Monotheism And The Beginning Of World Religions

[Genesis] 1.1 Monotheism, or the belief in one God, has been shown to be a characteristic of the earliest religions. This concept runs counter to the modern notion that the idea of God was gradually evolved from primitive animism to polytheism, and then finally to monotheism. The researchers of Schmidt, Langdon, Petrie, and Zwemer strongly support primitive monotheism. The development of polytheism and lower views of God from a retrogression from monotheism may be explained by the advent of sin and the spiritual decline which necessarily ensued. In Rom 1.19-23 the Apostle Paul summarizes this tragic devolution from monotheism.

Excerpt taken from Harper Study Bible [Revised Standard Version], p. 4

Comments

Anonymous said…
Is there any actual evidence for this primitive monotheism? Or is it based on Genesis?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Looks like the consensus on that web page is polytheism was first. Certainly no one claiming otherwise could offer any evidence.

Even the Bible has some big hints that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic. This verse is a great example:

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.


This is referring to how the peole of the world (as it was understood at the time) were divided up amongst the Gods by the head of the Pantheon, El, with the Hebrews being allotted to Yahweh (similarly: Melqart was the God of Tyre; Chemosh of Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon of Carthage; Kaus of Edom; Moloch of Ammon; Dagon of the Philistines).

And of course this is a tacit admisson that other gods exist:

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Looks like the consensus on that web page is polytheism was first. Certainly no one claiming otherwise could offer any evidence.

Even the Bible has some big hints that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic. This verse is a great example:

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

This is referring to how the peole of the world (as it was understood at the time) were divided up amongst the Gods by the head of the Pantheon, El, with the Hebrews being allotted to Yahweh (similarly: Melqart was the God of Tyre; Chemosh of Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon of Carthage; Kaus of Edom; Moloch of Ammon; Dagon of the Philistines).

That does not imply it in any sense.

And of course this is a tacit admisson that other gods exist:

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

Even so it still says there's one over God who is the big boss of all.

I assume the human race is on a slow train to God Talk. We are still slowly moving toward understanding, WE began knowing nothing about God then we discovered God a bit at a time. We have been moving toward understanding,

Anonymous said…
Joe: That does not imply it in any sense.

When it says "the Lord's portion is his people", what does that mean? Who is the Lord? Why does it get a portion?

Who do you think "the Most High" is?

Joe: Even so it still says there's one over God who is the big boss of all.

Like Zeus is boss over the Greek pantheon, and Thor is boss over the Norse pantheon.

Actually, it does not even say Yahweh is boss, only that the people apportioned to him are not to worship the other gods.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: That does not imply it in any sense.

When it says "the Lord's portion is his people", what does that mean? Who is the Lord? Why does it get a portion?

the Lord is creator God

Who do you think "the Most High" is?

that doesn't mean there are other gods. My theory is that before the exile the Hebrews thought of angels as gods but a lesser kind of god that work for the true God and you don't worship. After the exile they barrowed the Persian concept of angels,

Joe: Even so it still says there's one over God who is the big boss of all.

Like Zeus is boss over the Greek pantheon, and Thor is boss over the Norse pantheon.

primitive understanding

Actually, it does not even say Yahweh is boss, only that the people apportioned to him are not to worship the other gods.

in psalms it is expressed God killed the lesser gods. you cant put a wrench in the work's, don't forget the Talmud
Anonymous said…
Pix: When it says "the Lord's portion is his people", what does that mean? Who is the Lord? Why does it get a portion?

Joe: the Lord is creator God

Interesting you only chose to answer half that. Why is that? Because you CANNOT answer the other part, and you hope no one will notice.

Why does the creator God only get a portion? Why does he not get everything?

Pix: Who do you think "the Most High" is?

Joe: that doesn't mean there are other gods.

So why can you not answer the question?

Joe: My theory is that before the exile the Hebrews thought of angels as gods but a lesser kind of god that work for the true God and you don't worship. After the exile they barrowed the Persian concept of angels,

Here is the verse, with "The Lord" replaced by "creator God"

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For creator God's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Talk me through your theory again...

My theory is "Most High" means El, the head of the pantheon, who divided the nations among his many sons. Yahweh, one of El's sons, was given a portion consisting on the Hebrews.

