The disconnect between God as he actually is and God as Genesis depicts him has been the entire point behind what I've been saying.
How do you define 'God as he actually is?'
From my experience, even people in the same church tend to believe in different versions of God, so I'm curious how you define it (let me be clear I really am curious and just trying to better understand your perspective).
From my experience, even people in the same church tend to believe in different versions of God, so I'm curious how you define it (let me be clear I really am curious and just trying to better understand your perspective).
You may substitute, "God as Highroller perceives God to be," if that facilitates discussion.
However, it's pretty clear that Genesis 3's depiction of God is vastly different from most if not all Christian interpretations of God.
You don't find your answers as to why Snape is such a dick to Harry in Book #1 of the Harry Potter Series. You have to jump all the way to Book #6 to realize what Snape went through to get where he was at the start of the series.
So if you tried to conduct a debate that asked why Snape was such a dick to Harry, but told people they could only use passages from Book #1 and try to defend his actions, you wouldn't get very far now would you?
Except that Snape's actions throughout the books and the descriptions of him are internally consistent. The bible however, contradicts itself by saying God is infinitely good and just, while at the same time doing stuff which clearly contradicts with these properties.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I mean, there is even good evidence that the Israelites hadn't made the switch from polytheism to monolatry (let alone monotheism) by the writing of this part of Genesis.[1]
My understanding is the being that made Adam&Eve in this story wasn't 'big-G God' yet; it was the Elohim--the children of El--that made Adam&Eve, not YHWH.
I mean, there is even good evidence that the Israelites hadn't made the switch from polytheism to monolatry (let alone monotheism) by the writing of this part of Genesis.[1]
My understanding is the being that made Adam&Eve in this story wasn't 'big-G God' yet; it was the Elohim--the children of El--that made Adam&Eve, not YHWH.
But a few paragraphs below say that they are different. This is troubling, because I thought YHWH was THE God, not a god that served on a council with other gods under a bigger god. In Christianity, are we serving El or YHWH? Who is Jesus' father?
I mean, there is even good evidence that the Israelites hadn't made the switch from polytheism to monolatry (let alone monotheism) by the writing of this part of Genesis.[1]
My understanding is the being that made Adam&Eve in this story wasn't 'big-G God' yet; it was the Elohim--the children of El--that made Adam&Eve, not YHWH.
But a few paragraphs below say that they are different. This is troubling, because I thought YHWH was THE God, not a god that served on a council with other gods under a bigger god.
You misread it. It's saying that it may refer to God being the chief deity of a pantheon, not that God serves another god.
In Christianity, are we serving El or YHWH? Who is Jesus' father?
But a few paragraphs below say that they are different. This is troubling, because I thought YHWH was THE God, not a god that served on a council with other gods under a bigger god. In Christianity, are we serving El or YHWH? Who is Jesus' father?
They became to mean the same, but there is good indication that the early Israelites were polytheists, just like everyone else.
There is evidence the LORD evolved from the Israelite pantheon head, Yahweh(who was likely a war god, like Oden). Once the Israelites made the switch from polytheism to monolatry their holy texts would have been edited to reflect that. You can tell the early Israelites weren't monotheists for a long while--but were monolatrists--since much of the Old Testament talks about other gods as if they exist.
I'm getting all of this from this book, The Evolution of God, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Lots and lots of citations in it, and a great read for anyone interested in why humans worship what we worship.
__________________
From Wik on Yahweh: "In the oldest biblical literature (12th-11th centuries) Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; he and Israel are bound by a covenant (a feature unique in ancient Near Eastern religion) under which Yahweh will protect Israel, and Israel in turn will not worship other gods. At a later period Yahweh functioned as the dynastic cult (the god of the royal house), the royal courts promoting him as the supreme god over all others in the pantheon, notably Baal, El and Asherah, (the last of whom may have been his consort). Over time Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as God of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. With the work of Second Isaiah (the author of the second half of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and true God of all the world."
Well, if you're going to contrast monotheism with monolatrism, then monotheism doesn't come in until MUCH later.
In antiquity it was accepted that all gods exist. Neither Christians nor Jews would have disputed this. Paul even takes as common knowledge the existence of other gods. The restriction is against worshiping other gods, but people in antiquity would certainly have accepted that other gods exist.
I thought by ~600 BC(after the 'discovery' of Deuteronomy) most Jews were monotheists.
Paul--being a converted Roman--would have been different case, however. Not being raised Jewish and all that, it would make a lot of sense if he were a monolatrist.
I thought by ~600 BC(after the 'discovery' of Deuteronomy) most Jews were monotheists.
Not at all.
Then you get weird stuff like Christians who aren't monolatrists. I remember a professor showing me a tapestry in which the infant Christ is being bathed by the god of the River Jordan.
Paul--being a converted Roman--would have been different case, however. Not being raised Jewish and all that,
King Josiah--using the newly 'found' book of Deuteronomy as justification--made monotheism the state policy of Israel (I thought anyway). Not everyone would have gone along with it, but we can safely assume the majority did, and those numbers would have rose with each passing generation. This monotheism would effectively inoculate the Jewish faith against the Roman one.[1]
Then you get weird stuff like Christians who aren't monolatrists. I remember a professor showing me a tapestry in which the infant Christ is being bathed by the god of the River Jordan.
While the early Christians did consider themselves Jews, mainly to get the special dispensation Jews had under Roman law (my understanding is that was thanks to Philo), I was talking about Judaism in my post. The mutant strain of Judaism known as Christianity has an important difference, proselytizing. While most Jews did not try to convert others to their religion, Christians were actively engaged in this activity.
