FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Judeo-Christian polytheism? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Judeo-Christian polytheism?
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
So I've been rereading my Bible as of late and through my study as well as through talking to others the question of polytheism continually comes up.

We obviously refer to Judaism and Christianity as monotheistic religions, but are they really? Well, they are at the moment, but were they supposed to be?

These questions occur partly because of the first commandment, which seems to imply there are other gods that Yahweh is concerned the Hebrews will go off and worship. The OT is also full of references to other gods and, at least how I've read them, they seem to accept these other gods as existing.

And then the question comes up about whether it is polytheism to acknowledge the existence of other gods, or for it to be actual polytheism you have to worship more than one? Hindus, for example, are not unknown to choose one god as a 'patron' and worship it. Though they acknowledge the existence of the other gods, and we do refer to it still as polytheism.

I also just want to be clear that I'm not making any judgment about polytheism or monotheism. By suggesting that Judaism and Christianity might be similar to polytheism I am in no way meaning that as an insult.

Just curious what everyone thinks on the matter, because it is a bit interesting to me.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Catseye1979
Member
Member # 5560

 - posted      Profile for Catseye1979   Email Catseye1979         Edit/Delete Post 
Nearly all gods mentioned in the bible or the lifeless Idol types. The types of gods that only have as much power as man gives them.

My question has always been when God makes man he says "Let us make man our image and in our likeness." (all I have handy is my Spanish Bible so I can't give an exact quote)

Who is "us" and "our"?

Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Genesis explicitly states that Elohim (gods, plural) created the heavens and the earth. Modern Jews dismiss this plural usage as being similar to the royal "We." Cultural anthropologists, however, take notice of the same thing you see. Up until the exile to Babylon, the bible refers to the Hebrew god as if he is only one of many. After the exile to Babylon, he becomes "The One True God."

The predominant religion in Babylon was Zoroastrianism, which was the first monotheistic religion. The predominant theory in cultural anthropology is that the hebrews assimilated the monotheistic concept into their own religion, and treated all the gods previously mentioned in the bible as false gods.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
A separate but related question:

Since Mormons view the Trinity as being separate in identity, couldn't that in a way be interpreted as polytheism?

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, from a pagan standpoint, Satan and the other angels would be considered gods or demigods. Judeo-Christianity gets around this simply by defining them as being less than gods.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shawshank
Member
Member # 8453

 - posted      Profile for Shawshank   Email Shawshank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Catseye1979:
My question has always been when God makes man he says "Let us make man our image and in our likeness." (all I have handy is my Spanish Bible so I can't give an exact quote)

Who is "us" and "our"?

Classical theology would tell us that is God in trinity.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
In the Old Testament, the Jews are always influenced by pagan cultures, often intermarrying and converting to polytheistic religions. God is concerned about worshipping no other gods before him, not because he knows there are other gods, but because his people can be led to believe there are other gods.

The most glaring part of the Bible that I noticed seemed to acknowledge more than one God is in Daniel, when Nebbuchanezzer speaks. He, however, is a king of pagans, and believes in man-made deities himself. He seems to acknowledge, however, that the god of the Jews was the most powerful high God.

When God says "let us," in Genesis, it is possible that the Trinity existed at that time and "us" refers to the three manifestations the one God takes. If there are multiple gods, all omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, the lines between them would blur and they would in reality be one God. This is why the Holy Trinity is not treated as an indication of polytheism in most Christian sects.

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lostincyberspace
Member
Member # 11228

 - posted      Profile for Lostincyberspace   Email Lostincyberspace         Edit/Delete Post 
I being Mormon don't understand the trinity and the reasons I have gotten for it are non existent. Don't get me wrong I know many people who believe in the trinity and we have no problems they, just haven't been able to get me to understand from a investigative point of view. I know there is the the water analogy where god can be manifested in different forms like water. but what about the fact that it cant be in the different forms at the same time, as at Jesus's baptism. Where god speaks and Christ is there and the holy spirit comes down in the form of a dove.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is reasonably well accepted among non-Christian, non-Jewish scholars that Judaism grew out of a previous polytheism, with at least a female partner for Yahweh and possibly other gods as well. If Lisa posts in here you'll see her deny this strenuously.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.

