- This topic has 264 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Adam: The theological position of the Tanakh is that the names Ēl and ‘Ĕlōhîm, when used in the singular to mean the supreme god, refer to Yahweh, beside whom other gods are supposed to be either nonexistent or insignificant.
The plural “elohim” is used in the singular to refer to many gods in the Bible, including Beelzebul, Chemosh, Molek, and even in the feminine form for the goddess Asherah. Your sources are uninformed.
Adam: Exodus 6:3 may be translated:
I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Ēl Shaddāi, but was not known to them by my name, YHVH.
Ah, but it can also be translated as, “I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Ēl Shaddāi, as to my name Yahweh, was I not known to them?”
Now considering that – according to scripture – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and the world in general, per Gen 4:26) all DID know their God by the name Yahweh, and considering that the Hebrew words could be translated either way… which way makes the most sense? The one where Moses is lying by saying they didn’t know something they did? Or the one where Moses isn’t contradicting other words that he himself wrote?
And no, your claims of the Law being written by multiple people won’t help you, because even IF that were to be true (it’s not), the subsequent authors would still have undoubtedly KNEW the former writings, and would not be stupid enough to blatantly contradict the story that they were writing a sequel to.
It’d be like someone writing that Luke Skywalker knew Darth Vader was his father when he was 10 years old, and then a subsequent writer having Luke only find out that Vader was his father many years later… “Luke, I am your father.”
Who would do that?
In the Bible, God OFTEN makes statements in the form of rhetorical questions (as Jews still do today). For example…
2 Kings 1:16… This is what the LORD says: Is it because there is no God in Israel for you to consult that you have sent messengers to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?
Of course God isn’t literally asking whether or not Israel has a God, right? He is making a statement using a rhetorical question. Another example…
Job 37:4-5… Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!
Again, God isn’t literally asking Job where he was, or who fixed the earth’s measurements, right? God is making the statement that HE ALONE did these things before Job was even born – but He frames His statement as a rhetorical question.
It is the same in Exodus 6:2-3, Adam. God is making the statement that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the very fathers of the nation God sent Moses to rescue) knew Him as, not only El Shaddai, but also by His name Yahweh. But as with the above examples, God is framing the statement as a rhetorical question… “as to my name Yahweh, was I not known to them?” (The word “but” isn’t in the Hebrew, rather it says “as to”.)
Adam, I don’t believe anyone is reading your giant copy and pastes anymore. I started reading them, but after I realized that they were nothing but empty claims that could be easily addressed by the scriptures themselves, I stopped. All you’re doing now is spamming the site with stuff nobody is even reading, all the while being AFRAID to pick and choose the things that you believe are good arguments, and post them here in easy-to-read snippets that we could all discuss together.
I suggest you start doing that latter thing. This isn’t a book reading club, Adam. It is a discussion forum. Start discussing things in your own words. Pick ONE good argument you think your sources make, and let’s discuss it. Afterwards, you can pick the next argument you think is good, and we can discuss that one.
Because as it is, I’m just a non-scholarly Bible student who is having no problem shooting down everything your sources are claiming. You need to either find better sources, or better rational understanding. Because blindly believing unsubstantiated nonsense makes you look silly.
Danny: Hi Adam,
I’m afraid you will never find the truth based on the historians and
archaeologist’s arguments through critical analysis.If you want the truth, then read the Bible!
The Bible clearly says that Yahweh is EL!These liberal scholars that speak contrary to the Bible are wrong.
The Bible is our source for all truth even history.
Why are you spreading these false articles, anyway?
I wonder if you do this intentionally or not?Well said, Danny! Adam’s sources are clearly wrong, as I’ve already shown many times already. I believe he is spreading these false arguments for the same reason people like Proclaimer spread NASA nonsense, and people like Gene spread nonsense that the earth is billions of years old. They think it makes them sound smart and learned – even though they haven’t investigated any of the claims or the reasons for them, and couldn’t explain the “science” behind those claims if they tried. They only parrot claims of other so-called “learned scholars” because that way they can pretend to be smart and knowledgeable without actually having to LEARN anything.
That’s why Adam has posted a billion words of copy/pastes, but won’t actually stand and DEFEND any of the claims within those copy/pastes.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not reading his articles anymore. And I won’t until he personally picks out any particular claim from his sources, and stands and defends that claim against our scrutiny and the scriptures themselves.
Okay, back to the actual REASON for this thread…
We’ve all agreed that “angels” are called gods in scripture. We’ve all come to know that when Yahweh says there is no god besides Him, it is an emphatical statement and not meant to be taken literally – since He Himself calls others gods all throughout the scriptures. Likewise, when Yahweh says He is the only savior, it is an emphatical statement and not meant to be taken literally – since He Himself sent many other saviors on behalf of His people.
Most recently, I’ve asked about Psalm 82 – in which Yahweh assembles with a bunch of other gods (a la Job 1:6 and 2:1), and pronounces a judgment on some of them that, although they are gods, they will die like mortal men die.
