T
tanachanswers
Guest
Absolutely, they do not believe the truth of the bible. This is why their teachings are garbage.
Foundations of early Hebrew religion and relations to Cannite deities
- Status
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
You still have given no reason why they are wrong, you are talking in circles.
- We can know the Bible is true because the Bible says it will be true if prophecies come true.
- They make a prophecies.
- Therefore it must be true.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Found this from catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0440.html
It isn’t directly on the subject but it does include some references. Also seems to be on the conservative end of things
It isn’t directly on the subject but it does include some references. Also seems to be on the conservative end of things
As for Mercer Dictionary of the Bible it doesn’t touch on it much only a passing mention under El but under GOD, NAMES OF it does seems to indicate a favoritism or view towards syncretism around the time of David; see imgur.com/M2pZPXL
M
Mark86
Guest
Before the arrival of Abraham on the scene, we’re to basically understand that “God” revealed himself in many ways to various groups of people who grasped at only part of the truth of “God’s” existence based on various reasoning they had. That way, the god “Yahweh” and the god “El” may’ve ultimately pointed to two groups ascribing different names and ideas to the same basic source, which was “God,” just in different ways. All of the world’s various religions broke out among human beings from the dawn of time as mankind spread throughout the earth, and almost all of them at least retain some idea of a supreme deity, called by many names and having many different attributes, who then may have underlings or rivalries among some kind of pantheon or may be manifested in various ways among his many ‘avatars’…etc, but ultimately the truth of there being one supreme “God” “force” or “principle” exists in each, and these could be understood as pertaining to “God” regardless of what they are called by this nation or that nation.
So that being the case, the idea of the “development” of human beings’ understanding of “God” over time is actually what the Bible teaches happened. Nowhere does it say that “Judaism” started out fully intact the second Abraham professed there being one God. The Bible itself says that what eventually became the “religion of Judah” took many many generations to “develop.” In fact, I’d say that religion of the ancient Israelites in the desert was only vaguely related to the “Judaism” religion practiced under the Theocracy, and then very different from the one practiced after that. Things change over time. The Bible itself says that.
Therefore, it’s not a surprise to me that the Israelites may have adopted ideas out of the Canaanite pantheon. Perhaps God was revealing partial truths through the Canaanite pantheon as he had through every religion since the dawn of time. It was not the full revelation of “God” though, but bits and pieces that mankind had stumbled upon. The full revelation of God ultimately came (not with Abraham, not with Moses), but with Christ Himself. This was the point of the disciples seeing Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration. Previous understandings of “God” in all the ways that had been revealed to man up to that point were subdued and limited in one way or another. Christ was the full revelation once and for all. And even at that, the fulfillment of God’s truth is still yet to be revealed. “…but what we shall be we do not yet know…” (1st John 3:2).
So that being the case, the idea of the “development” of human beings’ understanding of “God” over time is actually what the Bible teaches happened. Nowhere does it say that “Judaism” started out fully intact the second Abraham professed there being one God. The Bible itself says that what eventually became the “religion of Judah” took many many generations to “develop.” In fact, I’d say that religion of the ancient Israelites in the desert was only vaguely related to the “Judaism” religion practiced under the Theocracy, and then very different from the one practiced after that. Things change over time. The Bible itself says that.
Therefore, it’s not a surprise to me that the Israelites may have adopted ideas out of the Canaanite pantheon. Perhaps God was revealing partial truths through the Canaanite pantheon as he had through every religion since the dawn of time. It was not the full revelation of “God” though, but bits and pieces that mankind had stumbled upon. The full revelation of God ultimately came (not with Abraham, not with Moses), but with Christ Himself. This was the point of the disciples seeing Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration. Previous understandings of “God” in all the ways that had been revealed to man up to that point were subdued and limited in one way or another. Christ was the full revelation once and for all. And even at that, the fulfillment of God’s truth is still yet to be revealed. “…but what we shall be we do not yet know…” (1st John 3:2).
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Mark I think you have some great points however I think the issue is still there of syncretism then offering a better explanation for the origin or Judaism than Divine Revelation to Abraham. Now whether the Jews REMAINED faithful isn’t an issue but it is an issue if the whole construct from Abraham and Moses is plausibly from Canaanite myth.