Hey! I was writing this post! I googled to make sure I was spelling "henotheism" properly and everything!

[Grumble]

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism.

Thanks. I thought there was a word for it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
I always assume LDS were polytheistic in terms of doctine, but monotheistic in terms of actual worship. We don't have seperate worship services for God the Father, God the Son, we don't pray to them seperately, we just have the one temple, etc.
I took a Jewish history course and they mentioned a female partner, but she didn't make the cut as beliefs became more unified so by second temple period, she was pretty much gone.

Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Catseye1979:
Nearly all gods mentioned in the bible or the lifeless Idol types. The types of gods that only have as much power as man gives them.

... so, the other gods were actually Ori?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
Growing up in an Orthodox Christian family (the eastern flavor), I had asked this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. I was told that the religion is truly monotheistic, and that the Trinity is one of the “mysteries” about the nature of God, so I needn’t worry too much if I don’t understand. And that counts for all the “plurals” when the Bible is quoting God Himself.
Now, for all other “false gods” that people had the tendency to worship and idolatrize, they were just that, false gods, because God is the only True One, hence religion is monotheistic. (At the time “religion” was the same as “Orthodox Christianity”, of course, as I wasn’t aware there was any other alternative)

Just my experience. [Smile]

A.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
You know, outside of the Bible, I never really figured out why polytheism is assumed to be inferior to monotheism. Aside from the fact that the first is discovered before the latter when playing Sid Meier's Civilization, it seems that most of the references that say monotheism is "better" than polytheism are actually in the scriptures/traditions/whatever of the monotheisms themselves rather than in any objective source.

So in essence, when people from one religion *do* criticize another as being polytheistic (not you Javert obviously), the issue seems to almost be comparable to a complaint about internal continuity rather than any objective problems. As if a really big Star Trek fan complained that in Star Wars, the old movies portrayed Vader as really cool, whereas later movies portrayed him as a whiny tool, as if it was a slight against Star Wars as a whole.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Also, from a pagan standpoint, Satan and the other angels would be considered gods or demigods. Judeo-Christianity gets around this simply by defining them as being less than gods.

It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Worshipping one God while recognizing the existence of many is called henotheism. There are definitely henotheistic strands of thought in the Bible, competing with the monotheistic strands. Monotheism won out.

Learn something new everyday. I would definitely say Mormonism is a henotheistic religion under those guidelines.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.

I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:
It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.

I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.

Job is most likely a fictional performance or play that was written by early pre-Moses Jews to portray the message of why there is suffering in the world even though God has the power to do away with it.When analyzing the book of Job, which is the oldest book in the Bible, one must note that its purpose was to teach why there is suffering in the world, and not how Satan gets permission to do what he does.

Though I don't have much other than educated guesses to back me up, it seems to me that Satan does not require God's EXPLICIT permission, as he obtains it in Job (although if God wants to disallow something Satan is doing, he will by all means do so. An example is when Jesus drives demons from Mary Magdelene), but requires OUR permission to do his devilish works. That is, when Satan is tempting people. We have the capacity to resist temptation and the power to ask for God's guidance and strength if the going gets tough, which means Satan is more or less at our mercy. The problem is that he can be very persuasive, even when the most obvious logic is against him.

When he's causing death and seemingly natural destruction, that probably does require God's permission, or at least a lack of pre-emptive intervention.

But as I said, these are only hypotheses based on what I've read and experienced. I don't have specific sources that say exactly what I'm saying.

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholar:
I took a Jewish history course and they mentioned a female partner, but she didn't make the cut as beliefs became more unified so by second temple period, she was pretty much gone.

Yahweh: OK, huddle up. Jesus, good hustle today.
This is the hardest duty of a coach, but must be done for the good of the team.
Asherah, you're cut. And take Lilith with you. Satan, you're out. You keep tripping over your pride.

For everyone left, GO TEAM TRINITY!

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Genesis explicitly states that Elohim (gods, plural) created the heavens and the earth. Modern Jews dismiss this plural usage as being similar to the royal "We."

You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".