So my question is why Jesus would have alluded to this psalm in John 10:35.
Kathi, where are you? This is for you especially.
To all
(34-39) Jesus reasons from Psalm 82, and from His works.
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.a. Jesus answered them: The religious leaders surrounded Jesus (John 10:24) and now held rocks to stone Him to death (John 10:31). Jesus didn’t panic and didn’t run; He stopped them with the power of His word. He answered them as an educated rabbi would speak to other educated rabbis.
i. “Jesus rebuts their charge of blasphemy by means of an argument from scripture, of a kind with which they themselves were quite familiar…His question would have made an interesting issue for a rabbinical debate.” (Bruce)
b. Is it not written in your law, “I said, ‘You are gods’”: The judges of Psalm 82 were called “gods” because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God called earthly judges “gods.”
i. “The word law here is in its widest acceptation, – the whole Old Testament, as [John] chapter 12:34; 15:25.” (Alford)
ii. “They were entitled to be so designated, for they represented, however imperfectly, the divine will in so far as they were called upon to administer God’s word.” (Tasker)
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus reasoned, “If God gave these unjust judges the title ‘gods’ because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the ‘Son of God’ in light of the testimony of Me and My works?”
i. “The argument is from the greater to the less. If in any sense they could be called gods – how much more properly He.” (Alford)
ii. Jesus did not take the statement “you are gods” in Psalm 82 and apply it to all humanity or to all believers. The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor. Jesus spoke of that metaphor to expose both the ignorance and inconsistency of His accusers.
iii. “The deeper aim of this argument is, to show them that the idea of man and God being one, was not alien from their Old Testament spirit, but set forth there in types and shadows of Him, the real God-Man.” (Alford)
d. And the Scripture cannot be broken: This is a general rule for all Scripture, but Jesus applied it here to a fairly obscure passage where the essential point rested on one word God used to refer to human judges. It is a remarkable demonstration that the specific words of Scripture are inspired, not only the broad themes and ideas.
i. “It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous.” (Morris)
ii. “‘Scripture cannot be annulled’ or ‘made void’ (Mark 7:13); it cannot be set aside when its teaching is inconvenient. What is written remains written.” (Bruce)
iii. “Notice that he says this, not in connection with some declaration which might be regarded as among the key declarations of the Old Testament, but of what we might perhaps call without disrespect a rather run-of-the-mill passage.” (Morris)
iv. The word of God can’t be broken; it breaks whatever opposes it.
e. Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: This was a wonderful way for Jesus to speak of Himself. He is the One whom the Father sanctified, and the One whom the Father sent into the world.
i. “The judges as well as the lawgivers and prophets of the old dispensation, as it is pointed out in verse 35, were those unto whom the word of God came, while Jesus is Himself sent by God, the very Word of God made flesh.” (Tasker)
ii. That you may know and believe: “The former of these is the introductory act, the latter the abiding state, of the knowledge spoken of.” (Alford)
f. Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand: Once again, the enemies of Jesus were unable to carry out their violent plan against Jesus.
i. “He went forth out of that closing circle – the power that emanated from Him preventing their laying hands on Him: it was the same power that he allowed to issue from Him on the night of His arrest.” (Trench)
God bless
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus reasoned, “If God gave these unjust judges the title ‘gods’ because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the ‘Son of God’ in light of the testimony of Me and My works?”
Hi Berean, our Mike will not agree with the interpretation of Jesus, the so called Messiah and Son of God as narrated by the Fourth Gospel’s writer in the NT.
Mike thinks that there are number of Gods similar to Jesus with God YAHWEH who is the most high God as per the Bible. But they all will die like mortals as per Psalm 82.
He will not agree with Jesus or other Christians who think that Yahweh alone is God and no other Gods available with him as per their Monotheistic religion.
The Biblical religion was evolved and developed from Polytheistic background in ANE into most hardcore Monotheistic religion by the time of the origin of secondary religion Christianity. But there is much diversity as per the multiple books written by those first/second century writers.
The same being investigated by the historians and archaeologists. These are the arguments I am bringing here from number of sources.
Adam…….Remember Jesus spoke in parables to them, so they could not understand what he was really saying,
When Jesus said, “he called them God’s unto whom, the word of God came”, you need to understand that, as him meanning that, in a possessive sence, they were God’s people , to whom the word of God came. get it brother? , Jesus was not ever saying the were actually God’s, thenselves, but they belonged to him.
Peace and love to you and yours………..gene
Origin of worship of Yahweh…(continued)
The Mosaic theory:- In lack of sufficient evidence in support of the theory of J that Yahweh was the primitive deity of Israel, we turn to a consideration of the rival theory of E and P that he first became the god of Israel at the time of the exodus. This tradition has been accepted by Riehm, Dillmann, Stade, Budde, Marti, and Gray. In favour of it the following arguments may be urged:
1. The larger number of witnesses agree in support of this tradition. J stands alone in the view that Yahweh was the primeval god of Israel, but E, P, and the early prophets agree that he was Israel’s god “from the land of Egypt.” This fact creates a presumption in favour of the theory of E.