This caused people that had grown-up in other faiths to become Christian later in life. Which--no doubt--led to the kind of art you are describing. However, the majority of Jews at that point in history wouldn’t have had that kind of dual background and would have been monotheists through and through.
Anyway, what text are you pointing to to show Paul was a monolatrist, not a monotheist? ( or are you simply saying Paul knew a few other early Christians were monolatrists, and wrote accordingly?)
King Josiah--using the newly 'found' book of Deuteronomy as justification--made monotheism the state policy of Israel (I thought anyway). Not everyone would have gone along with it, but we can safely assume the majority did, and those numbers would have rose with each passing generation. This monotheism would effectively inoculate the Jewish faith against the Roman one.[1]
I think we should carefully examine what we mean by monotheism.
The Jews only worshiped one God (well, ideally anyway), but they still accepted the existence of other gods.
Very much so. He identifies himself as a Pharisee.
Anyway, what text are you pointing to to show Paul was a monolatrist, not a monotheist? ( or are you simply saying Paul knew a few other early Christians were monolatrists, and wrote accordingly?)
Well for the most part that was the world view of antiquity, but specifically:
Quote from 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 »
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’, and that ‘there is no God but one.’ Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
How do you define 'God as he actually is?'
From my experience, even people in the same church tend to believe in different versions of God, so I'm curious how you define it (let me be clear I really am curious and just trying to better understand your perspective).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You may substitute, "God as Highroller perceives God to be," if that facilitates discussion.
However, it's pretty clear that Genesis 3's depiction of God is vastly different from most if not all Christian interpretations of God.
Except that Snape's actions throughout the books and the descriptions of him are internally consistent. The bible however, contradicts itself by saying God is infinitely good and just, while at the same time doing stuff which clearly contradicts with these properties.
My understanding is the being that made Adam&Eve in this story wasn't 'big-G God' yet; it was the Elohim--the children of El--that made Adam&Eve, not YHWH.
This wikipedia page says that the Tanakh position is that El, Elohim, and YHWH are all the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29#Hebrew_Bible
But a few paragraphs below say that they are different. This is troubling, because I thought YHWH was THE God, not a god that served on a council with other gods under a bigger god. In Christianity, are we serving El or YHWH? Who is Jesus' father?
You misread it. It's saying that it may refer to God being the chief deity of a pantheon, not that God serves another god.
This article will help you to understand the different terms.
El is a term that means any god. Elohim is its plural, but when it refers to God in the Hebrew using singular verbs, it is taken to mean "The God."
YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, is God's true and sacred name. It is usually written as The LORD in English texts.
Adonai is the word for Lord or Master, which is usually used in the place of speaking God's sacred name.
There is evidence the LORD evolved from the Israelite pantheon head, Yahweh (who was likely a war god, like Oden). Once the Israelites made the switch from polytheism to monolatry their holy texts would have been edited to reflect that. You can tell the early Israelites weren't monotheists for a long while--but were monolatrists--since much of the Old Testament talks about other gods as if they exist.
I'm getting all of this from this book, The Evolution of God, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Lots and lots of citations in it, and a great read for anyone interested in why humans worship what we worship.
__________________
From Wik on Yahweh:
"In the oldest biblical literature (12th-11th centuries) Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; he and Israel are bound by a covenant (a feature unique in ancient Near Eastern religion) under which Yahweh will protect Israel, and Israel in turn will not worship other gods. At a later period Yahweh functioned as the dynastic cult (the god of the royal house), the royal courts promoting him as the supreme god over all others in the pantheon, notably Baal, El and Asherah, (the last of whom may have been his consort). Over time Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as God of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. With the work of Second Isaiah (the author of the second half of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and true God of all the world."
In antiquity it was accepted that all gods exist. Neither Christians nor Jews would have disputed this. Paul even takes as common knowledge the existence of other gods. The restriction is against worshiping other gods, but people in antiquity would certainly have accepted that other gods exist.
Paul--being a converted Roman--would have been different case, however. Not being raised Jewish and all that, it would make a lot of sense if he were a monolatrist.
Not at all.
Then you get weird stuff like Christians who aren't monolatrists. I remember a professor showing me a tapestry in which the infant Christ is being bathed by the god of the River Jordan.
Erm, what now?
King Josiah--using the newly 'found' book of Deuteronomy as justification--made monotheism the state policy of Israel (I thought anyway). Not everyone would have gone along with it, but we can safely assume the majority did, and those numbers would have rose with each passing generation. This monotheism would effectively inoculate the Jewish faith against the Roman one.[1]
While the early Christians did consider themselves Jews, mainly to get the special dispensation Jews had under Roman law (my understanding is that was thanks to Philo), I was talking about Judaism in my post. The mutant strain of Judaism known as Christianity has an important difference, proselytizing. While most Jews did not try to convert others to their religion, Christians were actively engaged in this activity.
This caused people that had grown-up in other faiths to become Christian later in life. Which--no doubt--led to the kind of art you are describing. However, the majority of Jews at that point in history wouldn’t have had that kind of dual background and would have been monotheists through and through.
Sorry, my bad, he was raised in Judaism.
Anyway, what text are you pointing to to show Paul was a monolatrist, not a monotheist? ( or are you simply saying Paul knew a few other early Christians were monolatrists, and wrote accordingly?)
I think we should carefully examine what we mean by monotheism.
The Jews only worshiped one God (well, ideally anyway), but they still accepted the existence of other gods.
Very much so. He identifies himself as a Pharisee.
Well for the most part that was the world view of antiquity, but specifically: