flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Polytheism in Old Testament (?)

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Following article greatly explores somewhat confusing situation about "gods", "council of gods", "sons of gods", etc. in Old Testament.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/05-Deuteronomy/Text/Articles/Heiser-Deut32-BS.htm
Post 16 Apr 2008, 09:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
religion, religion, religion... again and again religion Sad

for sure, old testament is not based on the new one. originaly, jesus wasn't christian, but jewish. then, at least TWO gods in first testament.

and Moise was a polyteist, he was educated by the wife of the pharaon who was polyteist.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 10:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Of course, this is only for those interested in serious study of judaism / christianity. Whoever is not interested in how these religions came to be can ignore. But I know there are few friends here who are interested in roots of one of most influential ideologies to this day.

Quote:
for sure, old testament is not based on the new one. originaly, jesus wasn't christian, but jewish. then, at least TWO gods in first testament.

There is no mention of anything resembling jesus in "first testament". There are couple of "sons of god" and "gods" mentioned in OT, variously (mis)translated as messengers, angels, etc. Some are even given by name (like "Helel", son of "Shazar", etc).

I suggest you to actually read the article before commenting - you will get load of new info Wink
Post 16 Apr 2008, 12:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
Quote:
But I know there are few friends
impersonalization Smile

generally, new testament has footprints of reincarnation: somewhere they met people, who was blind from the birth, and asked Jesus: "what bad they did before so was born blind?"
Post 16 Apr 2008, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
shoorick: can you explain "impersonalization"? I quess my english lacks here...
Post 16 Apr 2008, 12:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
sure, my english can not be better then your Smile
just that phrase reminded me another one: "some men, well known, so no need to tell their names" - just joking about it Wink
(i mean: men, who participate in such kind of discussion here, are more/less stable group Wink )
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
If you want names, at least Tom Tobias and Tomasz are interested in bible studies. And I bet (more precisely, I hope) there are more of them.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
vid wrote:
...interested in roots of one of most influential ideologies to this day.
Yes, I think it is wonderful that FASM forumers demonstrate their interests and developing skills with disciplines at variance with traditional views of computer science. In a certain sense, one can observe a similar type of debate between orthodoxy versus CHANGE, both in old religions, and in new computer programming. For those earliest Christians, the big debate, lasting more than a century following the murder of Jesus, was whether or not Paul was correct in repudiating Mathew, John, and many other disciples, regarding Peter's (false) insistance that all prospective converts to the Christian faith must first undergo circumcision, and obey all Jewish laws, customs, and rituals, before admission into the Christian church. Paul's eventual victory over those orthodox beliefs may have been based less upon a profound understanding of Jesus' doctrines, and more upon the practical problem of administering a rapidly growing grass roots tendency, in the absence of firm written guidance....I think this is not so different from those of us who seek an alternate cpu architecture, or, at least, an alternate operating system, free from control by the orthodox M$.
With regard to the main theme of vid's thread, i.e. the Torah, I am inadequately familiar with the doctrinal issues which separated the three main sects of Judaism, 2000 years ago. I am unable to offer a useful critique of this link which vid has kindly provided. I will say, that my own interest in ancient Judaism, focuses on ascertaining, as best as one can, the extent to which Judaism borrowed from both Egyptian religious beliefs, and from Zoroastrianism. I am sure that "modern" Judaism, i.e. the Judaism of 2000 years ago, was VERY different from the Judaism of Abraham, and even from that followed by later Kings, like David, or Solomon. Another fascinating aspect of old Judaism, concerns archaeological discoveries, following excavations, such as those of a couple of years ago, which revealed that in ancient times, preceding its conquest by the Jews of North Africa, Jerusalem was a Phoenician city.
http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050814.html
http://phoenicia.org/cities.html
Post 18 Apr 2008, 05:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
imo "sons of God" could subject to many intepretation...

but if we take a logical approach.
do we really need more than 1 God to cater all this creation? if we see the world today, each country only got 1 leader, president, king who makes decisions. coz, if there are 2, one of them would be silent by another 1.

i believe the beginning idea of Polytheism is, they want to seperate the beauty or characteristic of God by category, but somehow, some people/human interpret it differently, and somehow, it drags still today...

if u ever watch a tv game show, like passing message from 1st person to then 10th, they usually give totally different message compare to the 1st one.

so, religion ages more than thousand... years, and gone through several millions people. how far it is still original .... depend on how the person interpret.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 15:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Interesting, I think people want to 'split' up the categories into multiple Gods, but in reality it is one union of everything.