Joe: in psalms it is expressed God killed the lesser gods.

Which indicates they used to believe in more than one god.

Joe: you cant put a wrench in the work's, don't forget the Talmud

What does that mean?

Pix

Pix: When it says "the Lord's portion is his people", what does that mean? Who is the Lord? Why does it get a portion?

Joe: the Lord is creator God

Pix: Interesting you only chose to answer half that. Why is that? Because you CANNOT answer the other part, and you hope no one will notice.

So you are thinking if there are portions and God get's one then there must be other gods with other portions. That does not necessarily follow. On Parry Mason [mid 60s tv show about a lawyer] they would call that argumentative and not based upon precious evidence. For example other portion holders could be living human kings.


Pix: Why does the creator God only get a portion? Why does he not get everything?

Probably to emphasize the special nature of his chosen people. Since we don;t really understand the context we can't say

Pix: Who do you think "the Most High" is?

Joe: that doesn't mean there are other gods.

So why can you not answer the question?

He is the crater God, If tere's a most high you think there must be lesser highs? yes but doesn;t mean they are gods. they are angels.

Joe: My theory is that before the exile the Hebrews thought of angels as gods but a lesser kind of god that work for the true God and you don't worship. After the exile they barrowed the Persian concept of angels,

PX: Here is the verse, with "The Lord" replaced by "creator God"

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For creator God's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Most high = creator God = J

PX: Talk me through your theory again...

My theory is "Most High" means El, the head of the pantheon, who divided the nations among his many sons. Yahweh, one of El's sons, was given a portion consisting on the Hebrews.

That is a fictional plot imposed upon half understood passages, no real evidence for it,

Joe: in psalms it is expressed God killed the lesser gods.

PX:Which indicates they used to believe in more than one god.

except they were angels

Joe: you cant put a wrench in the work's, don't forget the Talmud

What does that mean?

Orthodox Jews claim Talmud is derived from oral tradition going back to Moses and it sorts all this out. It's commemtary and defines who God is ect.
PX your theory is really just Gnosticism. You try to make God be the Demiurge,
Anonymous said…
Joe: So you are thinking if there are portions and God get's one then there must be other gods with other portions. That does not necessarily follow. On Parry Mason [mid 60s tv show about a lawyer] they would call that argumentative and not based upon precious evidence. For example other portion holders could be living human kings.

Really? So you view is that:

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

... Means that the creator God divided the nations between human kings and himself? The verse is basically saying God is washing his hands of most people, and that he is only going to concern himself with the Hebrews. The rest can look after themselves.

Oh, except that when they subsequently start worshipping false gods, he will use that as a way to rationalise genocide.

Joe: That is a fictional plot imposed upon half understood passages, no real evidence for it,

It is what the passage says. Go read up on the Canaanite pantheon. El was the "most high" in the pantheon, and also the word that appears in the Hebrew in the verse and gets translated as "most high". Note that Asherah and Ba'al, who get frequent mentions in the Bible, are also Canaanite gods..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Canaanite_religion

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-8.htm

Yahweh was one lesser god of the pantheon, but the lord of the Hebrews, and so it is the word Yahweh that gets translated in the second verse.

Joe: except they were angels

You are saying God killed angels?

Joe: Orthodox Jews claim Talmud is derived from oral tradition going back to Moses and it sorts all this out. It's commemtary and defines who God is ect.

Are YOU saying it dates back to Moses?

Joe: PX your theory is really just Gnosticism. You try to make God be the Demiurge,

No, my theory is that polytheistic developed from simple animism. From that, the Hebrews started to practice henotheism, which in turn, around the time of the captivity, developed into monotheism. Hence, much of the pre-captivity Bible is about persuading the people to worship just Yahweh, and not to worship other gods, whilst the later OT is about persuading the people to live up to God's standards.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: So you are thinking if there are portions and God get's one then there must be other gods with other portions. That does not necessarily follow. On Parry Mason [mid 60s tv show about a lawyer] they would call that argumentative and not based upon precious evidence. For example other portion holders could be living human kings.

