Doctor X

[We recognize the intent behind the use of the label.--Ed.]

Yes.

The proper term is "gods." We have the name of some of them. You can review the iconography of them and the OT passages that refer to them in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Keel & Uelinger, Fortress Press, though it is a tediously dense work.

The NT is irrelevant to understanding the OT texts. "Christian theology" does seem a bit against YHWH having a consort.

He would be wrong. Would recommend an appropriate translation of the appropriate passages. Nevertheless, this one you cite:

indicates an understanding that other gods exist and the people worshipped them.

To whom does Junior pray to in Mk, Lk, Mt, and Jn?

A demon? Nothing at all?

Revelations is irrelevant to understanding the Synoptics and Jn. It is a later text. Paul is also separate from the same texts. Lk-Acts rather miscasts his views.

Depends on when and what one defines "Christian theology." Any that takes a fundamentalist view as described above will have this problem. Whilst you do not wish to discuss the Trinity, it has not solved the problem. Even modern Christian theology is left with a "don't ask, don't tell" manner of "solving" the god and son of a god problem.

Understand that "these beings" be they demons to sons of the gods and even a stn are not considered greater than YHWH save in particular cases. Some psalms recognize the limitations of YHWH--particularly considering the reality of his people squished and sent into exile. These things ruin a religion. You have the Deuteronomistic passage where the higher El grants lands to lesser deities of which YHWH is one and he gets Israel.

Furthermore, there is in the OT no sense of conversion. YHWH is not interested in gaining new worshippers. This makes sense in a locative religion--"my land, my gods," "your land, your gods." Hence as other posters noted, YHWH does not declare himself the only deity; he demands you do not worship others over him.

When King Mesha sacrifices his son to his god--presummably Chemosh since in an extra-biblical stella he invoke Chemosh in describing his squishing of Israelites--his god promptly squishes the Israelites. So where was YHWH?

Not yet had the concept which you may consider "Christian"--not unreasonably--and which would be held by modern Judiasm and Islam, that their Big Daddy is the only Big Daddy.

From a "pick and choose" approach to the texts, possibly, but then you are no longer applying the requirement "every word true." Otherwise you would have to believe that YHWH cannot find people, he cannot defeat iron chariots, et cetera.

to which I would have to recognize again that this will not satisfy a fundamentalist.

Since I am at it, regarding your remarks to Spin:

We do not have the words of Jesus. What we have in the Synoptics and Jn cannot not be proven be authentic. Many scholars try and they come up with such helpful conclusions that a HJ "must have said 'the,'" or argue for the passages that support their hope of a HJ. Unfortunately there is not proof for, but considerable evidence against. Also, Pauline understanding is different from, say, a Jn.

Unfortunately, the Trinity has been the modern explanation for a Dad and a Son. Whether or not modern conceptions apply to the writers of the texts is highly questionable as explained above. If you wish to argue that, trinity be damned and all of the contradictions go to hell, that most modern Christians consider themselves monotheistic, all well and good. I might ask them why they pray to two different people. However, that has no bearing on what the writers felt.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

It's also worth mentioning that the Egyptian priests turned their staves into serpents after Moses did it, and duplicated several of the Plagues.

It appears that the gods of Egypt were thought to exist, and to have considerable power: it's a real contest between YHWH and them.

Asha'man

I'd like to add to this the utterly confusing actions of YHWH where he works against himself by "hardening Pharaohs heart." There seems to be supernatural manipulation going on at least 10 times, IIRC. This action always seemed utterly inexplicable, unless YHWH was just mean and wanted to kill more people.

This plot element is easily explained if there are other gods that are hardening Pharaohs heart in the original story, but later editors have attempted to remove traces of those other gods. The original story was a battle between local gods, a test of strength between one tribe and another. Once it gets edited to appear monotheistic, pieces of the story cease to make any sense.

UV2003

Can you elaborate on this passage:

Where is the Deuteronomy passage referenced? I'd like to read it...

Thanks
UV

Understand that "these beings" be they demons to sons of the gods and even a stn are not considered greater than YHWH save in particular cases. Some psalms recognize the limitations of YHWH--particularly considering the reality of his people squished and sent into exile. These things ruin a religion. You have the Deuteronomistic passage where the higher El grants lands to lesser deities of which YHWH is one and he gets Israel.

CX

That's a complex question about an evolution that took place over thousands of years. I'm probably not qualified to comment. Finkelstein makes the argument that among the proto-Israelite (to steal terminology from Dever) peoples in Canaan there was a party of "Yahweh only" adherents. They did not necessarily say that Yahweh was the only deity in existence, at least not at first, but rather that the people should only worship Yahweh. In any event, according to Finkelstein, this group acheived political hegemony and forced a Yahweh only ideology on the populace. It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the general idea.

As far as the transition from straight polytheism to strict monotheism, excluding Ahkenaten in Egypt, it happens in a series of less dramatic steps. First you worship many different gods. Then you have a particular patron god among many other gods. Then your patron god is stronger than all the other gods. Then your god is the only true god and all the other "gods" are actually inferior demons or imposters. Then your god is the only god that exists. That's how it seems to have gone for the Judeo-Xian mythos.

Craigart14

Probably off topic, but I just thought I would mention that there are five--sometimes considered six--fundamentals:

Biblical inerrancy
Divinity of Jebus/virgin birth (virgin birth sometimes listed separately)
Physical resurrection
Substitutionary death (Jebus died for our sins)
Second Coming

They were pubished/defined in a series of twelve pamphlets from 1910-1915. The project was financed by California oil millionaires Milton and Lyman Stewart for approximately $300,000, and millions of copies were distributed. The above list is in no particular order.