2. Names compounded with “Yahweh” are absent from all the documents before the time of Moses. The first ” Yahweh “-compound mentioned by E is Joshua. The lengthy lists of names given by P in Genesis contain not one ” Yahweh “-compound. In these cases it may be said, of course, that the writers have suppressed ” Yahweh “-names in accordance with their theory of the origin of Yahweh-worship. but this they could hardly have done consistently if such names had been known to them. Still more significant is the fact that J, who represents the patriarchs as worshipers of Yahweh, never once gives a name compounded with “Yahweh” in any of their families. The only Old Testament writer who records “Yahweh”-names in pre-Mosaic times is the late and unreliable Chronicler.
3. The infrequency of names compounded with “Yahweh” before the time of David is evidence that the worship of this god was introduced by Moses. Compounds with “El” are common, as we should expect if God had been worshiped under this name in pre-Mosaic times. Compounds with “Yahweh” are very rare, and are found only in the families of religious leaders. Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (Judg. 18:30), and Abijah, the son of Samuel (I Sam. 8: 2), are unquestionably Yahweh-names. Joshua is probably also such a name. Joash, the father of Gideon (Judg. 6:11, 29), Jotham, the son of Gideon (Judg. 9:5). and Joel, the son of Samuel (I Sam. 8:2), are possibly compounded with “Yahweh. ” Jochebed, the mother of Moses (Exod. 6: 20), is very doubtful. These are all the “Yahweh”-names that are recorded before David. In the time of David the number rises to seventeen, and all but four of these belong to royal or priestly families. After the time of David nearly all the kings of Judah and of Israel bear “Yahweh ” names, and such compounds begin to be frequent among the common people. This gradual increase of “Yahweh”-names
from Moses to the exile is good evidence that the worship of this god was first introduced by Moses.4. The connection of Yahweh with Sinai in Hebrew tradition, which we have already considered in another connection, is proof that Israel first learned to know this god at the time of the exodus. J, E, and P alike know of no initial revelation to Moses in Egypt. He has to be brought to the mount of God in order to make the acquaintance of Yahweh. In Exod. 3: 12 (E) Yahweh says: ” When thou hast brought forth the children of Israel out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain”-a statement which implies that
hitherto Israel has not worshiped Yahweh, and that it is to begin worshiping him when it comes to his abode. In 14: 19 (E) Yahweh himself is not present with Israel in Egypt, but it is only his angel who goes before the camp; yet in 17:6 (E), when Israel has come to Horeb, Yahweh says: “Behold I will stand before thee upon the rock in Horeb.” It is noteworthy also that, according to E Moses builds no altar to Yahweh until he has reached Rephidim at the foot of Sinai-Horeb (17:15; cf. 24:4). In J, the frequently repeated demand, “Let us go three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may worship Yahweh, ” also implies that Yahweh had not been worshiped in Egypt.The only reply that advocates of the primeval theory can make to this argument is to claim that Israel worshiped Yahweh from time immemorial at Sinai; and that, when it made this mountain its goal, it was only returning to an ancient holy place. This view was first suggested by Land and has been followed by Schultz, Wellhauzen, Smend, and Kautzsch. Wellhausen remarks:
The sanctity of Sinai is independent of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel. It does not show the peculiarity of the Hebrew religion, but, on the contrary, its connection with an older stage. Sinai was the abode of the deity, the holy mountain, not only for the Israelites, but for all the tribes in the neighborhood.Smend says:
The relation of Israel to Sinai is older than Moses. . . . . Israelites in Goshen and Israelites in the Sinaitic Peninsula long before adored Yahweh and had a tribal cult; it was the expression of a fellowship that before Moses already existed between several tribes of later Israel. Here Moses could lay hold in uniting Israel in the name of Yahweh.For those who hold that Yahweh was the primeval god of Israel this view is necessary, but it rests on no historical foundation. No-where in Hebrew tradition is it once suggested that Israel recognized -Sinai as a holy mountain before the exodus. If this had been the case, some story would have been told bringing the patriarchs into connection with it. The absence of such narratives shows that the Israelites’ reverence for Sinai dated from the days of Moses, and thus favours the view that Yahweh was a new deity first recognized at that time.