Really? So you view is that:

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

... Means that the creator God divided the nations between human kings and himself? The verse is basically saying God is washing his hands of most people, and that he is only going to concern himself with the Hebrews. The rest can look after themselves.

Sure because he didn't want them to have a king since he was their Kimg so he was wiling to act as their King.

PS:Oh, except that when they subsequently start worshipping false gods, he will use that as a way to rationalise genocide.


how does that change what I said? That does not refute my argument

Joe: That is a fictional plot imposed upon half understood passages, no real evidence for it,

It is what the passage says. Go read up on the Canaanite pantheon. El was the "most high" in the pantheon, and also the word that appears in the Hebrew in the verse and gets translated as "most high". Note that Asherah and Ba'al, who get frequent mentions in the Bible, are also Canaanite gods..

we are not talking about Canaanite mythology you cannot prove that one loan word makes Hebrew thought Canaanite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Canaanite_religion

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-8.htm

that is not proof that ancient Hebrew religion was just Canaanite. why the stuff about slaves in Egypt if they were just cannite?

Yahweh was one lesser god of the pantheon, but the lord of the Hebrews, and so it is the word Yahweh that gets translated in the second verse.


that's not proven, The only evidence is the word itself. But since they became infested with canonute of course they use their words,


Joe: except they were angels

You are saying God killed angels?

you are saying God killed gods?

Joe: Orthodox Jews claim Talmud is derived from oral tradition going back to Moses and it sorts all this out. It's commentary and defines who God is ect.

PX:Are YOU saying it dates back to Moses?

The Hewbrew tradition says so,It wasoral uitl thetime of Christthentehy began writtinitdown,

Joe: PX your theory is really just Gnosticism. You try to make God be the Demiurge,

No, my theory is that polytheistic developed from simple animism. From that, the Hebrews started to practice henotheism, which in turn, around the time of the captivity, developed into monotheism. Hence, much of the pre-captivity Bible is about persuading the people to worship just Yahweh, and not to worship other gods, whilst the later OT is about persuading the people to live up to God's standards.

Let's assume that's true. It does not negate Jesus as incarnate Logos or the God he called "my father" as creator God.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Sure because he didn't want them to have a king since he was their Kimg so he was wiling to act as their King.

And then he changed his mind, and gave them a king! Did me realise he had made a mistake?

Joe: how does that change what I said? That does not refute my argument

No, but it certainly makes God look like a jerk.

Joe: we are not talking about Canaanite mythology you cannot prove that one loan word makes Hebrew thought Canaanite

Ah, you want to play the game where I have to "prove" a claim and you, presumably, merely have to give rational warrant for your position. The reality is that neither of us can prove our position, but I can certainly show position is FAR more likely. As I am sure you know.

Joe: we are not talking about Canaanite mythology you cannot prove that one loan word makes Hebrew thought Canaanite

We are talking about a closely aligned mythology. Several gods from the Canaanite religion appear in the Bible. I already mentioned El, Asherah and Ba'al, but also Chemosh appears in 8 verses, as does Molech, and Dagon appears in 9. So more than just one loan word.

Look at this verse:

2 Kings 21:3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.

These are not merely loan words, these are the names of gods they worshiped. It is pretty clear that pre-captivity many Hebrews worshiped gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

Joe: that is not proof that ancient Hebrew religion was just Canaanite. why the stuff about slaves in Egypt if they were just cannite?

It is not just Canaanite religion, but they clearly have roots in common - polytheistic roots.

Are you supposing Exodus is fact? I find that unlikely personally, but suppose it is. How does that preclude them previously being of pre-Canaanite roots? Are you suggesting an Egyptian origin?

Joe: that's not proven, The only evidence is the word itself. But since they became infested with canonute of course they use their words,

You are certainly playing the "proof" card very strongly. Why is that?

Joe: that's not proven, The only evidence is the word itself. But since they became infested with canonute of course they use their words,

They started "infested" with Canaanite, coming from the same polytheistic roots.

Pix: You are saying God killed angels?

Joe: you are saying God killed gods?

Why can you not answer the question? Why are you habitually unable to make clear what you mean? Again and again I ask you to clarify your position, and again and again you deflect and obscure.

I am forced to assume you are clueless, and this is a strategy to cover your failings.

Pix: Are YOU saying it dates back to Moses?