The Universe holds us, we are a part of it, there are no 'multiple' humans (as per atomic level, not spiritual leve), just a union of the matter of the Universe.

Some religions have polytheisms like: "God of Water, God of Fire, etc." but they are in fact referring to a union, it all depends on the people that categorizes this.

Note that does not mean a specific God -- for atheists, God can be the Universe (for example). But it is still a single entity/union of more categories nonetheless.

just my 2 cents.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 15:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
You guys are taking it from very wrong edge. You look at 2500 year old texts from todays philosophical perspectives.

Polytheism was where it all started - every civilization started with couple of very humanlike "gods". Do not mistake with what we call "god" now, those were mighty physical beings, not eternal rulers of world. Such is YHWH of old testament, like any other god of those times - I remember bible passage where YHWH (jewish/christian/islamic god) literaly fighted with some tough guy, and wasn't able to beat him - not much like god you are talking about.

As the world advanced, many gods were mixed into single god. As one civilization took over another, it was usual to take titles and roles of their gods (most high, morning light, he-who-makes-something, ...) and apply them to their god. Civilizations were drawing ideas from each other, and mixing them into single god. You can find few dozen titles applied to YHWH in bible, which were used by other near east and greek civilizations for their gods before.

Of course, each civilization had it's "favourite" god, or some "highest god" (master of the assembly, in akkadian and semitic literature, bible included, it was god El). Eventually, monotheism emerged with this god as the-only god. Not just in semites, same happened earlier with zoraster, in egypt, etc. It is normal evolution of "religion meme".

What we have now in christianity is mixture of greek philosophies (mostly neoplatonism) and judaism, which in turn is mixture of various akkadian (and so also sumerian), egyptian and cannaan concepts. Basicaly those old religions are not lost, their traces still survive in judaism, christianity, etc...
Post 19 Apr 2008, 08:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
vid wrote:
every civilization started with couple of very humanlike "gods"

Dunno about "humanlike" but there were (are?) thousands of gods waaaaaay back when - every tree/mountain/river/weirdshitthing was a "god" - good to blame if a problem occurs, equally good to be given (or us to take?) the credit for good things.

I feel I lack any empathy with any religion - FFS, over 10% of people in the last 'Australian Census' said their religion was "Jedi". Joke or not, it is an insight into the "typical Australian" (rigged or not heh heh)


And why is Christmas celebrated on one particular day, but Easter is at the whim of the Moon? Sheesh, He was born on a day, He died on a day...the fecking Moon had nothing to do with that, did it?
Post 19 Apr 2008, 13:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
And why is Christmas celebrated on one particular day, but Easter is at the whim of the Moon? Sheesh, He was born on a day, He died on a day...the fecking Moon had nothing to do with that, did it?

Jesus birthday was set at Sol Invictus feast - another example of fusing of religions i mentioned.

His supposed death according to gospels occured during Sabbath feast, which is afaik timed by moon. Even after "christians" (term coined later) stopped doing jewish rituals, this timing for his death remains.
Post 19 Apr 2008, 13:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
i don't like to sound like i know everything but i am sure that there is just one god, it is the whole universe with its harmony, that makes everything work with logic and rules, so i really don't care analyzing what religions say wasting my time and because i am a human with a heart and a mind, i know from myself, what is wrong and what is right, and i don't need religions, to teach me that Wink
everything else are fairy tales with details that makes a xor eax,eax sense to me..
when was christmas, why easter is at the whim of the moon, how many womans had zeus, who is budha..
i didn't waited the budhism to learn me what dharma is... i learned that from my life...