5. The characteristic rites of the religion of Yahweh are traced by Hebrew tradition only to the time of Moses. In the cases of E and P this is perhaps not surprising, but the same is true in the case of J. Although J states that the forefathers knew the name Yahweh, he represents them as practicing only the rites of general Semitic religion. All the peculiar rites of Yahweh-worship he represents as introduced by Moses. According to Exod. 4:24-26, Moses does not know that Yahweh requires circumcision until he
is taught this by his wife Zipporah. According to 10:26, the Israelites do not know how they will have to worship Yahweh until they come to his dwelling-place. In 12:21 ff.; 12:39 ff.; 13:6 ff.; 13:11 ff., J traces the origin of passover, unleavened bread, and firstlings to the time of Moses. The fundamental provisions
of the Book of the Covenant in Exod., chap. 34, and the consecration of Levi in Exod. 32:26, likewise show that J knows no real beginning of Yahweh-worship in Israel before the time of Moses.6. It is easier to explain the invention of J’s conception of the origin of Yahweh-worship than it is to explain E’s conception. If Yahweh had really been the primeval god of Israel, tradition would have had no motive for making him a god first taught by Moses; but, on the other hand, if he had been first adopted at the time of the exodus, it would have been natural for tradition to invent a higher antiquity for him. In all such cases historical criticism must follow the line of least resistance. This case is similar to that of the two accounts of the killing of Goliath in I Sam., chap. 17, and 2 Sam., chap. 23. It is easier to believe that David falsely got the credit of Elhanan’s exploit than to believe that Elhanan took the credit away from David.
The result of our investigations thus far is the conclusion that Yahweh was not a god adopted by Israel from the Canaanites, nor yet a god whom it worshiped from remote antiquity; but that it first came to know him at the time of the exodus. The question now arises: Whence did it derive the knowledge of this god ? How did it begin to worship him?
Adam…….Remember Jesus spoke in parables to them, so they could not understand what he was really saying,
When Jesus said, “he called them God’s unto whom, the word of God came”, you need to understand that, as him meanning that, in a possessive sence, they were God’s people , to whom the word of God came. get it brother? , Jesus was not ever saying the were actually God’s, thenselves, but they belonged to him.
Hi brother Gene, we don’t know exactly what Jesus really said. We only have the narrations given by those first/century writers after decades of years after his death. The problem here we are relying the strong arguments put forth by Mike on “Many Gods of the Bible” which includes Jesus the first century Jew.
Thanks for that commentary, Berean! Let’s scrutinize it together and see which parts hold water and which ones don’t.
a. Jesus answered them: The religious leaders surrounded Jesus (John 10:24) and now held rocks to stone Him to death (John 10:31). Jesus didn’t panic and didn’t run; He stopped them with the power of His word. He answered them as an educated rabbi would speak to other educated rabbis.
That part checks out, although “the power of His word” makes it sound as if Jesus kept the Jews at bay by supernatural forces – which isn’t explicitly taught in the passage.
i. “Jesus rebuts their charge of blasphemy by means of an argument from scripture, of a kind with which they themselves were quite familiar…His question would have made an interesting issue for a rabbinical debate.” (Bruce)
This part also checks out, but pay close attention to the fact that the charge was blasphemy.
b. Is it not written in your law, “I said, ‘You are gods’”: The judges of Psalm 82 were called “gods” because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God called earthly judges “gods.”
Here’s where the entire commentary begins to fall apart – and for many reasons.
First of all, let’s examine Ex 21:6 and 22:8-9, about which your source makes an inaccurate claim. It’s true that the KJV and other Bibles render the plural word “elohim” as “judges” in those verses. But “elohim” means either “gods” or “God”. The word itself NEVER actually MEANS “human judges”. Here are some examples of how the accurate English translations render Exodus 21:6…
NASB… then his master shall bring him to God…
NLT… If he does this, his master must present him before God…
MSG… then his master is to bring him before God…
NRSV… then his master shall bring him before God…
New Heart English Bible… then his master shall bring him to God…
World English Bible… then his master shall bring him to God…
Young’s Literal Translation… then hath his lord brought him nigh unto God…
But what does it mean for the slave’s master to “bring him before God”? The LXX scholars understood that it meant to bring the slave to the tribunal of God, and so that’s how they translated it. Compare…
Exodus 18:15-16… Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws.”
So while the KJV has the right idea that matters of the Law were to be brought before “judges” – they inadvertently started the erroneous notion that the very word “elohim” could MEAN “human judges”, which is not the case at all. To “bring a matter before God” means to bring the matter before one of God’s earthly representatives, such as Moses.
Notice the wording above: “the people come to ME to inquire of GOD“. This doesn’t mean that the earthly judge Moses is God, or that the human judge Moses is identified as “elohim”. It simply means that to bring the matter “before God” is to bring the matter before one of God’s earthly representatives, such as Moses, Samuel, or any of the other countless judges the Israelites set up for themselves. Moses himself was so worn out from all the cases being brought to him that his father-in-law convinced him to delegate his authority to a bunch of other Israelite leaders, making them judges on behalf of God too. (Ex 18:17-26)
After that point, to “bring a matter before God” was to bring it to any of those judges Moses appointed. But neither Moses nor any of those other judges were ever called or considered to be “gods”.