Joe: The Hewbrew tradition says so,It wasoral uitl thetime of Christthentehy began writtinitdown,

I asked what YOU think. But of course, you are pathologically unable to give a plain answer.

Joe: Let's assume that's true. It does not negate Jesus as incarnate Logos or the God he called "my father" as creator God.

What are you talking about? Go read my comments, and see if you can work out what we are arguing about here. Hey, you could do worse than to read your own early posts. Back then you seemed to understand what we are debating. Now you have forgotten. Are you so witless, or is this another attempt to obscure and derail?

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Sure because he didn't want them to have a king since he was their Kimg so he was wiling to act as their King.

And then he changed his mind, and gave them a king! Did me realise he had made a mistake?

they would not stop whining

Joe: how does that change what I said? That does not refute my argument

No, but it certainly makes God look like a jerk.

the bratie children look like the jerks. God gives

Joe: we are not talking about Canaanite mythology you cannot prove that one loan word makes Hebrew thought Canaanite

PX:Ah, you want to play the game where I have to "prove" a claim and you, presumably, merely have to give rational warrant for your position. The reality is that neither of us can prove our position, but

you could give rational warrants too if you had a rational position

I can certainly show position is FAR more likely. As I am sure you know.

right it's God who is at fault couldn't be you--real likely

Joe: we are not talking about Canaanite mythology you cannot prove that one loan word makes Hebrew thought Canaanite

We are talking about a closely aligned mythology. Several gods from the Canaanite religion appear in the Bible. I already mentioned El, Asherah and Ba'al, but also Chemosh appears in 8 verses, as does Molech, and Dagon appears in 9. So more than just one loan word.

they appear as false notions not as competing entities who really exist,

Look at this verse:

2 Kings 21:3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.

These are not merely loan words, these are the names of gods they worshiped. It is pretty clear that pre-captivity many Hebrews worshiped gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

They were false God's the people worshipped when they turned their backs on truth. WE know these others existed in Canaanite mythology. we know the God of Abraham was at least believed in in Ur at least 5 or 6 generations and probably a thousands years before that. These were not characters from the Hebrew religion they were cannante false gods put over as an act of heresy

Joe: that is not proof that ancient Hebrew religion was just Canaanite. why the stuff about slaves in Egypt if they were just cannite?

It is not just Canaanite religion, but they clearly have roots in common - polytheistic roots.

so what? That was before God revealed himself to them.

PX:Are you supposing Exodus is fact? I find that unlikely personally, but suppose it is. How does that preclude them previously being of pre-Canaanite roots? Are you suggesting an Egyptian origin?

I don't necessarily take Exodus literally but there must be some historical connection with Egypt because they are so attached to it. Abraham was not Canaanite.

Joe: that's not proven, The only evidence is the word itself. But since they became infested with canonute of course they use their words,

PX:You are certainly playing the "proof" card very strongly. Why is that?

why are you so content with speculation?


Joe: that's not proven, The only evidence is the word itself. But since they became infested with canonute of course they use their words,

PX: They started "infested" with Canaanite, coming from the same polytheistic roots.

you have not established the hebrew-cananite origin, You asserting it because they use those mythical figures

Pix: You are saying God killed angels?



Joe: you are saying God killed gods?

Why can you not answer the question? Why are you habitually unable to make clear what you mean? Again and again I ask you to clarify your position, and again and again you deflect and obscure.

I once did a careful exegesis on the passage in psalms "you shall die like men..." I concluded it's not speaking of killing gods or angles. Elohim can be used of men in certain contexts. I don't have time to go through that study again because it's exhausting.


PX:I am forced to assume you are clueless, and this is a strategy to cover your failings.

I have a Masters degree form a world famous seminary do you really thin I have not heard this crap before? You have said nothing bold, or daring or innovative or new I could knock this shit out in one afternoon. This issue is one of the first I ever thought about when I first considered being a Christian,



Pix: Are YOU saying it dates back to Moses? [the Talmud]

Joe: The Hewbrew tradition says so, It was oral uitl the time of Christthentehy began writting it down,

I asked what YOU think. But of course, you are pathologically unable to give a plain answer.