Craig

gentho

CX,

It’s simply amazing that a god can go from a primary god, to a supporting god, to an enemy, to nonexistent. I would expect a transition like this would be strongly rivaled by people not wanting to change the status quo, meaning there would have to be significant force behind these changes. It doesn’t seem like this is was a linear progression of change, it seems more likely that it would be a step progression where drastic changes came all at once for some reason or another.

Doctor X,

What do you mean by this? Simply stating that the OT is comprised of texts doesn’t lead me to believe it’s been changed over time. Perhaps you can clarify.

Exodus may have not been written with conception of Christianity, but Christianity was certainly formed with conception of Exodus. Where’s the motive for Christianity to want to oust polytheism, and why would a religion that wants to be monotheistic base itself upon polytheistic texts?


Asha’man,

I think you’re absolutely right that it would make more sense if it was the Egyptian gods that were hardening Pharaoh’s heart. But who are these bold “editors� that took it upon themselves to edit the OT itself? It seems more along the lines of a drastic change rather than just an edit. Calling it “editing� also seems quite generous, perhaps “destructing� is a better way of putting it. Is there any record or evidence to suggest these subtle yet drastic changes from original to revised versions of the OT?


Craig,

You’ve brought up this pamphlet that was published in the early twentieth century, which is interesting in itself, but didn’t elaborate on why you brought it up and/or what its significance is. Please feel free to go into more depth on what the importance of this pamphlet was, what it was intended for, and what it’s actual impact was

spin

On being asked what made LP675 believe in xianity being monotheistic:

Rubbish. Jesus isn't shown to be talking to himself in Gethsemene.

I can understand you not being interested in debating trinitarian mumbo-jumbo. It is after all indefencible. It was just the only workable solution to earlier debates dealing with the existence of Jesus. It was as I said, asking you to see one finger when shown three.

And you shouldn't confuse henotheism with monotheism. The former admits polytheism while dictating a preferred god: "thou shalt have no other god before me." Nor should you confuse the linguistic approach -- they are not gods, they're demons (or whatever reclassification): this is also an admission of other deities. Remember, one man's god is another man's demon -- just think of the Ahuras/Asurahs and Daevas in the Hindi and Parsee religions.

So, if you're finished squirming over your sublimated conflict between theology and logic, you might like to get back to the subject of "gods" and maybe get beyond your state of denial.

While ignoring the henotheistic evidence in the Hebrew bible, you cite:

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.�

You should be aware that the word translated as demon is $D and of course you will remember that your god apparently also calls himself el-shaddai 'L-$DY... is that god of the demons??

Then you cite Isa 37:19 which involves the repudiation of gods whose territories were conquered by Assyria and whose cults were destroyed, ie they weren't gods. When Isaiah asks, "have the gods of the nations delivered them?" (37:12), he obviously doesn't include the gods of Assyria, or any other nation not conquered by them.

Let's look at one of my favourite psalms, 82

1 God has taken his place in the assembly of god and in the midst of the gods he holds judgment...

6 ... You are gods, all of you, and sons of the most high.

This god is not alone in his assembly: there are other gods. This is straight Canaanite religion as evinced in Ugaritic literature.

Just as Baal conquered the sea, his Hebrew equivalent also conquered the sea (Gen 1:2, Ps 89:9-10, etc). When Baal, the cloudrider, returned to the council of the gods to retake his place before El, so we get the same story sublimated in Daniel 7, when the one like a son of man, after the defeat of the monsters of the sea, rides on the clouds up to heaven to retake his place alongside the ancient of days, El.

You need to read the text as it is, a development over a long period, in which strange ideas are placed alongside other strange ideas; you cannot read it as though it were one organic whole, ignoring what you choose because you like the localised implications of a few words.

Are we dealing with a god who created the world from his own masterplan (no reference ot Oasis) or a god who defeats the sea and has dealing with other (for want of other words) supernatural beings, who jealously guards his unique control over his people by denying them access to other gods, and who was at one time married to the goddess Asherah (as per the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom)?

Is it difficult to see how the following verses from Exodus (as per the OP) fit into the historical theology of the Jews?

15:11 Who among the gods is like you, O Lord?

18:11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods

Isn't this just straight henotheism?


spin

Rymmie1981

The subject doesn't have anything to do with the post, I just wanted to write Henopolymonotheism.


Anyways, I agree with spin about the henotheism. Yahweh is definitely a small fry in the pantheon of Gods. Exodus reveals this by his petty attitude, his making Moses a god, and the following:

Ex. 9:13 And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

Ex. 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that [there is] none like me in all the earth.

Ex. 9:15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

Ex. 9:16 And in very deed for this [cause] have I raised thee up, for to shew [in] thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.


The rest of the old testament until the exile is Yahweh's power trip and scrambling to make himself look so much better than the other gods. In fact, now that it springs to mind, Moses uses this narcissistic power trip against him a few times. Lemme do some research....OK, this one is really long, so I won't waste bandwidth. Numbers 14:1-21 Technically, it's not in Exodus the book, but it's part of the exodus.

Craigart14

I thought it went without saying that when you quote someone at the beginning of a post, you are responding to or commenting on the post you're quoting. Someone referred to the Fundamentals, saying that he thought there were twelve. I was simply correcting that misconception--helping out, as it were.

If you are really interested in the twelve pamphlets, they are covered on numerous websites. The importance of the pamphlets is that they are the definition of the Fundamentals--you know, as in Fundamentalism? Their purpose was to combat the rising tide of church liberalism, Darwinian theory, and higher criticism that revealed the bible for the fiction that it is. But I really was just trying to help out.

Craig

Craig