And finally, since Jesus never mentioned Exodus 21:6 or 22:8-9 in his rebuttal to the Jews, they are irrelevant to the discussion anyway. But Jesus did mention the gods of Psalm 82 – which your source inaccurately claims are human judges too – and so let’s examine it…
If the “gods” in Psalm 82 were human judges, then the charge that the Jews brought against Jesus would have been that he, a mere human, was making himself out to be a mere human.
How would it be blasphemy for a human to act as a human?
Why would the Jews identify human judges as “God” (“you, a mere man, make yourself out to be God”)?
Why would the Jews even make a distinction between “mere man” and “God” – if the “God” in question was also a mere man (human judge)?
Why would God Himself, in Psalm 82, also make a distinction between “mortal men” and “gods” (“I have called you gods, but you will die like mortal men.”) – if the gods in question were mortal men?
Why would God say of mortal men who were already bound to die, “you will die like mortal men”?
When did a bunch of Israelite human judges present themselves before Yahweh in something called “The Assembly of God”, where He for some reason told them that they were gods, and that their bad behavior was shaking the foundations of the entire earth, and then passed a judgement of death on some of these mortal men who were already destined to die at some point?
If the charge the Jews levied against Jesus was that he was making himself out to be THE God (as opposed to a god), why would Psalm 82 even apply?
How would Jesus’ rebuttal, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”, apply to a charge of making himself out to be THE God – or a human judge?
These are rhetorical questions designed to make you understand that way we’re told by your source and many others to understand John 10/Ps 82 makes absolutely zero sense. Think it out…
1. “You are a mere man making yourself out to be the Most High God!”
2. “Yeah, but look at Ps 82, where human judges are metaphorically called gods! Therefore it’s perfectly okay and not blasphemy at all that I’m claiming to be the Most High God!”
See? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In my next post, I’ll show you the proper understanding of the John 10/Ps 82 connection.
Yahweh of Teman at Kuntillet Ajrud
The title “Yahweh of Teman” is found outside the Old Testament at Kuntillet Ajrud, and this adds historical weight to the idea that Yahweh with the South were associated early on. Kuntillet ʿAjrud (AKA Horvat Teman) is a small, one-period site situated between the southern Negev and the eastern Sinai peninsula. Its occupation dates back to the late 9th/early 8th century, according to its ceramics, paleography, and carbon-14 dating, although Schniedewind has recently outlined a good argument
that some activity at the site goes back to the 10th century. It appears to have been a minor caravan stop with attached religious shrines. In this latter function, the discovery of references to Yahweh at the site have rightly drawn the attention of historians of Israelite Religion. The item which has received the most attention is a pithos depicting three humanoid figures with an accompanying Hebrew inscription, “I bless you by (or to) Yahweh of Samaria and his A/asherah.” But there are also several references to “Yahweh of Teman.”Most of the occurrences of Yahweh at Kuntillet Ajrud are to the name on its own (e.g., Stone inscriptions 1.2, Pithos A 3.1; Wall Plaster 4.2). “Yahweh of Teman,” however, is found in several inscriptions. Twice it is written on Pithos B, at 3.6 and at 3.9, the second with the definite article, “Yahweh of the Teman.” This might translate as “Yahweh of the South,” or Teman may be treated as requiring a definite article, similar to “the Negev,” “the Carmel,” or “the Sharon.” Twice, Asherah is associated with Yahweh of Teman: “I have blessed you by Yahweh of Teman and Asherata [sic],” Inscription D on Pithos B, and “May he bless you by Yahweh of Teman and Asherah,” Inscription F on Pithos B. In all these cases, Teman is written defectively. In Inscription G on Wall Plaster 4.1.1, Yahweh of Teman is written with plene spelling:
“Recount [praises] to Yahweh of Teman and Asherah. Yahweh of the South did good…set the vine… Yahweh of the South (or of the Teman) has ….” The scholars responsible for publishing the site excavations read Yahweh of Teman in light of the biblical passages discussed in Chapter One and believe it simply refers to the revelation at Sinai. That is unlikely. The main debate is whether Yahweh of Teman, Yahweh of Samaria—which also occurs at Kuntillet Ajrud, and whatever other Yahwehs there might be are different deities or whether they are different manifestations of the same deity. The latter perspective is that having two different appellations of Yahweh side-by-side distinguishes them as separate divinities, and it is part of a larger question regarding “DN of GN” names in Akkadian (Ebla, Mari, Assyria), Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Phoenician texts. Kyle McCarter famously stated this view in 1987, and it has been reiterated most extensively in Spencer Allen’s 2011 dissertation.
The former view sees such terminology as indicating “local manifestations” of one single God. Hutton describes this view at length. It suggests “micro-religions” of the single “macro-religion,” and the shrine at Kuntillet Ajrud would be for worshipping those micro- manifestations. Although Hutton believes that on a certain level the micro-manifestations are separate beings, and both are and are not the same deity, the fact that the same room has “Yahweh of Samaria” alongside “Yahweh of Teman” suggests the boundaries between manifestations are “porous.”