And this is the fundamental issue, because if this issue is true I don’t think you can grant an argument that doesn’t equally work or be dismantled with the theory that Israel just came out of pagan mythologies and was nothing more than simply syncretism. There is now no essential difference between true god through divine revelation that sets them apart from the beginning and a syncretism theory properly developed. That reason is because there is NO difference now. The essential evidence to Israel and god’s chosen people, that they were set apart with Abraham is now nothing but common PAGAN syncretism.
Of note I stumbled upon this strangenotions.com/the-gods-of-israel-does-the-bible-promote-polytheism/
Which I haven’t read all the way through though it seems within modernist views of syncretism but I just wanted to note it.
And this is the fundamental issue, because if this issue is true I don’t think you can grant an argument that doesn’t equally work or be dismantled with the theory that Israel just came out of pagan mythologies and was nothing more than simply syncretism. There is now no essential difference between true god through divine revelation that sets them apart from the beginning and a syncretism theory properly developed. That reason is because there is NO difference now. The essential evidence to Israel and god’s chosen people, that they were set apart with Abraham is now nothing but common PAGAN syncretism.
Of note I stumbled upon this strangenotions.com/the-gods-of-israel-does-the-bible-promote-polytheism/
Which I haven’t read all the way through though it seems within modernist views of syncretism but I just wanted to note it.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Found a post on dealing with this from Jimmy Akin! 
:extrahappy:
jimmyakin.com/the-religion-of-israel
I had tried to see if he dealt with this before by searching in google just his website and El and Yahweh which IIRC didn’t result in much but this search of just (on whole internet not just his site within google) or “Israel” “Polytheism” “Catholic”. This might help future people who wanted to look into this.
:extrahappy:jimmyakin.com/the-religion-of-israel
I had tried to see if he dealt with this before by searching in google just his website and El and Yahweh which IIRC didn’t result in much but this search of just (on whole internet not just his site within google) or “Israel” “Polytheism” “Catholic”. This might help future people who wanted to look into this.
M
Mark86
Guest
You might need to explain to me exactly what you mean. My suggestion has been that religious ideas developed over time, but certain fundamentals of our conception of God the Jews could’ve only known from revelation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that anyone can reasonably discern that there is at least “a god” or something out there that is a first cause of all causes and even reasonably discern that such a thing must have some attributes about it based on what we observe about what resulted from it. That’s obviously a different debate, but at least it goes to show that no matter what the civilization is, they’re going to naturally discern something about “a god” existing and attribute to it certain ideas. And the fact that the Israelites out of all their neighbors just so happened to attribute the ideas they did to this “Yahweh” is very unlikely unless they were purposely trying to be counter-cultural for some unknown reason. Historians have been at a loss to adequately explain why the “Israelites” were suddenly so “pushy” to differentiate themselves as time went on. They’ve talked about various sociolo-economic factors influencing their growth, but not the ideological basis behind it and where that originated.
The “Law” as written in the Torah is virtually a point-for-point rebuttal of the cultural and religious practices of all the rest of the peoples of Canaan. The Canaanites approved of child and human sacrifice in Baal worship. The Law vehemently opposed it. The Canaanites approved of polygamy. The Law set itself against it. The Canaanites approved of the entire slew of sexual misconduct. The Law disapproved of the entire slew of sexual misconduct. The Canaanites worshipped the idols of their “gods.” The Law vehemently opposed it. The Canaanites’ mythos involved a pantheon of impersonal gods often fighting for the souls of men in order to win against each other in the heavens. The Israelites crossed all of that out and preferred to believe in this “personal God” who actually had no stake in their faithfulness. The differences just become so numerous and you can literally go through the last 20 chapters of Exodus counting the differences line by line. They stand in stark contrast to all of their neighbors. About the only thing we can say about how far they were influenced by their neighbors was how much they endeavored to do the complete opposite… for some reason.
Now such a thing like that needs an explanation, and continuing to insist that they merely stole all the customs and practices of those around them ignores just how different they were from everyone around them.