U think the Hews have had it straight who their God is for a long time,Your reasons for picking up on this stuff are had hoc there's an excuse to doubt when this is knocked down you will find another one,

Joe: Let's assume that's true. It does not negate Jesus as incarnate Logos or the God he called "my father" as creator God.

PX: What are you talking about? Go read my comments, and see if you can work out what we are arguing about here. Hey, you could do worse than to read your own early posts. Back then you seemed to understand what we are debating. Now you have forgotten. Are you so witless, or is this another attempt to obscure and derail?

why do you think they call it apoloetics dunderhead?
Anonymous said…
Joe: they would not stop whining

Ah, I see. So God set himself up as their king, not expecting them to whine about it. However God was wrong; the Hebrews continually complained about having God as their king, so God changed his mind, and set up a human king for them instead. That makes sense now.

Joe: the bratie children look like the jerks. God gives

Which justifies genocide, you think? I disagree.

Joe: you could give rational warrants too if you had a rational position

I DO have a rational position. That is why you had to move the goalposts so I have to "prove" my position.

Joe: right it's God who is at fault couldn't be you--real likely

The most likely scenario is God does not exist and monotheist religion developed from henotheism, which in turn developed from polytheism, which in turn developed from animism.

Joe: they appear as false notions not as competing entities who really exist,

Competing gods from a polytheistic pantheon.

Joe: They were false God's the people worshipped when they turned their backs on truth. WE know these others existed in Canaanite mythology. we know the God of Abraham was at least believed in in Ur at least 5 or 6 generations and probably a thousands years before that. These were not characters from the Hebrew religion they were cannante false gods put over as an act of heresy

So go find the evidence the Hebrews were monothestic a thousand years before Abraham.

The fact you have failed to do so after so many posts tells us that - as usual - all you have is wishful thinking.

Joe: so what? That was before God revealed himself to them.

Which supports my position that they were originally polytheistic.

I take it you are still clueless about what we are discussing?

Joe: I don't necessarily take Exodus literally but there must be some historical connection with Egypt because they are so attached to it. Abraham was not Canaanite.

So what is your argument? They must have had some connection to the polytheistic culture of Egypt, therefore what?

I do not doubt there was a connection with Egypt, but there was a far closer connection to the Canaanites. For one thing, Hebrew is considered a dialect of the Canaanite language!
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13415-semitic-languages

To claim Egypt was a bigger influence is just ignoring the evidence in favour of what you want to be true.

How many mentions of Egyptian gods can you find in the Bible? Any?

If the Hebrews came from Ehgyptian roots, why is their language of Canaanite origins?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: why are you so content with speculation?

I am the one in this argument who has actually presented evidence. I have given web sites to support my position. i have cited Bible verses.

Why are you so content with wishful thinking?

Joe: you have not established the hebrew-cananite origin, You asserting it because they use those mythical figures

I have shown that it is the far more likely scenario. Those mythical figures are far more evidence than you have of an Egyptian influence. Why no figures from Egyptian mythology?

Plus the language roots again support my position, and destroys yours.

Joe: I once did a careful exegesis on the passage in psalms "you shall die like men..." I concluded it's not speaking of killing gods or angles. Elohim can be used of men in certain contexts. I don't have time to go through that study again because it's exhausting.

And yet earlier you said it was about angels!

Why should I believe anything to say when: (1) you present no evidence; and (2) you might say something else entirely in a few post?

Joe: I have a Masters degree form a world famous seminary do you really thin I have not heard this crap before? You have said nothing bold, or daring or innovative or new I could knock this shit out in one afternoon. This issue is one of the first I ever thought about when I first considered being a Christian,

So how come you can present no evidence to support your position?

I do NOT have a masters degree from a seminary, and yet I can find evidence that destroys your position. Does that not make you wonder if just possibly you are wrong?

Joe: U think the Hews have had it straight who their God is for a long time...

You really are clueless about what I am arguing.

I am saying they were originally polytheistic, then henotheistic, then monotheistic. Very obviously I do NOT think the Hebrews have always had the same concept of God.

Joe: why do you think they call it apoloetics dunderhead?