This scenario is certainly more true than a third idea of one Yahweh being distinct from another. Yet I would suggest, following Macdonald, an even stronger understanding, and refer, not to distinct manifestations or a “fragmented fluid divine self,” but rather plural invocations. It does not matter whether the historical process included merging of distinct divine figures—as no doubt it did, given the extent of El and Baal in the character of Yahweh—or whether we should also be imagining a simultaneous process of enlargement and multiplication from a single source. The result in vernacular Israelite religion was a variety of invocations of Yahweh.
Moreover, Hutton misses the point by assuming “locally indigenous worship of Yahweh of Teman.” The fact that Kuntillet Ajrud is located in the south is a red herring. The Israelian (i. e., Northern Kingdom) political status of the site, the Judahite pottery—both stylistically, as opposed to local, “Negebite,” and petrographically—, the appearance of “Yahweh of Teman” in both the Hebrew and Phoenician scripts (see below), and “Yahweh of Samaria” also appearing here, so far from Samaria, discount the need for such a view. Yahweh of Teman is the national God Yahweh.
Deities “of ” a toponym are a common West Semitic practice, which does not necessarily refer to the specific worship of that god occurring at that place. For example, in the Mesha Stele, the apparent problem in line 3 if it is read “I built this high place for Chemosh in Qarho” (kms bqrhh) is that the stele was found in Dibon, not Qarhoh. Qarhoh is not a section of the city of Dibon, as the Transjordanian city of Qarhoh is attested in 13th century Egyptian lists of the IX Dynasty. Rather, the line refers to the god “Qarhoian Chemosh,” worhipped at Dibon. Similarly, the Aramaic Nerab inscription (KAI 24) refers in line 2 (sahar benerab), not to Sinzeribni as the priest of Sahar at Nerab, but rather to the priest of “Nerabian Sahar.” The genitive relationship is more blatant in both these cases than at Kuntillet Ajrud since both utilize the preposition be. Moreover, Mark Smith’s analysis of the “Baals” attested in Ugaritic literature shows that in myth, deity lists, and rituals, these various Baals were always considered to be the same being. This may help to explain the Kuntillet Ajrud appellations: “Samarian Yahweh” and “Temanian Yahweh” were worshipped at a site that was neither.
Kenites at Kuntillet Ajrud: Kuntillet Ajrud has another important link to the biblical traditions about Yahweh’s southern origins. Line 7 of Wall Plaster 4.3 reads “Cain (Heb. קין (destroyed a field and lofty mountains.” This was written on the north doorjamb of the foyer to the “Bench Room” of Building A, the most clearly cultic structure of the site. Within Building A, the Bench Room served ritual functions, as it produced decorative fragments of Pithos A, woodwork pieces, exotica like fresh- and salt-water fish bones and shells, chalices, and fragments of white-plaster with remnants of inscriptions including Wall Plaster 4.1 Inscription 4.3 is the only wall inscription found in situ, 1.2 m above the floor.
One could just as easily translate the line as “The Kenite(s) destroyed a field” or “The Kenite(s) devastated the territory” (cf. Gen 14:7; 32:4; 36:35; Hos 12:13). The final clause, מרמהרמ ,could be translated either “lofty mountains” or “treachery,” reconstructing perhaps a following בידו. The original editors of the inscription do suggest a connection to the Kenites, and cite the Oracle of Balaam in Num 24:21, assigning the Kenites a “nest in the rock,” as well as Jer 49:16’s oracle against the Edomites who “live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill…[who] make your nest as high as the eagle’s.” Whether the translation is Cain or Kenites, in either case this inscription is important. The name Cain is unknown outside of Cain son of Adam and where it means Kenites. Other than the son of Adam and where it means “Kenites,” the name Cain is unknown in all Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician propospography.
Although Judah may have originally built the site, for most of its use the territory surrounding Kuntillet Ajrud belonged to the Northern Kingdom. Axelsson suggests the emphasis on Yahweh coming from the South in Northern Kingdom traditions, including Elijah’s journey to Mount Horeb, is due to the political inaccessibility of Jerusalem and Zion having displaced the South in Judah—the exact opposite of Pfeiffer’s argument—and Römer sees Kuntillet Ajrud as another example of this. However, although Kuntillet Ajrud may have politically been Israel, as has been mentioned above, the pottery is Judahite, and the orthography mixed. On pithoi, the short yaw in theophoric personal names displays the Israelian orthography, while the Phoenician script on the wall plasters is Judahite orthography. The latter script would have a formal, prestige status, and it is in this script that the Cain/Kenite inscription appears.