In Hebrew, modifiers have to match what they are modifying in number and gender. That's how we know, for example, that the word "even" (stone) is feminine. Because it's modified as "even gedolah", and not "even gadol".

When we speak of "elohim acherim" (other gods", the modifier is plural, because the word in that case is plural. But the Torah says "vayomer Elohim", and not "vayomeru Elohim" for "And God said", which pretty much establishes that it's singular.

You've heard of Johns Hopkins? Was it named after two guys named John? No. Despite the fact that normally, the word "Johns" would indicate more than one "John".

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Cultural anthropologists, however, take notice of the same thing you see. Up until the exile to Babylon, the bible refers to the Hebrew god as if he is only one of many. After the exile to Babylon, he becomes "The One True God."

Again, you're mistaken. There's no indication that God is referred to in the plural anywhere in the Bible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I think it is reasonably well accepted among non-Christian, non-Jewish scholars that Judaism grew out of a previous polytheism, with at least a female partner for Yahweh and possibly other gods as well. If Lisa posts in here you'll see her deny this strenuously.

Only because it's untrue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".
You're entitled to your beliefs Lisa. The bit about the "Royal We" I got from the bible at a temple where I attended a friend's son's Bar Mitzvah. In general, those that study biblical linguistics (without fundamentalist prejudice) recognize that elohim is plural. And speaking of feminine modifiers, some of the oldest existing texts of genesis indicate that the creator gods were feminine.

Changing topics (and audience, since Lisa will surely not appreciate this next bit).

There's a good book (depending on your point of view, I guess) called "When God was a Woman," that posits that religion began when people asked the question "where did I come from?" The answer, of course, is "from your mother," and in turn from her mother, and so on, which implies an infinite regression. Seeking an ultimate answer, the first mother in the line then is the original creator, and therefore: God.

The book goes on to point out that before some point, early humankind must not have been able to make the connection between sexual activity and procreation. Before that connection was made, men were not considered part of the procreative process, and thus, didn't have any relations except to their mother. The author of the book says that archaeological findings before a certain time show that there were no idols of male gods, only female ones. The discovery that men were part of the procreative process threw previous religious claims into a cocked hat, and men retaliated by claiming that only men could create life, and that women were merely vessels for the man's seed. At this point the male god was invented, and gods changed from being the single head of the female line, to multiple gods serving various purposes.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nighthawk
Member
Member # 4176

 - posted      Profile for Nighthawk   Email Nighthawk         Edit/Delete Post 
I read the title as "Judo-Christian". I was expecting something... well... more violent and, as such, more entertaining.

Carry on.

Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
As I say: Strenuously.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
I read the title as "Judo-Christian". I was expecting something... well... more violent and, as such, more entertaining.

Carry on.

Judo-Christians...hmmmm...do they chop through wooden crosses?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
Judo practitioners generally don't do a lot of board-breaking, If I understand correctly. It's more of a wrestling/throwing art that derives from the empty-handed art of the samurai. There wasn't a lot of point in the samurai developing powerful empty-handed punches/chops. The heavy armor worn during battle made that largely pointless. It's usually easier, with a heavily-armored opponent, to use the fact that the armor is heavy and makes getting back up difficult against him.

Umm, sorry to derail. [Smile]

[ December 08, 2007, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: steven ]

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, there is the Karatist Preacher
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa, as usual, thinks she owns the Hebrew language, and knows better than all the translators whether the Creator said "Let US make man in OUR image." (Gen. 1:26)

I will agree with you Lisa, about the Hebrew view of deity not deriving from any ancestral polytheism. There is a lot of errant nonsense masquerading as scholarship these days when it comes to religious history. There is bound to be someone who can be quoted to support any warped view of history one might fancy. When Jews were not mistaking the gods of Egypt or the baals of surrounding nations for manifestations of their own God, they were monotheists--all the way back to Abraham, Noah, and Adam. Jews deserve credit for this, and it should not be denied them by modern revisionists who want to deny anything miraculous.

The dispute is over whether Christians with their Trinitarian beliefs still have a right to call themselves monotheists. We do not believe in a huge pantheon of gods. We believe in Three Persons who are so closely united in purpose it is fair to call them One. We find grounds supporting this belief in both Old and New Testaments.

One of the classic examples in the Old Testament establishing there is more than One Person who is God is King David's Psalm where he recounted his vision: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalms 110:1; NKJV.) Who is David's Lord, and Who is the other LORD?

When I brought this up some time ago, Lisa claimed that the one David was referring to as his Lord was Abraham. I will leave it to the reader to decide for himself if that interpretation really is convincing. I would ask, how many enemies did Abraham have? And since when is Abraham, who is dead, anybody's Lord?

[ December 08, 2007, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:
You're mistaken, Glenn. The name Elohim is no more plural because it ends in "im" than the word glass is plural because it ends in "s".
You're entitled to your beliefs Lisa.
Glenn, you can't simply label informed knowledge of the Hebrew language "beliefs".

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
The bit about the "Royal We" I got from the bible at a temple where I attended a friend's son's Bar Mitzvah.

Nice. Any place calling itself a "temple" is probably not going to be all that much when it comes to Jewish scholarship. And while it's true that the royal "we" is used -- once -- in Genesis, that's not why the name Elohim isn't plural. It isn't plural because anyone who knows Hebrew knows that if singular verbs are used with a noun, the noun is singular. Period. There are no exceptions in the entire Hebrew language.

The adjective kadim is singular, because it is, despite ending with "im". And yes, there is a word "elohim" that means "gods". But the name Elohim, which is used for God in the Torah, is singular. No one with the most minimal literacy in Hebrew would claim otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
In general, those that study biblical linguistics (without fundamentalist prejudice) recognize that elohim is plural.

Yes. The word "elohim" is plural. The name Elohim is not.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
And speaking of feminine modifiers, some of the oldest existing texts of genesis indicate that the creator gods were feminine.

That's not true. Produce one. Produce a single source that references one. Not two. Just a single one. You won't be able to do it, because Genesis contains nothing of the sort. In any version whatsoever. Support your claim or retract it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Lisa, as usual, thinks she owns the Hebrew language, and knows better than all the translators whether the Creator said "Let US make man in OUR image." (Gen. 1:26)

It absolutely does say that. And that's a case of the royal "we". Furthermore, it's there to teach the lesson that you shouldn't think it's beneath you to consult with those who may be less than you before doing something.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The dispute is over whether Christians with their Trinitarian beliefs still have a right to call themselves monotheists. We do not believe in a huge pantheon of gods. We believe in Three Persons who are so closely united in purpose it is fair to call them One. We find grounds supporting this belief in both Old and New Testaments.

There's no plurality in God in the Hebrew Bible. God is One. Not "it's fair to call them One." Not a Certs style "It's three -- three -- three gods in one." But One.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
One of the classic examples in the Old Testament establishing there is more than One Person who is God is King David's Psalm where he recounted his vision: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalms 110:1; NKJV.) Who is David's Lord, and Who is the other LORD?

That's one of the problems with relying on translations, Ron. The verse in question reads in the original:
quote:
A Psalm of David: Hashem said to my lord, sit at My right until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.
We've been through this over and over, Ron. Those of you who want to wade through the whole discussion can do so here, on AI Jane.

Adonai is a name used biblically for God. Jews are wont to use that pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton (the four letter name of God that we don't pronounce) as well. In fact, we often place the vowels for Adonai on the consonants for the Tetragrammaton, and some people who were unaware of this practice attempted to pronounce the Tetragrammaton with those vowels and got "Jehovah", which is where that particular mistaken version of God's name came from.

Because Jews pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, from the word meaning "my Lord", many biblical translations translate that name as "my Lord".

On the other hand, the word adoni is only ever used for human beings. And the verse in question reads "God said to my lord (or my master)." It either refers to David himself (meaning that it was a Psalm written about David by someone else), or David wrote it, and it was referring to Abraham, who is called "adoni" by the Hittites in Genesis.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
When I brought this up some time ago, Lisa claimed that the one David was referring to as his Lord was Abraham. I will leave it to the reader to decide for himself if that interpretation really is convincing. I would ask, how many enemies did Abraham have? And since when is Abraham, who is dead, anybody's Lord?

