Was the Hebrew God unique?

I am proposing a new topic - probably should go in Comparative Religions to discuss whether it was a new thing for a people to present their God as omnicient and omnipotent as the Hebrews did with Yahweh. When did this happen and was it a new thing? Or do all peoples consider their god to be omnicient and omnipotent? This topic proposal was prompted by this post by Faith in the "Logic" thread. Faith's post and my response(which I deleted because it was off topic):

Nevertheless, there were Hebrew teachers and Hebrew writers who taught about and wrote about Yahweh to their people, however they were inspired. That's all I meant in that statement. Please don't allow a quest for doctrinal purity to sidetrack this thread.

Before I take this at face value, how is God not all powerful (AP) and all knowing (AK) in Genesis? Except for giving man free will, which presumabely he could take away again if he wanted to, it seems to me that the Genesis God is very much AP and AK.If we accept your statement, when did the transition to AP and AK take place (putting aside for the moment the apparent contracictions).

God didn't know or he was asking questions with an educational purpose? I think one could make the case for either. God also asked Cain where his brother Abel was and it seems pretty clear he knew where he was. How many times does a teacher ask a student a question as a part of "educating" him? Happens all the time. In fact, it is a recognized teaching method - the Socratic Method.

I can see that the AP and AK stuff is not quite everything I am trying to get at here. Did the Hebrews make greater claims for Yahweh than the other tribes made for their tribal Gods? Did they see Yahweh as being a universal God? Certainly the Flood story seems to suggest that. Does the "Chosen People" part suggest otherwise?Edited by deerbreh, : typo

Yes. Exactly. Again I agree. A big part of the problem, in fast was that Yahweh was a "jealous" God and the Hebrews did not seem to "get that". They kept whoring after other gods every time Yahweh turned around. Here I am less certain. I would certainly agree that Islam sees Allah as a universal God but Islam is after all, a fairly recent development and could be seen as having borrowed a lot from some OT texts, no?Edited by AdminJar, : fix code

The educational purpose is to justify God's behavior in punishing them, yes - to assist them in seeing the error of their ways. The Hebrews seemed to take pains not to see Yahweh as being a capricious god. That is why the book of Job is so disturbing, imo. Look at the way Yahweh "bargained" with Lot about Sodom and with Jonah about Ninevah.

Yes. And that is why if we get caught up in the textualist trap of "What was God saying here?" we really miss the more interesting (imo) question about the Hebrew view of Yahweh and how it may have been different than/similar to the view of the supernatural of other ancient peoples. Your perception of the difference between God the creator of Genesis 1 (trancendant) and God the keeper of the Garden of Eden of Genesis 2 and 3 is correct, imo. An even more interesting situation occurs in the Gospel of John, where God is referred to as "Abba", which I think is Greek, and literally means "daddy", at least so I have been told by a pastor friend. I don't know if this "daddy" appelation for God occurs anywhere else in the OT or the NT but it certainly conveys a different message than "father". Of course God is also likened to a mother eagle (Deut. 32:11), so it is obvious that even with the Hebrews, there was some latitude in viewing God.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

I would never have brought up the "abba" point if I had known it was going to send the discussion veering off into the languages that Jesus may or not have spoken. The point was to illustrate how the view of God changes depending on where one is in scripture. The all powerful God is exchanged for a more personal God even in the OT but particularly as we transition from the OT to the NT. The depiction of a personal God is reflective of wanting to emphasize that man has a choice and that choosing God is to choose a nurturing figure such as a mother eagle and yes, a daddy. I disagree with you there Faith but rather than side track things, here is a source that discusses the meaning of "abba" The Name of God: AbbaIt is almost as if the Gospel writer is trying to emphasize the shift in thinking from the omnipotent Law giving God of the OT to a more nurturing God who can only be understood if we become like children. It also may have undermined the "Chosen People" idea, because if the Law is not "where it's at" it becomes even easier to make the case that God is for the whole world, not just the Hebrews. And Jesus was promoting this. It is no wonder the Pharisees were outraged. Their outrage turns out to be well placed, from the standpoint of defending the Law, and thus Yahweh, as after his death and Resurection Christ's followers proceeded to welcome gentiles into the new Christian church. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

This discussion is about the Hebrew view of God and how it may have changed as well as whether the Hebrew view of God was unique. If you want to discuss the language of Jesus or the crucifixion narratives, please propose your own topic.