Moreover, texts written on walls are always of themselves material objects of ritual practice. Assyrian wall slabs were regularly inscribed on the inaccessible reverse side, indicating that the ritual was in the posting, not the reading. Brown calls this “the iconicity of inscriptions” and “the talismanic force of inscription,”
and the prestige script and the physical location of the Cain text only increases that force. The Cain text, however, was readable, so we must consider the act of reading aloud (the only style known in antiquity) to have been a ritual act. One entered the Bench Room shrine past inscriptions that refer to Yahweh of Teman, well-attested throughout Kuntillet Ajrud, the shaking of mountains, the shining forth of God, and Cain or the Kenites. If we had the entirety of the Cain/Kenite inscription, assuredly much more would be added to what it means that Yahweh comes from the South, a tradition the site’s inscriptions further support ….(taken from the book “Yahweh Origin of a Desert God”)Okay Berean and all, now let’s see if the Ps 82/John 10 connection makes sense with the proper translations and understandings.
The confusion starts with the erroneous and completely unscriptural idea that the Bible is a monotheistic book, and that the Israelite/Jewish culture itself held monotheistic beliefs. I have already showed you throughout this thread that there are indeed many gods in the Bible – and one Most High God of all the other gods.
Once you come to terms with that undeniable fact, then you can read Psalm 82 for what it truly is: Yahweh presiding over an assembly of many other gods (His spirit sons) and handing out a death sentence to some of those gods for doing the exact opposite of what He had instructed them to do.
But why would Jesus allude to this scripture in John 10? Well, that takes a proper translation of 10:33…
John 10:33… “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
The translation “God” is a travesty, and makes the Jews’ accusation – and Jesus’ entire rebuttal nonsensical and inapplicable.
What Jew in Jesus’ day would possibly think that Jesus could somehow fool people into thinking he was the Most High God who dwells in unapproachable light and can’t even be seen by men?
1 Timothy 6:16… He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
John himself even makes the distinction between Jesus and the Most High God abundantly clear all throughout his Gospel, including in the very first chapter…
John 1:18… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten god…has made Him known.
That is a CLEAR distinction between the Most High God that no man has ever seen, and a different god who came to make the Most High God better known to us.
And John actually begins this clear distinction in the very first words of his writing – when it is properly translated…
John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.
Now let’s add the proper translation of John 10:33 into the mix…
John 10:33… “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be a god.”
Can you see it yet? A god is a heavenly son of the Most High God. And what had Jesus been claiming? That he was a son of God who used to dwell in heaven alongside God (John 17:5) before being sent down from heaven into the world (John 6:35-42), and that he would ascend back into heaven soon (John 6:62).
Jesus never claimed to be God Himself. Nor would any of the Jews take him seriously if he did claim to be the Most High God who dwells in inapproachable light and cannot even be seen by men.
On the other hand, he did indeed claim to be a heavenly son of God who was sent down from heaven to dwell in a flesh body on earth for a while, ie: a god who came down from heaven!
That is exactly what Jesus claimed to be, and exactly what the Jews accused him of claiming to be: a god who came down from heaven! “You, a man, claim to be a god!”
And did Jesus deny their accusation? Nope. He pointed them to Psalm 82, in which these Jews’ own God, Yahweh, called His heavenly sons “gods”. But Jesus went farther than that…
LU: Jesus who is the only begotten God… is not just one of the many other ‘gods’ of the Bible.
Kathi is right in this regard. Jesus is one of the many other gods of the Bible, but not JUST one of them. He is greater than they are – and that was the other part of his rebuttal to the Jews…
John 10:33-36… “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be a god.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came – and Scripture cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”
Can you see the meaning of the rebuttal now? Jesus was accused of claiming to be a god (a heavenly son of God). So Jesus pointed out that it is not only scriptural for heavenly sons of God to be called gods, but that the Jews’ own God, Yahweh, had Himself directly called His heavenly sons gods!
But then Jesus went on to say that if, according to those Jews’ own God, these lesser, disobedient heavenly sons – who had just been sentenced to die like mortal men die – were indeed gods, how much more would that apply to a greater and obedient heavenly son of God, whom God set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
THAT, my friends, is the true meaning of the Ps 82/John 10 connection.
1. The gods in Ps 82 were indeed gods who were disobedient, and sentenced to die like men die.
2. Jesus is indeed a god – as all heavenly sons of the Most High God are.
3. Jesus openly claimed to be such a god, by openly claiming to be a heavenly son of God who was sent down to earth from heaven.
4. The Jews did not believe that he was such, and therefore accused him of blasphemy for claiming to be a god when (in their eyes) he was merely a man.
5. Jesus did not deny that he was the god he had been claiming to be, but merely pointed out that if Yahweh explicitly identified His lesser, disobedient heavenly sons as gods, then surely it’s not blasphemous for a greater and obedient heavenly son of God to claim to be exactly what he was.
6. Jesus, knowing that they didn’t believe that he was exactly what he claimed to be, then even told them point blank: Even though you do not believe my words, believe it by the many good works that I’ve been doing, and know from those works that Yahweh is truly with me.
Gene: When Jesus said, “he called them God’s unto whom, the word of God came”, you need to understand that, as him meanning that, in a possessive sence, they were God’s people , to whom the word of God came. get it brother? , Jesus was not ever saying the were actually God’s, thenselves, but they belonged to him.