You're bending the truth a bit, Ron, by mistranslating adoni as "Lord", rather than "lord". The word adoni is absolutely never applied to God anywhere in the Bible. And the name Adonai is absolutely never applied to a human being in the Bible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That's not true. Produce one. Produce a single source that references one. Not two. Just a single one. You won't be able to do it, because Genesis contains nothing of the sort. In any version whatsoever. Support your claim or retract it.
I will modify it somewhat. link

quote:
"Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'

"Again (v., 27), how could Adam be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. But in the Kabbalah we find that the Ancient of Days conforms himself simultaneously into the Father and the Mother, and thus begets the Son. Now this Mother is Elohim."


Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Without necessarily agreeing with Lisa, I must say that your source seems to be playing word games, Glenn.

quote:
it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring.
I'm sorry, but this is just so much noise. It would go right into your average alchemy text; it does not belong in a historical discussion. Especially when the writer is trying to use syllable likenesses to read the minds of people three thousand years dead, who may not even have pronounced the syllables the same way! There are only so many syllables the human throat can produce; just because one of them has a particular meaning in one context, doesn't mean you can bring that meaning over to all other contexts in which it appears!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lostincyberspace
Member
Member # 11228

 - posted      Profile for Lostincyberspace   Email Lostincyberspace         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by suminonA:
Growing up in an Orthodox Christian family (the eastern flavor), I had asked this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. I was told that the religion is truly monotheistic, and that the Trinity is one of the “mysteries” about the nature of God, so I needn’t worry too much if I don’t understand. And that counts for all the “plurals” when the Bible is quoting God Himself.
Now, for all other “false gods” that people had the tendency to worship and idolatrize, they were just that, false gods, because God is the only True One, hence religion is monotheistic. (At the time “religion” was the same as “Orthodox Christianity”, of course, as I wasn’t aware there was any other alternative)

Just my experience. [Smile]

A.

No that is the ascended Ori that give the priors power.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:
It depends on whether or not you believe that Satan has the ability to interfere with worldly affairs. If he doesn't then he is not a god.
In the beginning of Job, Satan gets permission from God to mess with the guy. I was taught that meant Satan always has to get permission to mess with our lives. I asked if that meant he had to ask God for permission before he went to war against Him. I was told he did. That really messed with me.

I lean towards Satan always needing permission as some sort of logical fallicy, but I haven't been doing much Bible study in the last 5 years. I mean, doesn't he have implicit permission as part of his being? There's no reason for him to exist except to tempt folks. I'd think he got permission when he took the job.

I'm writing my thesis on Satan and I have this view of him and his role that makes perfect sense to me until I get into Revelations. Then it all kind of goes out the window. His part and the descriptions of his nature in terms of the War are sadly the adopted theological view from the Medieval Period til now. Everything else points to a spiritual being(s) playing a much hated part in the cosmic play directed by God himself. Yeah, he gets carried away but I think that Christianity shot itself in the foot when its began to retrospectively beat up on Satan.

Does anyone know where the line "I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things [Isaiah 45:5-7]" falls in the timeline of Jewish thelogy? It has intrigued me lately as it seems support a clearly defined monotheism. And then sometime just before the birth of Christianity somebody screwed it up with the introduction of dualities.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lostincyberspace:
quote:
Originally posted by suminonA:
[...] this same question, especially because of the Trinity concept. [...]

No that is the ascended Ori that give the priors power.
If this is not a joke (you never know around here), I'd specify that I was responding to the OP (and I thought that the context was clear), and it just came after the “Ori” reference chronologically, without having anything to do with it (unless the Ori believe also in Trinity!) [Smile]

A.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
Shanna, I'm curious, is your thesis based on the idea that Satan is an actual entity or just a human personification of evil and temptation? I'm torn on the question myself.

On the one hand, if evil is just doing what God wouldn't, it doesn't make any sense to me for Him to have personified the idea. On the other, who gave Eve permission to sin before she had the knowledge herself?

Unless she and Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil and eating from the tree was them choosing evil and not just learning how. It seems awful complicated.

I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time. When folks are out worshipping golden calves, you're going to make reference to other gods even if they're not real. The concept is real for the intended audience anyway.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Without necessarily agreeing with Lisa, I must say that your source seems to be playing word games, Glenn.

quote:
it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring.
I'm sorry, but this is just so much noise. It would go right into your average alchemy text; it does not belong in a historical discussion. Especially when the writer is trying to use syllable likenesses to read the minds of people three thousand years dead, who may not even have pronounced the syllables the same way! There are only so many syllables the human throat can produce; just because one of them has a particular meaning in one context, doesn't mean you can bring that meaning over to all other contexts in which it appears!
Without even addressing the religious aspects, I completely agree with KoM that what Glenn posted is nonsense. I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time.

Well, that would first require that a god actually exist.... [Wink]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
Don't start that on this thread. This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
Shanna, I'm curious, is your thesis based on the idea that Satan is an actual entity or just a human personification of evil and temptation? I'm torn on the question myself.

On the one hand, if evil is just doing what God wouldn't, it doesn't make any sense to me for Him to have personified the idea. On the other, who gave Eve permission to sin before she had the knowledge herself?

Unless she and Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil and eating from the tree was them choosing evil and not just learning how. It seems awful complicated.

I kind of wish God had stated how things work explicitly for us instead of letting everything filter in through scribes who had to interpret everything by the culture of their time. When folks are out worshipping golden calves, you're going to make reference to other gods even if they're not real. The concept is real for the intended audience anyway.

I would say my thesis supposes that he is an actual being. Though there are also a number of passages in the Old Testament and other apocrypha that would suggest that there are multiple beings who act as "a satan."

The more I read, the more I find that the best solution to the problem of evil is to simply stop seeing it as a problem. One can either see God as "all good" or as "all things." The latter option solves the problem. God is now the starting point from which everything else branches. The other solution...remove the word "evil." You know the line, "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." I've read another translation which reads, "lead us not into trial but deliver us from temptation." From this perspective Satan is not evil or even a tempter. He is an "adversary" or a "tester." He presents the trial or test and either man passes or he falls into temptation.

So what is perceived as evil is simply the means by which man proves his loyalty to God. What happened to Job was not "evil" but merely a series of unfortunate events by which Job was able to show is true devotion.

And the majority of the Bible supports this reading of Satan/Devil and his nature and function. Its only when you get into the late Paulian works and Revelations that it all starts to go to hell, literally. That's where the idea of "Satan as the personification of Evil" really takes over.

As for idols and other gods, I just remember when I took a class on Gnosticism and alot of those lines and scenes were brought up to support that idea that the God of the Jews was himself a false god and he knew it, hence all the ridiculous jealousy, anger, and insecurity.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Shanna, I hope it will appeal to you as reasonable to consider that the following passages are talking about Satan (Lucifer), and explain his original fall:

Ezekiel 28:11-19
Isaiah 14:12-14

Some scholars (mainly those who wish to deny anything miraculous, like actually inspired prophecy) try to deny that these passages speak of Lucifer in heaven. They note that the passage in Ezekiel starts out addressed to the king of Tyre, and the one in Isaiah starts out addressed to the king of Babylon.

But could these prophecies not be addressing the spiritual power behind these thrones? When was it ever true of the earthly king of Tyre--"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God....Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth....Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

And is it not a bit far-fetched to regard the following as mere metaphors applied to a mere human, even the king of Babylon: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" And: "...you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."

These passages tell us the nature of Lucifer's rebellion against God, what his ambition was, why He fell. With these the references to the war in heaven given in Revelation 12 make perfect sense. (Lucifer enlisted one-third of the angels of heaven into his rebellion. Those angels who fell have come to this earth, and are now called devils who are led by The Devil.)

I hope you will not let the modern revisionists cheat you out of these valid insights into the origin of sin and the original fall of Lucifer.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM:
The source I linked is not by any means the place where I first heard that Elohim had feminine characteristics. She asked for one corroborating source, so I searched for one, rather than attempting to retrace the path that I followed about 10 years ago which is rather vague in memory.
Perhaps I should have highlighted the part I was looking for in the first place.
quote:
The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word.
quote:
I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Lisa, do you claim that ALH (Eloh) is not feminine?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.
Have you not yet figured out that you don't get to say what threads are about? [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Don't start that on this thread. This is about whether Christians/Jews are polytheists, or ever were polytheists, not whether the gods they worship exist.