Basically speaking, the “YHWH” of the Jews was not the same “Yahweh” of the Canaanite mythos. These deities are alike in name only, from the very conception of them on down. Now we can debate about how much they were influenced by their neighbors in becoming this “sect of Yahwehists” who had their own “pet god” within the Canaanite pantheon… but their conception of “Yahwheh” as being the “Great I AM” is not at all what the Canaanites considered “Yahweh” to be (just another god in the pantheon, that is). Something has to account for this dramatic philosophical shift in this one lonely group of people in the ancient middle east and their radical course of action that has changed the face of the world for the past 5000 years in ways that none of the idols of Canaan have. There’s obviously something special about that philosophical change of heart they seemed to have.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
As always great points Mark and good information. Hopefully I can clarify some things. My main point is not an issue with paganism in Israel, it is almost a trope of Israel with the number of times they fall into pagan worship. That is not at issue. Neither is there an issue of the idea of a “god” being commonplace with certain characteristics.
The issue is instead the essential kernel that is Israel, that is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses’ god. That god was monotheistic, I think Akin’s article makes it clear, as I have maintained in early posts, that this is important. My view on why it is important is simply** it is the defining fact that differentiates Israel from its neighbors. ** Monotheism is what set Israel apart and if that isn’t the case there is NO ISRAEL. Instead there is a syncretistic development that evolutionary developed monotheism, as opposed from divine revelation to Abraham and Moses.
So now we return to the claim that Israel developed evolutionary and syncretisticly from their neighbors. This claim is widely presented from the sources I presented above. It is a view that is presented in Oxford, Cambridge, and Yale. It is presented by modern secularists that study the bible and liberal Catholics (as well as christians). That is the issue. That Israel developed and differentiated themselves not in divine revelation that came from God to Abraham all the way to Moses but instead evolutionarily.
There is a wide difference between the Jews not having the fullness of truth (non trinitarian, one god but no knowledge of different persons) and believing a lie (polytheism, other gods, at least in the Jewish Christian tradition). The former is perfectly ok and I believe even true, the latter removes the Bible as a holy book (as opposed to what some liberal views such as Kugel, Enns, etc try to claim).
Some new sources I stumbled upon
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2753
Seems to present a conservative viewpoint well within what would be regarded as so.
strangenotions.com/the-gods-of-israel-does-the-bible-promote-polytheism/
I think this summarizes the liberal Catholic view (on a website supposedly to defend Catholicism, that isn’t just liberal it has articles from Father Barron, hardly liberal). Heck it even cites Pope Emeritus Benedict! Someone who was attacked for being so conservative. This strikes me as extremely strange view for Benedict to be endorsing. One of syncretism and all the hall marks of human made religion similar to greek and roman beliefs and rejecting diving revelation.
The issue is instead the essential kernel that is Israel, that is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses’ god. That god was monotheistic, I think Akin’s article makes it clear, as I have maintained in early posts, that this is important. My view on why it is important is simply** it is the defining fact that differentiates Israel from its neighbors. ** Monotheism is what set Israel apart and if that isn’t the case there is NO ISRAEL. Instead there is a syncretistic development that evolutionary developed monotheism, as opposed from divine revelation to Abraham and Moses.
So now we return to the claim that Israel developed evolutionary and syncretisticly from their neighbors. This claim is widely presented from the sources I presented above. It is a view that is presented in Oxford, Cambridge, and Yale. It is presented by modern secularists that study the bible and liberal Catholics (as well as christians). That is the issue. That Israel developed and differentiated themselves not in divine revelation that came from God to Abraham all the way to Moses but instead evolutionarily.
There is a wide difference between the Jews not having the fullness of truth (non trinitarian, one god but no knowledge of different persons) and believing a lie (polytheism, other gods, at least in the Jewish Christian tradition). The former is perfectly ok and I believe even true, the latter removes the Bible as a holy book (as opposed to what some liberal views such as Kugel, Enns, etc try to claim).
Some new sources I stumbled upon
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2753
Seems to present a conservative viewpoint well within what would be regarded as so.
strangenotions.com/the-gods-of-israel-does-the-bible-promote-polytheism/
I think this summarizes the liberal Catholic view (on a website supposedly to defend Catholicism, that isn’t just liberal it has articles from Father Barron, hardly liberal). Heck it even cites Pope Emeritus Benedict! Someone who was attacked for being so conservative. This strikes me as extremely strange view for Benedict to be endorsing. One of syncretism and all the hall marks of human made religion similar to greek and roman beliefs and rejecting diving revelation.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
I believe the above comments by Pope Benedict are coming from his book Introduction to Christianity, anyone have any knowledge of it? It seems to be around the time many identify he started moving from a liberal view to a more conservative view.
meltzerboy
New member
According to the argument, the “problem” would also spill over into Christianity and its offshoots–Mormonism and Quakerism, for example–and into Islam. For if the bedrock (i.e. Judaism) of these religions is a product of evolution, then its successors cannot be a product of divine revelation either.