Because all you have is a sorry excuse of an argument!
Anonymous said...
Joe: they would not stop whining

Ah, I see. So God set himself up as their king, not expecting them to whine about it. However God was wrong; the Hebrews continually complained about having God as their king, so God changed his mind, and set up a human king for them instead. That makes sense now.

You can be more negative and cynical you are loosing your touch. I am remolded of childhood. My parents knew my brother and I would whine and howl to buy comic books and toy men every time we went the store. they would by them for us sometimes but they would also make us shut up sometimes. They used that infallible parental instinct to know which was right at the time.



Joe: the bratie children look like the jerks. God gives

Which justifies genocide, you think? I disagree.

Nothing justifies genocide and there is no genocide. I have already discussed the non binning nature of those passages.

Joe: you could give rational warrants too if you had a rational position

PX:I DO have a rational position. That is why you had to move the goalposts so I have to "prove" my position.

seeking to undermine belief in God is not rational

Joe: right it's God who is at fault couldn't be you--real likely

PX: The most likely scenario is God does not exist

That is BS God existnece is so overwhelmingly likely given the great number of valid arguments.

PX: and monotheist religion developed from henotheism, which in turn developed from polytheism, which in turn developed from animism.

Irrelevant to the existence of God

Joe: they appear as false notions not as competing entities who really exist,

PX: Competing gods from a polytheistic pantheon.

There is competing with Being itself, There can't be two beingitselfs


Pix

10/11/2020 01:15:00 AM
Joe: They were false God's the people worshipped when they turned their backs on truth. WE know these others existed in Canaanite mythology. we know the God of Abraham was at least believed in in Ur at least 5 or 6 generations and probably a thousands years before that. These were not characters from the Hebrew religion they were cannante false gods put over as an act of heresy

PX: So go find the evidence the Hebrews were monothestic a thousand years before Abraham.

They do not have been monotheistic. They could be wrong, We are not adopting their religion, This one guy recoiled this one God as the true God he was vindicated through Jesus his decadent,

PX:The fact you have failed to do so after so many posts tells us that - as usual - all you have is wishful thinking.

No you failed to comprehend the point I was making.

Joe: so what? That was before God revealed himself to them.

PX: Which supports my position that they were originally polytheistic.

which makes your position irrelevant because it doesn't undermine Christianity

PX:I take it you are still clueless about what we are discussing?

By clueless you mean I should have accepted that they were polytheistic? Or do you mean your inability to understand why I do accept that, at least provisionally but you fail to understand why that does not undermine Christianity? you can't seem to get that, I call that clueless.

Joe: I don't necessarily take Exodus literally but there must be some historical connection with Egypt because they are so attached to it. Abraham was not Canaanite.

PX: So what is your argument? They must have had some connection to the polytheistic culture of Egypt, therefore what?

Ok Pot listen to the kettle call the Kettle clueless, It does not make any difference of that ancint world were polly theistic,that does not invalidate Jesus as icoarnte logos,the God of the Hebrew was not from Cananite myth,

I do not doubt there was a connection with Egypt, but there was a far closer connection to the Canaanites. For one thing, Hebrew is considered a dialect of the Canaanite language!
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13415-semitic-languages

That is just another naturalistic assumption, who cares? that does not mean God is not there. The Hebrews began to assimilate Canaanites they eventually adopted their language then they told their pre existing truth in that new language that does not invalidate the reality of God.

PX:To claim Egypt was a bigger influence is just ignoring the evidence in favour of what you want to be true.

Not bigger but prior. Shows God was in their lives before they were associated with Canaanite myth

PX: How many mentions of Egyptian gods can you find in the Bible? Any?

There are several The Golden calf for example. What really matters is God was their God.

PX:If the Hebrews came from Ehgyptian roots, why is their language of Canaanite origins?

They did not come from Egyptian roots I told you that, they were in Egypt but they came from Ur of the Chaldeans, probably Ebbla.
Anonymous said...
Joe: why are you so content with speculation?

PX:I am the one in this argument who has actually presented evidence. I have given web sites to support my position. i have cited Bible verses.

Why are you so content with wishful thinking?


You always ignore evidence. There is a ton of evidence they were once in Egypt its all over the Ceremonies the doctrine, the literature. There is eidence of a primordial tradition that pre dates Egypt. The Hurian God was a Strom God The Exilic literature portrays God as a storm God. That would Pre Date Ur.

Joe: you have not established the hebrew-cananite origin, You asserting it because they use those mythical figures

PX:I have shown that it is the far more likely scenario. Those mythical figures are far more evidence than you have of an Egyptian influence. Why no figures from Egyptian mythology?

All that proves is that when the profligate Israelites fell away from their true God they turned to the Canonize mythology,

PX: Plus the language roots again support my position, and destroys yours.

Did you know there were Celts in Brian. There are more Anglo Saxon words than Celtic words, therefore there were no Celts. You are just ignoring worlds form other cultures I've demonstrated in the form of mythos, the golden calf.

Joe: I once did a careful exegesis on the passage in psalms "you shall die like men..." I concluded it's not speaking of killing gods or angles. Elohim can be used of men in certain contexts. I don't have time to go through that study again because it's exhausting.

PX:And yet earlier you said it was about angels!

I think I said it is taken to be.

Why should I believe anything to say when: (1) you present no evidence; and (2) you might say something else entirely in a few post?


10/11/2020 01:17:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said…
Joe: You can be more negative and cynical you are loosing your touch. I am remolded of childhood. My parents knew my brother and I would whine and howl to buy comic books and toy men every time we went the store. they would by them for us sometimes but they would also make us shut up sometimes. They used that infallible parental instinct to know which was right at the time.

I take it you know you have lost the point by now.

In fact, I see the rest of that post does not addressed the issue under discussion - whether monotheism pre-dates polytheism - so I will just skip it.

Joe: They do not have been monotheistic. They could be wrong, We are not adopting their religion, This one guy recoiled this one God as the true God he was vindicated through Jesus his decadent,

They had to have been monotheistic if your claim that monotheism pre-dates polytheism is true.

Joe: No you failed to comprehend the point I was making.

You have chosen not to clarify, so I assume this is your usual tactic.

Joe: which makes your position irrelevant because it doesn't undermine Christianity

It shows your claim that monotheism pre-dates polytheism is probably false. I am saying nothing more than that in this discussion.

Joe: By clueless you mean I should have accepted that they were polytheistic? Or do you mean your inability to understand why I do accept that, at least provisionally but you fail to understand why that does not undermine Christianity? you can't seem to get that, I call that clueless.

By clueless I mean unable to support your claim that monotheism pre-dates polytheism, or, it seems, able to recall that that was your original claim when you joined this discussion.

Joe: Ok Pot listen to the kettle call the Kettle clueless, It does not make any difference of that ancint world were polly theistic,that does not invalidate Jesus as icoarnte logos,the God of the Hebrew was not from Cananite myth,

Again, we are discussing the claim that monotheism pre-dates polytheism. Get a clue.

Joe: That is just another naturalistic assumption, who cares? that does not mean God is not there. The Hebrews began to assimilate Canaanites they eventually adopted their language then they told their pre existing truth in that new language that does not invalidate the reality of God.

And that is a theistic assumption. But yours is based on wishful thinking.

Joe: Not bigger but prior. Shows God was in their lives before they were associated with Canaanite myth

What shows it was prior? You already admitted you do not think Exodus actually happened. What evidence of ANY Egyptian influence do you have?

Pix
You have presented very little evidence and you have ignored most of it.I don't need to document thins when yohaent answered them,

Joe: I have a Masters degree form a world famous seminary do you really thin I have not heard this crap before? You have said nothing bold, or daring or innovative or new I could knock this shit out in one afternoon. This issue is one of the first I ever thought about when I first considered being a Christian,

PX: So how come you can present no evidence to support your position?

I have my own research projects Ive researched this stuff for 50 years,

PS:I do NOT have a masters degree from a seminary, and yet I can find evidence that destroys your position. Does that not make you wonder if just possibly you are wrong?

You might spend a bit of time critically evaluating what your so called "evidence" really proves. You have disproved nothing I've said, For starters you don't understand my poison so you can't disprove it. Secondly, nothing you researched proves that the Hebrews who worshipped Canaanite gods really got them from their ancestors or just adopted them from the neighbors. In fact I don't believe modern scholarship can resolve that,

You have evidence that disproves the Egyptian connection or the Hurruia ciectin irthe /Chadeian cconnection,

Joe: I think the Hebrews have had it straight who their God is for a long time...

