Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion

it should be pointed out that the path was neither a steady nor gradual progression. at the point the bible was written, most of the religion was fairly strongly monotheistic, but much of the tradition it records is still henotheistic.ironically, has the history progressed, parts actually became LESS monotheistic, with the invention of another god to rival yahweh's benevolence: satan.

---

once more into the fray. you really should research this claim a little better. because the FACT of the matter is that aspects and the name and titles of the biblical god exist as part of other cultures' polytheistic religions. we can find El in particular in quite a few cultures of the region as the cheif diety, and sometimes a wind god.why do christians deny El's origin as a wind god? that claim is about as valid as your claim regarding islam. we don't worship a wind god any more than they do a moon good.but look a little further, here. El, in ugarit, was Il, and he was head of a council of gods, the Ilohim. sound familiar? it should. do you really think "Elohim" didn't start out as a plural word, and became singular?maybe we should look for som polytheistic tendencies in the bible. we'll ignore that "we" in genesis 1-3, even though the plural of majesty hadn't been invented yet. let's look at this verse:

quote:

---

Deu 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

​

Deu 32:9 For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

---

i've pointed this out before, i'm sure. god divided the sons of adam into nations in genesis 11, at babel. and he did it... according to the number of the children israel? when? there certainly weren't any at the time (israel hadn't been born yet). maybe the first generation? there's gotta be more than 12 nations. this really doesn't make any sense -- what do the children of israel have to do with the number of countries?check the footnotes.

quote:

---

As in Dead Sea Scrolls, which read of the sons of God, and Greek version, which reads of the angels of god; Masoretic Text reads of the sons of Israel.

​

(from the nlt, not my favourite translation)

---

the dead sea scroll and the septuagint are older than the masoretic version. somebody changed something. now, let's think about the implications:one angel/son of god per nation, except for israel which belongs to Yahweh. kind of sounds a lot like patron gods, don't you think?

quote:

---

Main Entry: heno·the·ism
Pronunciation: 'he-n&-(")thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun

​

: the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods

---

now, look at stories from genesis again. abraham doesn't deny the gods of people he's visiting -- and they don't deny his god. in fact, they seem to quite respect each other's religions. even when elijah is proving to israel on mount carmel that Yahweh is their god, and not Ba'al, he doesn't deny the existance of Ba'al. read closely:

quote:

---

1Ki 18:36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.

---

this is why "Elohim" was preceded by god's name -- so you knew WHICH god they were talking about. not just any old god, YAHWEH god. even more curious is that god commands sacrifice to another spiritual entity, in the book of leviticus:

quote:

---

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for Azazel into the wilderness.

---

and, of course, one of the most important points: abraham. abraham came from Ur, a place that was near the center of the akkadian/babylonian/sumerian empire. do you really suspect that abraham was NOT a polytheist living in the heart of babylon? do you think abram knew the lord as his only god before the covenant was made? before he was called out of ur? and do we not do the same? Yah/Yaw is certainly present in other cultures. in ugarit, he was the son of Il, a member of the Elohim. some have even suggested that the name bears a phonetic relation with the akkadian/sumerian god Ea. The are pronounced the same.original post: http://EvC Forum: Does Allah = Moon God?

