|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5863 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nice try, but that isn't why he took it. It was because YHWH had power over the territories of Isreal. If he was on Rimmon's territory Rimmon might well be more powerful. That's why the Philistines took the Ark. Then I'm sure you have the scriptures that demonstrate this right on the tip of your tongue. Please post them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
you are misunderstanding what henotheism is. it does not include the worship of other deities, simply the knowledge that other gods may exist but you only worship yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
you are misunderstanding what henotheism is. it does not include the worship of other deities, simply the knowledge that other gods may exist but you only worship yours. I was very clear that this would imply that the other Gods are officially acknowledged as legitimate Gods for the other tribes, but that is not the case in Israel ever. They are always treated as false gods except when Israelites commit the sin of worshiping them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes and I already posted it.
2 Kings 5
17 "If you will not," said Naaman, "please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD. That's why he needed the dirt, so he would be praying on the soil of YHWH. This is the same story with the Ark and with the Philistines. The Philistines took the Ark because that weakened the power of YHWH. But they found that YHWH still held power wherever the Ark was taken (notice only in the vacinity of the Ark itself) so they moved it from town to town until finally no one would take it. Then they decided to give the thing back. Peoples at that time strongly believed that Gods were tied to places and things. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I think we must speak two different languages, that's the problem. yes, seems to be.
No, I didn't mean to say that Adam worshipped false gods. Certainly none of the godly line from Seth worshipped false gods. I merely meant that idol worship no doubt sprang up soon after the Fall, among some segments of the population, and that it progressed over time, yes. no one from the line of seth? that seems a bit... difficult to justify. do you mean JUST the named patriarchs in the specific lineage that gave rise to the jews? because, well, everyone is from the line of seth, through noah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
no one from the line of seth? that seems a bit... difficult to justify. do you mean JUST the named patriarchs in the specific lineage that gave rise to the jews? because, well, everyone is from the line of seth, through noah Oh good grief Arach. The godly line of Seth that is LISTED in the Bible is what I was talking about. I think since they are godly we can assume they didn't resort to idolatry. There were other descendants of Seth of course, as well as descendants of Cain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ABE: What Naaman may have thought doesn't reflect on Israel. Naaman was a Syrian polytheist who had just encountered the power of the God of Israel. He might have had all kinds of confused ideas about the nature of Yahweh based on his polytheistic assumptions. In any case what he thought and did says nothing about Israel's supposed "henotheism" -- though maybe Syria's.
The rest of what I wrote originally no longer really applies since I think what I say above is the relevant thing. But I'll leave my earlier post intact: =========================================Wow, you really deny that Yahweh is the one true God over all. Well, really, what can I say? The Bible is so clear about that, it must take a lot of doublethink to deny it. Since he is Lord of Lords and the conversion of Naaman would not have been of note if he didn't recognize Yahweh's sovereignty, that's how I know there was no implication of a weakness in Yahweh's power without the soil. That notion makes a sickeningly meaningless thing out of the whole Bible as a matter of fact. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-05-2006 09:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Oh good grief Arach. The godly line of Seth that is LISTED in the Bible is what I was talking about. I think since they are godly we can assume they didn't resort to idolatry. There were other descendants of Seth of course, as well as descendants of Cain. i was just asking for clarification. and no, we can't assume anything -- evidently, some of them DID worship idols. according to joshua.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A couple of commentaries on the incident. The gist is that Naaman's action was strange and reflected a heathen mentality, but it certainly didn't reflect a lack of appreciation of the greatness of the God he had just converted to.
Jamieson, Fasset and Brown:
17. two mules' burden of earth--with which to make an altar ( Exd 20:24 ) to the God of Israel. What his motive or his purpose was in this proposal--whether he thought that God could be acceptably worshipped only on his own soil; or whether he wished, when far away from the Jordan, to have the earth of Palestine to rub himself with, which the Orientals use as a substitute for water; or whether, by making such a request of Elisha, he thought the prophet's grant of it would impart some virtue; or whether, like the modern Jews and Mohammedans, he resolved to have a portion of this holy earth for his nightly pillow--it is not easy to say. It is not strange to find such notions in so newly a converted heathen.
Matthew Henry:
He will not only offer a sacrifice to the Lord, in thanks for his present cure, but he resolves he will never offer sacrifice to any other gods, v. 17. It was a happy cure of his leprosy which cured him of his idolatry, a more dangerous disease. But here are two instances of his weakness and infirmity in his conversion:-1. In one instance he over-did it, that he would not only worship the God of Israel, but he would have clods of earth out of the prophet’s garden, or at least of the prophet’s ordering, to make an altar of, v. 17. He that awhile ago had spoken very slightly of the waters of Israel (v. 12) now is in another extreme, and over-values the earth of Israel, supposing (since God has appointed altars of earth, Ex. 20:24) that an altar of that earth would be most acceptable to him, not considering that all the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. Or perhaps the transport of his affection and veneration for the prophet, not only upon the account of his power, but of his virtue and generosity, made him, as we say, love the very ground he went upon and desire to have some of it home with him. The modern compliment equivalent to this would be, "Pray, sir, let me have your picture.’’
2. In another instance he under-did it, that he reserved to himself a liberty to bow in the house of Rimmon, in complaisance to the king his master, and according to the duty of his place at court (v. 18), in this thing he must be excused. He owns he ought not to do it, but that he cannot otherwise not do it, but that he cannot otherwise keep his place,”protests that his bowing is not, nor ever shall be, as it had been, in honour to the idol, but only in honour to the king,”and therefore he hopes God will forgive him. Perhaps, all things considered, this might admit of some apology, though it was not justifiable. But, as to us, I am sure, (1.) If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not except any house of Rimmon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By definition anyone called godly does not worship idols. Many others living in that time obviously did -- ones unmentioned in the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
By definition anyone called godly does not worship idols. Many others living in that time obviously did -- ones unmentioned in the text. ok, but joshua says that the fathers of the hebrews in the exodus had worshipped other gods in egypt, and before the flood. are you saying there's a contradiction? because joshua clearly says there were other gods involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK I'll have to think about it some more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
OK I'll have to think about it some more. how about this for starters: where is the bit you're referring to with the "godly" stuff?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
where is the bit you're referring to with the "godly" stuff? This is getting pretty off topic but I'll come back to it later if it's a good idea. This thread really ought now to go to the archaeological and other kinds of extra-Biblical information that SNC originally wanted to see brought to bear on the origins of Biblical religion. That's not my department. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-05-2006 08:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wow, you really deny that Yahweh is the one true God over all. Well, really, what can I say? The Bible is so clear about that, it must take a lot of doublethink to deny it. You know, it might be a good idea to actually read what I write and not just what you think I write. Obviously since you and I can each read the Bible and come to two different conclusions it must not be so clear. But we are not talking about whether or not there is only one GOD or who that God is, we are talking about the origins of the Bible. What were the cultural influence on the many people that wrote the various books of the Bible? One of the trends that can be seen in the Bible is the gradual cahnge from polytheism to henotheism to moniotheism to YHWHists. You use the term "Lord of Lords" and that is very appropriate. It harkens back to the very earliest days, the polytheistic days. You also seem to really misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't deny that YHWH is the one true GOD. What I am saying is that the folk that wrote the Bible were not yet monotheists. Those who wrote and lived in the time of Kings were not yet Monotheists. They were Henotheists. This change from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism and back to kinda polytheism in a state of denial is part of the story of the Bible. It's not the Message of the Bible, but it is the history to be found in the Bible. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024