While I understand the issue, I am less inclined than you to be disturbed by it. Rather, I see anthropological evolution and divine revelation as being intertwined in the development of Judaism, in which G-d enters the arena directly at certain key points, particularly at Mount Sinai, while, at the same time, Judaism is on an evolutionary course, being influenced by the Greeks, Romans, and other pagan cultures. To my way of thinking, these phenomena are not necessarily mutually exclusive or contradictory. In fact, evolutionary development can be viewed as part of the divine design.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
It can be in some contexts be a sign of divine design. However to apply that specifically to Abraham and Moses as syncretism of pagan and Canaanite beliefs is what I specifically take issue with.
Also I don’t believe it applies to Christianity as it is Judaism fulfilled not evolved. As for mormonism and quakerism I would say ya that makes them false… Their foundations are syncretism of christianity that changes and perverts it.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
A seemingly good overview of the issue and dealing with the overly critical and the not at all dealt with and often ignored evangelical / orthodox side.
rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/heiser_monotheism-polytheism-monolatry-or-henotheism.pdf
At last from the conclusion it seems a ‘middle ground’ of sorts between polytheism of equal gods and monotheism though I do think it still falls into monolatry.
rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/heiser_monotheism-polytheism-monolatry-or-henotheism.pdf
At last from the conclusion it seems a ‘middle ground’ of sorts between polytheism of equal gods and monotheism though I do think it still falls into monolatry.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
I think this post has become several issues
- Was the god of Abraham the same one as Moses. (Exodus 6:2c-3)
(Dealing with the issue of Abraham and Moses as faithful servants of god that serve as the roles model of a less than perfect Israel; Or again was this all made up syncretism because if it isn’t the same god then who they talked to isn’t the same; Canaanite explanation fits better then). - Were both Moses and Abraham monotheists.
(Did they both recognized the divine truth of one god, related to 3 as if they weren’t monotheists it would be troubling because the better explanation becomes syncretism etc; Again if this isn’t true it all falls down because this is what set Israel apart, PERIOD the movement on this seems to be a movement to liberality.) - Can it be claimed that this was syncretism from Canaanites etc and not divine revelation.
(Did it actually happen or was it a developed mythos based on syncretism and false beliefs; so the identity of El Elyon (hebrew general term for god etc) and the Canaanite El).
T
tanachanswers
Guest
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Ah yes, your god of syncretism. Such a crock of nonsense. That a monotheistic G-d could evolve from different sets of polytheistic gods. And all of this because the Jews refereed to their G-d by the same titles as the pagans around them. You are obviously not aware of the ‘kiss’ principle, ‘keep it simple stupid.’
The ‘kiss’ rule has solved more problems than anything else.
Absolutely, because if you take two false mythos, there is no way that it could develop into the absolute truth of the Hebrew Tanach. And from this Hebrew Tanach we get relevations such as the average synotic lunar month [which was impossible to develope with the naked eye. And which took NASA 20 years to develope with modern technology.]
meltzerboy
New member
Why wouldn’t this line of thought apply to Christianity as well as Judaism since Christianity is founded on the divine revelation of Judaism? If the latter is false, the former is also false. And especially if Christianity is Judaism fulfilled, the fulfillment is based on a false premise. IOW for Christianity to be true, Judaism up to the era of Jesus must also be true.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
But you still have provided no reasoning no evidence nothing. You have a set of people who have provided evidence and writings and reasoning and you deny it with NOTHING. Just claiming they are biased and it can’t be because of KISS. Thats bad reasoning.
T
tanachanswers
Guest
My evidence is simple, i believe the TaNach word for word. G-d created the universe in six days and 13,500,000,000,000 years old. He revealed the Torah to Mosheh and His message through His prophets.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
Thats not evidence…
T
tanachanswers
Guest
It most certainly is evidence. Just because you do not accept the bible does not negate it as the most important evidence for the existence of G-d.
Z
Zimm3r
Guest
No it isn’t evidence because the people who argue those facts will not accept the Bible as God’s word and you saying well it is doesn’t make your argument any better.
- Status