion, NO, I suppose that Christians imagine that their divine king can commit no error, i.e. that he/it does not err.
b. You could take both old and new testaments, but, what I have read is so small, it would easily fit into a thimble.
c. No. A being that errs, is by definition, not a perfect being, hence, not a God. Supernatural, all knowing beings are Gods.

Secondly, I don't think these new questions do help. They seem to derail the topic. I would prefer an answer to my questions, so that we may return to Paul and Marcion.....
avi

dog-on

They do not derail the topic and do actually answer your question.