PX: You really are clueless about what I am arguing.

then you have presented your case very badly. you are arguing the materialsit muddle, that Hebrews originated in canine with cannonade god;s and Isralites were just a faction who preferred one god over others,

PX:I am saying they were originally polytheistic, then henotheistic, then monotheistic. Very obviously I do NOT think the Hebrews have always had the same concept of God.

IU thin that is a change in your position, Be that as it may just saying they had a different conception of god masks the fact that you have been saying their idea of God was originally and wholly in Cainnan,

Joe: why do you think they call it apoloetics dunderhead?

PX: Because all you have is a sorry excuse of an argument!


You have done some impressive research, you clearly have fine research abilities. But you are not careful in evaluating your own ideas. You have little scholar causation. You can't pay attention to what other people say. My position is not incoherent in the least. It's just not as dogmatic as yours. It's more open ended
Anonymous said…
Joe: There are several The Golden calf for example. What really matters is God was their God.

The Canaanite god Baal was associated with bulls, so this claim is very dubious.

Indeed, there is a good argument that the gold calf was a pedestal for Yahweh. Read the text:

Exodus 32:4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “[b]This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 5 Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”

The calf is regarded as the god "who brought you up from the land of Egypt" - that would be Yahweh.

Joe: They did not come from Egyptian roots I told you that, they were in Egypt but they came from Ur of the Chaldeans, probably Ebbla.

And you evidence is... wishful thinking.

Joe: You always ignore evidence. There is a ton of evidence they were once in Egypt its all over the Ceremonies the doctrine, the literature. There is eidence of a primordial tradition that pre dates Egypt. The Hurian God was a Strom God The Exilic literature portrays God as a storm God. That would Pre Date Ur.

But no evidence of monotheism at that time.

We are discussing your claim that monotheism pre-dates polytheism. Of course I will ignore all evidence irrelevant to that.

Joe: All that proves is that when the profligate Israelites fell away from their true God they turned to the Canonize mythology,

Again, no evidence.

Joe: Did you know there were Celts in Brian. There are more Anglo Saxon words than Celtic words, therefore there were no Celts.

How is that analogous?

We are talking about a people whose culture is steeped in Canaanite gods and whose language is a dialect of Canaanite. You seem to be suggesting the island of Great Britain is like the Hebrew people because at one time the island was inhabited by one race, who were later displaced by another.

Joe: You are just ignoring worlds form other cultures I've demonstrated in the form of mythos, the golden calf.

You have this one sliver of evidence in the golden calf, and yet you fail to understand that it could as equally be from a Canaanite god, Baal, or indeed Yahweh.

Joe: I think I said it is taken to be.

Heaven forbid you should make your position clear. Obfuscation all the way!

Joe: I have my own research projects Ive researched this stuff for 50 years,

And from all that the best you have is "golden calf".

Pix: I am saying they were originally polytheistic, then henotheistic, then monotheistic. Very obviously I do NOT think the Hebrews have always had the same concept of God.

Joe: IU thin that is a change in your position,

But of course you are unable to present the two to compare. Just as when you make false accusations of lying and straw men, your claims are as ever unsupported.

Because they are make-believe.

Here is what I said in my second post: "Looks like the consensus on that web page is polytheism was first." Very clearly I started saying polytheism was before monotheism, and very clearly I am still saying polytheism was before monotheism.

Pix
this is closed because we have a new thread but I will answer one thing,

PX: Indeed, there is a good argument that the gold calf was a pedestal for Yahweh. Read the text:

There was a Egyptian bull god this was probably it since they just came out of Egypt

Exodus 32:4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “[b]This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 5 Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”

The calf is regarded as the god "who brought you up from the land of Egypt" - that would be Yahweh.

Your whole world view depends on writing them off as idiots. this is a literary production it is irony, They are sinning, they are replacing God who cannot be imaged with a graven image, While they do that God is upon the mountain telling Moses it;s a commandment not to do it, So ;ts a commentary on sin, not an homae to pagan yth,

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

The Meaning of the Manger

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love