Being the person who started it, this is somewhat my thread*. And as far as I'm concerned Tom can go off on whatever tangents he wants.


*I, of course, understand that this is OSC's website. But since I do have the ability to delete this thread should I desire, it could be argued that I have some responsibility for it.

That, and it is fun to pretend I have a tiny bit of power. [Cool]

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Shanna, I hope it will appeal to you as reasonable to consider that the following passages are talking about Satan (Lucifer), and explain his original fall:

Ezekiel 28:11-19
Isaiah 14:12-14

Some scholars (mainly those who wish to deny anything miraculous, like actually inspired prophecy) try to deny that these passages speak of Lucifer in heaven. They note that the passage in Ezekiel starts out addressed to the king of Tyre, and the one in Isaiah starts out addressed to the king of Babylon.

But could these prophecies not be addressing the spiritual power behind these thrones?

No. God has no problem speaking directly to "satan", as in Zechariah 3:2.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
When was it ever true of the earthly king of Tyre--"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God....Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth....Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

That's a reference to the fact that Hiram of Tyre helped build the Temple of Solomon. The royal house of Tyre had a great deal of merit because of that, and the king of Tyre God is speaking to here through Ezekiel is saying that he pissed it all away.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
And is it not a bit far-fetched to regard the following as mere metaphors applied to a mere human, even the king of Babylon: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

Are you unaware that Nebuchadnezzar considered himself a deity? Furthermore, Isaiah his words to the king of Babylon by calling them a parable (14:4).

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
These passages tell us the nature of Lucifer's rebellion against God, what his ambition was, why He fell.

No. There's no such thing as "Lucifer", and the morning star is something everyone has seen. The parable used by Isaiah likens Nebuchadnezzar to it, because Venus (the planet called the morning star -- and evening star) rises and falls. Just like Nebuchadnezzar rose, and then fell.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
KoM:
The source I linked is not by any means the place where I first heard that Elohim had feminine characteristics. She asked for one corroborating source, so I searched for one, rather than attempting to retrace the path that I followed about 10 years ago which is rather vague in memory.
Perhaps I should have highlighted the part I was looking for in the first place.
quote:
The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word.
quote:
I'm going to take it as an admission on Glenn's part that his claim was false.
Lisa, do you claim that ALH (Eloh) is not feminine?

Yes, Glenn, I do. It is not feminine in form, and there's not a single place in the Bible where a feminine adjective or verb modifies it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
Even if the word is grammatically feminine, that doesn't mean a thing. In French, the word for a man's shirt (chemise) is feminine, and the word for a woman's shirt (chemisier) is masculine. This doesn't mean that once upon a time French men wore women's clothing and French women wore men's clothing.

By the way, I know virtually nothing about Hebrew. I just know that asserting something about a person or thing's real gender based on the grammatical gender of the word for that thing is flawed.

Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
I am sad for you, Lisa. Jews have been greatly favored and privileged, but because of your own unbelief you have cheated yourselves out of so much more. So much more you could understand. So much more you could enjoy in a closer relationship with God. So much more hope.

I realize the mistreatment of you by the Christian majority throughout the Christian era has prejudiced you against seeing many obvious truths in the Bible, that are so easy for us to see. But I trust that God yet has a way of saving even people in your unique situation. He must still regard the Jews as His special friends, because of the way they have stood so faithfully for the Sabbath through the ages, and because of the way they have preserved the Scriptures so carefully. Whenever someone expresses doubt that the weekly cycle has been preserved intact since Biblical times, Adventists like me only have to point to the Jews, and note that they have never lost track of the Sabbath. When people express doubt that the Scriptures could be maintained accurately for thousands of years, all believers today can point to the faithful integrity of the Jewish scribes, and the creative methods they employed to ensure accurate copying.

You Jews have been a blessing to us, and some of us do appreciate it. To a large extent, your suffering and sacrifices have been for us--even if too often they were caused by us, too. I for one choose to think well of you, despite how you may exasperate us now and then when we try to reason with you. See you in heaven. We can sort things out then.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2