thx
Post 20 Apr 2008, 02:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
asmhack wrote:
...i didn't waited the budhism to learn me what dharma is... i learned that from my life...
The question then arises, did Buddha himself learn the meaning of "dharma" from his life, i.e. from interacting with the people around him, OR, alternatively, (as I believe is the case, and in contrast to the famous aphorism of KongZi, (living about the same time as Buddha, i.e. a couple of hundred years before Socrates) who taught that he could learn something useful by talking to ANY three people he met on the street) did Siddhartha LEARN about "dharma" by studying the ANCIENT sanskrit text: Rig Veda?
The word Veda is derived from the Sanskrit root word "Vid" meaning "to know".
There are those who claim that these Sanskrit texts are "older" than the Torah. I am somewhat skeptical of this notion, and have yet to find evidence in support of this idea. "Dharma", according to my understanding of PIE useage, as exemplified in the RigVeda, corresponds to something like "support" or "hold", a meaning slightly at variance from the notion of "duty" invoked by the Buddhist religious doctrines of a later epoch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma
(PIE = proto Indo European)
So, then, does one learn about cpu architecture by reading Intel manuals, or by daily usage of FASM?
Asmhack's contribution to this thread on polytheism thus becomes central to many of our submissions to this forum: does one LEARN, anything, by doing, i.e. one's own personal experience, or, contrarily, by studying texts (i.e. others' ideas, others' experiences)? With regard to ancient religious teachings, which survive in written form, a common theme emerges: conflict between those who attribute supernatural power to a single, solitary, anthropomorphic, omnipotent figure, versus those who would yield this power to a veritable panoply of deities, each capable of distinct, suprahuman, magical accomplishments. Ancient religions, all of them, sought to provide answers to the most fundamental questions, in an era preceding evidence based inquiry, and all religions demand acceptance of the dogma that non-human figures of authority serve as architects of the cosmos.
asmhack wrote:
... when was christmas, why easter is at the whim of the moon,...
The sun, and the moon, the two most prominent celestial objects, with their daily appearance of "movement" relative to the stationary human observer, offered the simplest route to rational explanation of the meaning and origin of life. It was not until Aristarchus, (third century BCE) that we have an authentic and accurate view of the relationship between sun, moon, and earth, a model requiring no supernatural forces to explain:
http://www.instituteofscience.com/nature-1.html
Smile
Post 20 Apr 2008, 10:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Post 27 Apr 2008, 17:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Thanks Vid for posting these articles.

As Middle Eastern history is one of my interests, I've came across this interesting topic more than once.

It is most possible that early Hebrews were greatly influenced by the polytheist civilizations all around them or were originally polytheists themselves.

One example of such influence is the flood story, which is very similar (almost identical) to the Akkadian epic where Noah was called Atrahasis. And this epic itself was literally copied from an even more ancient Sumerian one (later included in the Gilgamesh epic) where Noah was then called Ziusudra.
And this is just one example among many others. In fact most stories in the Bible can be found in part or entirety in other, older, civilizations. So there's absolutely no way Hebrews could not have been influenced by Sumerians and other polytheists of the region.

The word Elohim appears in the Bible again and again EVEN when they are not talking about an enemy's pantheon. So, is Elohim just a "majestic" plural for calling THE great YHVH? Or is it a "real" plural of Eloah used for the different El of a Hebrew pantheon where YHVH was originally nothing more than the leader/sky-god like the Sumerian Anu?
It's more likely to be an indication of polytheism. Both El/Eloah and Elohim were sometimes used in the same text and there's no point in using a majestic plural when all other names of God are used in a singular form. It is even possible these names represented different deities (unlike the Islamic 99 names of God) and Elohim was used for the entire pantheon.
But religious leaders soon began to modify the scriptures (even if it was strictly forbidden) to suit their monotheist version of the Bible, and rejected many embarrassing texts as apocrypha and pseudepigrapha even though these same texts were mentioned in the canon.
Besides, so many translation errors were done that even a version as old as the septuagint sould not be trusted.


Edfed, one can be atheist and still be interested in religion as historical heritage worth studying.
Post 29 Apr 2008, 09:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
This article demonstrates connection of Yahweh with Baal, and bull worship - basically Baal worshipped as Bull appears to be precursor to Yahweh cult. There are both archaelogical and biblical links between these three.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/KuntilletAjrudArticle.html
Post 29 Apr 2008, 11:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
vid wrote:
This article demonstrates connection of Yahweh with Baal, and bull worship - basically Baal worshipped as Bull appears to be precursor to Yahweh cult. There are both archaelogical and biblical links between these three.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/KuntilletAjrudArticle.html


However, this is wrong. The God of the Old Testament forbade any actions similar to worshippers of that false deity and even prohibited using that fraud's name or anything similar in reference to Himself.
Post 03 May 2008, 07:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
However, this is wrong. The God of the Old Testament forbade any actions similar to worshippers of that false deity and even prohibited using that fraud's name or anything similar in reference to Himself.

Yes, if OT books are to be taken literaly. Another option is that fraction of Yahweh cult which wrote those books was arguing against (older?) fractions which worshipped Yahweh as bull or calf, and those which worshipped basically same god under name Baal. Remember that we know both these groups existed - archaeology and Bible tells us.

Of course that if you are fundamentalist and take Bible as literaly true, then there is little to persuade you. These articles are meant for people open to all possibilities. There is also some article meant for incoming christians on the site, I haven't read it (as I'm not christiain), but you may be interested: http://www.bibleorigins.net/HolySpiritMessiahOTvsNT.html
Post 03 May 2008, 08:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.