---

surely the biblical god was perverted by a few pagan tribes. think of the three golden calves in the bible. think of the samarians. ok, now change the word "bible" to "qu'ran" and "god" to "allah" and re-read your own statement. why is this a valid answer for your religion, but not islam? and muslims see your assertion as equally stupid. they don't worship the moon god, and it's not THEIR fault that some earlier pagans also called thier god "god."surely, you also realize that the general term el- for god or gods is derived from a proper name of a god, el. the usage to mean "god" began as a name. yes. yes, and there is historical evidence that the biblical tradition has roots in polytheism. and that el/yahweh is a member of a pantheon. *sigh* what did i tell you about taking a hebrew class instead of a bible study class? elohim is NOT a plural word, unless the grammar indicates it.look: ‘, ‘ —b'reishit, bara elohim. it doesn't say b'reishit barim elohim. if it DID, elohim would be plural. when referring to yahweh, it is always a singular noun, and the verb next to it is always singular.the only acceptable explanation for the fact that it is a singular noun that looks plural, is that it began as a singular word, and became a name of a singular entity before it became a title (as it is used now, and in the bible).seriously, faith. this is relatively simple hebrew grammar. no hebrew-speaking person with a third grade education would make such a claim. it is simply being used to read a preconcieved interpretation into the text. one that is not there. i was ignoring it because it's an obvious point. but fine. if you wanna play trinity, that's polytheism. muslims consider christians polytheists because of it. i think you missed the important point. according to deuteronomy, the sons of god watch over the other nations, one per nation. israel is the lord's portion. we have one divine being per country. that's the same exact idea as a patron god. they have their gods, we have our god. only their gods have been taken down a rank.it is strongly indicative of henotheistic attitudes, which is the stepping-stone from polytheism. my point is that it clearly demonstrates a step in the progress from polytheism to monotheism. how many gods are there now? how many do you believe exist?one? or many? knock yourself out. azazel pops up in the book of enoch as one of god's angels (who falls). ok, so we have a family of polytheists (terah and co). from them, abram is called by the one true god -- a god who was concievably known the his fathers. after all, adam knew god, and the sons of adam called on the name of god. so yahweh was one very likely of their many gods. but he chooses abram to be the father of his chosen people, calls him out of ur, and gives him a bunch of land and a new name. he also reveals to him the (monotheistic) truth.now, let's contrast this with the claim you're making about muslim's polytheistic origins, where one god is chosen from a group of many, and claimed to be the one true god. how exactly is it different?see, i think you've got a bit of a problem here. yahweh, granted, is the one true god all along. but if he's worshipped as part of a pantheon before judaism is established (i'll be generous here) by abraham, then judaism came out of polytheistic religions. whether or not its the true religion.you are applying an immense double standard here. your one god from many is real to you, and you believe in him, therefor the "out of many" part doesn't matter to you. why then can it be used against a muslim who feels the same way about his god? to him, allah was the one true god all along. and those other pantheists who happened to worship him are of no consequence, because it's the revelation to muhammed that matters. just like, to you, it's the revelation to abram, moses, and jesus that matter, not what abram's polytheistic family believed. yes, you're right. because it's in the bible, and the bible is not history. whoa, whoa. never represented by an idol. oh, wait deja vu. check those golden claves again from the beginning of this post. i think you'll find that the people who made them claimed them to be the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob (according to the bible). but you'll find that the god of the bible (which was written after those events, not before) is quite abhorrent of idolatry. allah, in qu'ran, is also quite abhorrent of idolatry -- so much so that the entirety of islamic art is geometric and does not depict anything. why do you think muslims got so offended over muhammed cartoons? it's against their religion to depict their god, their prophet, or anything at all. how can you possibly use claims of idolatry in the name of allah against them, when their commands against it? is your god a golden calf because someone once sculpted one and called it god? or would you laugh at that claim (as well you should)? here's a good place to start:Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Biblehey, remember those golden calves? guess what el is portrayed as. and guess who's son yaw is. when the hebrews screw up and depict their god, why do you think they keep screwing up in this particular way? clearly, even they were confusing the two.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-02-2006 01:39 AM

---

above i addressed concerns that "yahweh" is often refered to as "yah" and that the golden calf idols are a good indication of relation to gods in other cultures. besides which: yah is renamed "yam" which is the word for "sea." yam controls the waters, and the primordial chaos. this should sound familiar: hebrews have a similar traditions.but i want to post an alternative theory, because it entertains the hell out of me.there's another god named "yah." in egypt, yah is the, of all the things, the moon god. yes, i am serious.now, moses was from egypt. he was a well educated prince of egypt, in fact. he goes off in the desert, and comes back with a new god. one named yah. egyptians already have a yah as one of their gods (and they've already tried the monotheism thing once, with the sun).so moses, and egyptian, assigns some new properties to an egyptian god that already exists, and then leads a bunch of hebrews of into the desert. when his next-in-line takes over, he proceedes to conquer the holy land in the name of this egyptian moon good.he is one god, revealed to a person who already knew a god of that name as part of a pantheon, and then that person instructs people to go and commit genocide, waging war on entire civilizations.very ironically similar to the islam story we're being told.

---

and islam claims the same thing about their god. why is their claim wrong, and your's right? you seem to have a problem sorting out fact from belief. your opinion of the bible = faith. which god you choose to believe in = faith. whether you believe your god to be derived from earlier polytheistic religions, or the one true god all along = faith. it is just as much faith for you as it is for a muslim. except when it does. i've pointed out an omission before. and the qu'ran says the same thing.they have faith in their text. you have faith in your text. this amounts to a difference of OPINION and BELIEF not FACT. yes, faith. but this is what YOU allege, not what i allege. you make this very claim against islam -- a religion so commited to overthrowing polytheism, idolatry, and false religion that it creates people who openly wage war on those religions they see as polytheist, false, and idolatrous. they are so anti-idolatry that entire arab countries rioted in the streets over the mere fact that someone drew a picture of muhammed.ever seen islamic art? it looks like this:pretty much all of it. they take that law about not depicting their god, their prophet, or anything else pretty darned seriously.so it is hard to comprehend the confusion or cynicism or hubris that goes into your idea that a religion like islam, that so absolutely, totally, conciously committed to overthrowing polytheism and every false religion could still be polytheistic unbeknownst to itself.

---

yes faith, i'm mocking your argument.besides, yahweh = iah the egyptian moon god would be an interesting piece of evidence for the exodus. ah well. it's not "looks like" or "sounds like." yahweh is often referred to as "yah" in the bible.in ugarit, yah was a son of el. let's look at this verse again:

quote:

---

When the Most High allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up the sons of man,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the sons of El
But Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.

---

the most high god (el elyon) deals nations out to lesser deities, ben-elohym. one son of el for each nation. israel's son of el is yahweh. yahweh = son of el.which god, would you say, is the cheif rival of yahweh in the old testament? who is the author of kings and those sorts of books is concerned about? yah's rival is named "ba'al." no, iah (egyptian moon god) and yah (ugaritic/hebrew deity) was a clang association. i posted it because it was FUNNY. i found it ironic that you're rambling on about moon gods, when there's one with the same name as your god. so are you. how? point me to it in the other thread. allah = paul's god? as did the transformation of yah into yahweh, as recorded in the bible when yahweh reveals himself to abraham. yahweh was certainly around (and worshipped by polytheists) before abraham. and abrahan's faith transformed their existing tradition -- whether or not that god is the true god, he was still know, differently, to the people of the time. no, faith, you have nothing. or rather, nothing but your faith. you believe in your god, and not in allah, and that is the entire difference. that's why you don't see their claims that allah is not that earlier moon god as accurate. that's why you don't pay attention to their utter contempt for idolatry and polytheism. and it's why your blinded to the simple fact that you are in the very same boat.

---

and their god didn't punish them before for their polytheistic indescretion, because you don't believe in him. but it happened with your god, because you believe in him.really, faith, at the end of this, it all come down to faith. you think they're full of it, because you don't believe in the same religion. they think the very same thing of you, for all the same reasons.why is it that you just cannot discriminate between belief and fact?

---

according to the bible, abram, a polytheist, was called on by god. abrama received a revelation, that changed the nature his belief (and to some extent his family's belief) into monotheism.

---

yes, i'm kind of interested too.because if she considers the bible as history, why doesn't my historical evidence count?

---

and according to historical religion of islam, and all the documents of islam, muslims objectively claim the bery same thing.see, i can throw around words like "historical" and "objective" too. the problem is that word "religion." it kind of voids the "objectivity" of the situation. religion is faith, faith.whether or not YOU believe in islam is irrelevant. they make the very same claims you make regarding your religion. and the objective fact of the situation is that both claim to be the truth, delivered to prophets by god himself, with instructions to spread the good news to the surrounding polytheists.you can't say "islam comes from a polytheistic context, so it's wrong. but christianity comes from a polytheistic context -- and it was the truth all along." you're reading the same context two different ways, based solely on your own belief and nothing more.why not actually look at the situation objectively, instead of just throwing the word around?

---

because you have lost sight of the objective fact that your belief in the historical precision and divine accuracy of the bible is a tenet of your faith -- and that muslims believe the same way about the qu'ran. you seem to think that because you believe you it, it's absolute fact.but it's belief. it's faith.

---

the other two were created by jeroboam, in the book of kings. one was at beth-el, and i forget off hand where the other one was. "reversion to the old pagan mentality."muslims hold the same thing to be true: god is not a created being. the earlier polytheists had perverted the truth, and muhammed straightened them out. you have failed to demonstrate why these arguments are valid for you, but not for them. because you believe the bible to be 100% accurate? that's faith, not fact. no matter how much you try, faith, religion is still faith. because you fail to see how the two relate. you don't see that you're arguing against yourself. you've set up a huge double standard -- their arguments are wrong, but mine are right. nevermind that we're saying the same thing. clearly, you think it is derived from polytheism. and clearly, the situation surrounding the birth of judaism is exactly the same. so, is allah the moon god, or not? if he's not, then you have to accept that the earlier moon god was a separate tradition -- or that the statement that the polytheist moon god was a perversion of the truth is just as valid as your statement that the biblical idolators perverted yahweh. *sigh* read the bible, faith. remember the book of job? yahweh gathers a council of ben-elohim? compare that to yah as a member of the iluhym in ugarit. it's a darned big coincidence, if you ask me.especially since ugarit is right next door. it's not like we're talking about people in australia here. these are people who interacted with the hebrews, and the akkadians/sumerians/babylonians/chaldees. they were a cultural center of the middle east.imagine you're a teacher, and your proctoring and exam. two students turn in essays that sound remarkably similar. the only difference is that one is full of typoes. the two students sat next together. are you gonna let them away with "just because they sound alike doesn't mean we cheated!" or are you going to fail them? be honest, here. second year. if they do, they're lying to you. it's not arrogance. i'm right, and any hebrew third grader would be able to tell you that. often the genders and rabim of nouns are deceptive -- but you can tell easily by the number and gender of the adjective or verb.in english, we conjugate verbs to their plural form when the subject looks plural. so we say stuff like "those scissors are sharp." really, there's only one scissors -- the word just looks plural. in hebrew, b'reishit bara elohim is the equivalent of saying "those scissors is sharp," only it makes perfect sense grammatically. we would know there's one scissors because of the verb. with elohim, we know when it's singular and when it's plural based on the verb and/or adjective.you really can't keep arguing this point. it's just based on your opinion of religious authority, whom i have clearly demonstrated are in fact wrong. i don't care if they have years mroe experience in bible study than me, evidently they know next to nothing about hebrew. maybe you should take some hebrew, then. and "hebrew experts?" what about the people who speak it? it's not exactly a dead language. but, hey, let's consult the experts: let's look at the history of biblical translation, shall we? here's a good set of them:

quote:

---

KJV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

NLT - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

NKJV - Gen 1:1 -In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

NASB - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

RSV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

Webster - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

Young - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

​

Darby - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

ASV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

HNV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the eretz.

​

Vulgate - Gen 1:1 - in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

---

that's funny, i don't see one, singular, solitary plural "gods" in there anywhere. do you? have you ever seen a single translation that renders "elohim" as "gods" in the verse? can you find one, anywhere? even heretical bibles, and strange translations?no?that's because it's kindergarten hebrew grammar. the verb determines number and gender. i am not aware on any translation that has EVER rendered "elohim" as plural in this case, or any other where it refers to ha-shem. i'm sorry, faith, you lose. the history of biblical translation agrees with me: elohim, when used to describe yahweh, is always singular.what you're thinking of is interpretation. that's different. they see the singular usage of a plural-looking word to be evidence of the trinity (and/or other polytheistic beliefs). translation ≠ interpretation. be careful with interpretations: i can find you whole essays expounding on the shape of the letter yud. people read lots of fun stuff into the bible. it's not arrogance. you're wrong. deal with it. you trust these interpretations based on authority. you do not have enough skill in the language to tell they are wrong. i do and i don't even have that much skill (which i am the first to admit). i'm a person with a brain in their skull. is jesus god? is yahweh god? is the holy spirit god? that's three gods. polytheism. that whole jesus = yahweh = the spirit is a bit, well, gnostic for my taste. it complicates the story. god sacrificed himself to himself to give us himself? it's not my fault you can't follow this. you can't seem to follow the hebrew grammar argument, either. look, this is simple:the MOST HIGH god divides the nations.
one son of el to a nation.
israel's son of el is yahweh.that's more or less the definition of henotheism. henotheism is the stepping-stone from polytheism. it means that we accept other gods exist, but we only only worship ours. do you believe they exist? even if they're evil, that's henotheism. for god's sake faith. god commands that the levites sacrifice a goat to another divine entity. you don't see that as a little bit weird? a little bit polytheist? first, that "yah" is a very common way to refer to "yahweh." generic? a calf is pretty specific. why do they KEEP using a calf? what is special about a calf? what other traditions could possibly be influencing them to think of god as a calf?it's not like it's a calf one time, and a goat another time, and a mule another time. no, it's a calf, and only a calf that is called the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. you keep saying "historically" instead of "i believe that..."islam holds the same thing you do. that allah is NOT that idol, but the revelation of the true character of god (who is aniconic).

---

i'm a bit rushed right now, so it's hard to find a good verse. but clearly faith is not something that is easy. but faith is something that is supposed to be beautiful.fact is boring, and sucks the life out of it. if we know something, does it matter what we believe? if our salvation is by faith, but we KNOW god exists, can we be saved?my own journey is a hard one. i doubt, and i question. and for this i am scorned by the christian community. they would rather isolate themselves, and limit faith as much as they can by telling themselves it's fact. stay away from the world, don't think, don't question. just follow.jesus said go out into the world. spread the news. he said, seek, and you will find. ask, and it shall be given. questioning, doubt, and FAITH are healthy. denial and isolation are not.

---

religion is part of cultural context. yet you claim history from the words of the bible. ok. ditto for islam. they claim the same thing. why are they wrong, and you right? and it seems to rub you the wrong way to simply believe the qu'ran, which makes the same claim of muhammed. they claim that muhammed did not create islam, but allah did. fixed. point me to the historical evidence, please. not under debate. do you recognize that their claim to divine monotheistic revelation out of a polytheistic surrounding is every bit as valid as yours?

---

whoa whoa, wait a minute. paul hear from jesus. abram heard from god himself (although generally god speaks through angels in the old testament. you got lucky, abraham is a counter-example to that). ...because you believe the bible to be accurate, and the qu'ran not.

---