Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 03-11-2006, 11:50 PM

Here’s this again …

Look how you have fallen from the sky,
Helel, son of Shachar!
You have been cut down to the ground,
to defeat the nations!
You said to yourself,
“I will climb up to the sky.
Above the stars of El
I will set up my throne.
I will rule on the mountain of assembly
on the remote slopes of Zaphon.
I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High!”

The "mountain of assembly" is linked to El. El presided over the divine council at Mount Hermon.

But Zaphon was Baal's mountain.

If it was a metaphor then they wouldn’t have confused Baal’s mountain with El’s mountain.

Also - there is no mention of Yahweh. The god here is El.

I think someone pasted this little old story into the middle of their own newer bigger story.

Naphtali Jones · 03-12-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

The "mountain of assembly" is linked to El. El presided over the divine council at Mount Hermon.

But Zaphon was Baal's mountain.

I was reading the article you mentioned and I suddenly had flashbacks to my childhood days in church. We used to sing a song that comes directly from Psalms (I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it comes from there) "Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north the city of the great King" Does this remind anyone else of the descriptions of Mount Zaphon? I know Zion is supposed to be Jerusalem but Mount Zion...On the sides of the north?

Naphtali Jones · 03-12-2006, 11:59 AM

Here it is: Psalm 48

"Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised
In the city of our God,
In the mountain of His holiness.
Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth,
Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north,
the city of the great King".

Sounds like you could substitute Zaphon for Zion and you would suddenly be talking canaanite mythology instead of the bible.

Clivedurdle · 03-12-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Loomis, there was the Greco-Roman deity Mercury, who became identified with the planet by that name, and we can also speak figuratively about people with mercurial character. One can talk of myths about Mercury the deity without believing in the Greco-Roman pantheon, or the planet Mercury, (or the metal mercury) and about mercurial people. Similarly there was a deity Shachar, the planet Shachar (Venus) and the word shachar in the sense of dawn. Obviously at some point people actually believed in the deity, but from the mention of his name in Isaiah can we conclude that the author, living in the time of the exile, believed literally in a deity named Shachar, or could the author have been borrowing figuratively from the ancient mythology of his people to describe the king of Babylon the way we might talk of mercurial people? (I don't think he considered the king of Babylon to be a god, so there already has to be metaphor in that verse.)

But what did the people think then, before telescopes? Maybe that the god Mercury was the wandering star? Shachar sounds identical to Jesus, and maybe Satan and Lucifer is not a mistake - in Job, could God's doer be Jesus? Anat, it feels like you are reading back modern sensibilities, when the original beliefs, when taken at face value, are fascinating!

Phlox Pyros · 03-12-2006, 02:24 PM

"Elohim" was a term that came to refer generically to "God" (eg. as we use the term "God" of Allah). Though "Elohim" is plural, it was used as a singular term, similar to how a plural, "mayim", is used for "water" or "shamayim" is used for "heaven" in Hebrew. Yahweh was the sacred name of "God" pronounced by few or none (we do not even know that we have the vowels correct).

The Jews of Jesus' time believed in one God. There were different sects such as the Pharisees and Saducees, but they made no distinction between "El" and "Yahweh". Reading ancient texts of contemporaries of Jesus, such as Philo and/or Josephus, will reveal much about how they believed.

Naphtali Jones · 03-12-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

The Jews of Jesus' time believed in one God. There were different sects such as the Pharisees and Saducees, but they made no distinction between "El" and "Yahweh". Reading ancient texts of contemporaries of Jesus, such as Philo and/or Josephus, will reveal much about how they believed.

I agree! Any connections to Canaanite mythology had been completely assimilated and forgotten by the first century. Besides, the Jews were too busy assimilating Persian and Greek religious beliefs into their theology by this time.

Anat · 03-12-2006, 04:22 PM

Clive, I am just trying to understand the way beliefs changed over time. I don't think people in the past were not capable of metaphor or of using terms borrowed from religious traditions in other contexts.

mens_sana · 03-12-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

I don't think people in the past were not capable of metaphor or of using terms borrowed from religious traditions in other contexts.

I'm sure terms got borrowed, especially from the dominant (conquering) culture, but I'm a bit hesitant about the use of metaphor, outside the poetic metaphor of literature. The popular cultures of the period were absolutely certain that there was a spirit, demon, or god behind almost every little thing of even passing importance. Belief in apotropaic magic went hand in hand with this. With this in mind, how much room is there for "metaphor"?

Loomis · 03-12-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Yahweh was the sacred name of "God" pronounced by few or none ...

Oh come on! We’ve all heard that a million times. But can you (or anyone) post a reputable secular link, or mention any reputable secular books, or cite any reputable secular source at all, which supports this claim?

It seems like horseshit to me, and I’m surprised no one has given it a second thought.

I don’t think Yahweh’s name was downplayed because it was sacred; it was downplayed to attract a broader range of believers, to absorb a larger group of pre-existing god stories, and to confuscate the issue. - Even if the effort was not a conscious effort.

The best way to avoid discussing the subject of “who God is” is to not mention any names. Right?

And don’t forget – Baal was called "the LORD" too.

How convenient.

Loomis · 03-12-2006, 09:04 PM

Here are a couple of thoughts regarding the “metaphor” issue.

Thought #1

Baal and the religion of Canaanites were supposed to be the bad guys.

Right?

Why would the author of Isaiah 14 choose the Canaanite/ Ugaritic pantheon as a background for his metaphor?

And where does the term the “Most High” fit in to all of this?

It would require a “good” Most High and a “bad” Most High.

Wouldn’t it?

Thought #2

I don’t think that the author of Isaiah 14 actually thought that Shachar was a real god. And I don’t think he thought El was a real god either. He was just sucking ass. He was just incorporating an older Canaanite/ Ugaritic poem into his Yahweh story to impress his grandparents.

Maybe the whole “King of Babylon” stuff is just a container invented to hold the earlier poem.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2006, 11:50 PM	#91
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Here’s this again … Look how you have fallen from the sky, Helel, son of Shachar! You have been cut down to the ground, to defeat the nations! You said to yourself, “I will climb up to the sky. Above the stars of El I will set up my throne. I will rule on the mountain of assembly on the remote slopes of Zaphon. I will climb up to the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High!” The "mountain of assembly" is linked to El. El presided over the divine council at Mount Hermon. But Zaphon was Baal's mountain. If it was a metaphor then they wouldn’t have confused Baal’s mountain with El’s mountain. Also - there is no mention of Yahweh. The god here is El. I think someone pasted this little old story into the middle of their own newer bigger story.

03-12-2006, 11:59 AM	#93
Naphtali Jones Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ross River,Yukon Posts: 166	Here it is: Psalm 48 "Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised In the city of our God, In the mountain of His holiness. Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the great King". Sounds like you could substitute Zaphon for Zion and you would suddenly be talking canaanite mythology instead of the bible.

03-12-2006, 02:24 PM	#95
Phlox Pyros Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 7th Heaven Posts: 406	"Elohim" was a term that came to refer generically to "God" (eg. as we use the term "God" of Allah). Though "Elohim" is plural, it was used as a singular term, similar to how a plural, "mayim", is used for "water" or "shamayim" is used for "heaven" in Hebrew. Yahweh was the sacred name of "God" pronounced by few or none (we do not even know that we have the vowels correct). The Jews of Jesus' time believed in one God. There were different sects such as the Pharisees and Saducees, but they made no distinction between "El" and "Yahweh". Reading ancient texts of contemporaries of Jesus, such as Philo and/or Josephus, will reveal much about how they believed.

03-12-2006, 04:22 PM	#97
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Clive, I am just trying to understand the way beliefs changed over time. I don't think people in the past were not capable of metaphor or of using terms borrowed from religious traditions in other contexts.

03-12-2006, 09:04 PM	#100
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Here are a couple of thoughts regarding the “metaphor” issue. Thought #1 Baal and the religion of Canaanites were supposed to be the bad guys. Right? Why would the author of Isaiah 14 choose the Canaanite/ Ugaritic pantheon as a background for his metaphor? And where does the term the “Most High” fit in to all of this? It would require a “good” Most High and a “bad” Most High. Wouldn’t it? Thought #2 I don’t think that the author of Isaiah 14 actually thought that Shachar was a real god. And I don’t think he thought El was a real god either. He was just sucking ass. He was just incorporating an older Canaanite/ Ugaritic poem into his Yahweh story to impress his grandparents. Maybe the whole “King of Babylon” stuff is just a container invented to hold the earlier poem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.