Gene, your statement above is undeniably wrong…
Do you see the bottom blue rectangle? Do you see the letter “G” to the right, underlined in red? That “G” means it is the Greek genitive form – which means possession. When it’s in the Greek genitive form, we add the English word “of” (“the word of God”) or an “apostrophe/s” (God‘s word).
Now look at the top blue rectangle. Do you see the letter “G” in the column to the right? Nope. That mention of gods is NOT in the genitive form, and therefore we don’t add “of” or an “apostrophe/s” to it.
The top rectangle means “he called them gods”, not “he called them God’s”… because the word “god” IS NOT genitive in that one.
And the bottom rectangle means “the word of God” or “God‘s word”… because the word “god” IS genitive in that one.
Clanging Cymbal: The problem here we are relying the strong arguments put forth by Mike on “Many Gods of the Bible” which includes Jesus the first century Jew.
You have correctly identified that I am making strong arguments here – including my most recent that Jesus is indeed one of the many gods of the Bible – but I fail to see why you would call that a “problem”.
Maybe you’d like to make some strong arguments of your own – or at least attempt to address the rebuttals to your sources’ claims that I’ve been making? Then you could go back to being Adam instead of Clanging Cymbal.
Hi Mike
You
It is a CLEAR distinction between the Most High God whom no man has ever seen, and a different god who has come to make us better acquainted with the Most High God.
Me
I disagree that Jesus is
*a different god
Jesus is the Son of God and he is God by nature or essence, he is the reflection of the glory of God, the very imprint of HIS PERSON.THEREFORE I DISAGREE WITH THIS TRANSLATION OF John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 👉 the Word was a god.
SAME FOR JEANS 10 V.33
John 10:33… “We do not stone you for a good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be a god.
YOU SAY 👉See it already? A god is a celestial son of the Most High God. And what had Jesus claimed? That he was 👉 a son of God 👈 who lived in heaven alongside God (John 17:5) before being sent from heaven into the world (John 6:35-42), and that he would soon ascend to heaven (John 6:62).
Mike, Jesus IS not 👉a son BUT👉THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD
Mike, show me an apostle of Christ who emphasizes Jesus as a god… like you do.
Berean: Mike, show me an apostle of Christ who emphasizes Jesus as a god… like you do.
I just did, Berean. I showed you John, the Jews who said Jesus was blaspheming for making himself out to be a god, and Jesus himself, who not only clarified that he was indeed a god, but an even higher god than the disobedient ones who were punished by God in Ps 82.
But that’s okay… it’s a lot to get one’s head around, so let’s take it one step at a time.
John 1:1… In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God/a god.
In part b (“the Word was with God”), who do you think that “God” is, Berean? Who is the “God” that the Word was with in the beginning?
Hi Mike, thanks for your replies to my posts. But I am sorry to say that I am not here to take any challenges on these ancient religious texts.
I can ensure you that all the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam would not agree with your belief of many gods with the most high God. No Trinitarian can agree with your views.
Yes, a Jehovah Witness may agree with you as he believes Jesus as a god and Michael in the Old Testament.
I have moved from a Trinitarian background to Unitarianism and finally landed on a skeptic ground today. I now see all religions as equal and mythical in nature. I am only investigating the exaggerative claims of these religions especially the Christianity and its NT.
You know I am not a highly skilled in theology or debates. I am only a learner in all these things. So please don’t expect challenges from me.
Hi Mike
In part b (“the Word was with God”), who do you think that “God” is, Berean? Who is the “God” that the Word was with in the beginning?
Me
IN THE BIGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE ONLY TRUE GOD👉 JOHN 17 THE FATHER
AND THE WORD WAS GOD IN NATURE.
THE WORD WAS NOT GOD THE FATHER BUT the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,👉Hebrews 1/3
What I mean is all of the apostles did not EMPHASIZE that Christ is a God, but rather that he is THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD MADE FLESH. AND THEREFORE SINCE HE IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON HE IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS HIS FATHER WHICH IS EQUAL TO SAYING HE WAS GOD IN THE BEGINNING.
JUST AS MY FATHER WAS HUMAN, I TOO AM HUMAN, I HAVE HUMAN NATURE MADE OF FLESH AND BLOOD.
IT IS THE SAME FOR
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, HE INHERITED IN THE DAYS OF ETERNITY HIS FATHER’S DIVINE NATURE. AND AT THE TIME MARKED, IT WAS MADE FLESH SUCH AS OUR.God bless
Mike your answer is easey debuncked, God the Father himself said he looked for other God’s and found none, and that he himself was the “ONLY” God that existed. Jesus said THOU ARE THE “ONLY” TRUE God.
WHATS INTERESTING IS God the Father said he could find no other God’s , but you can find them, hundreds or thousands . Satan would sure like us to believe that right? Jesus himself “never said he was a God , but a son of God, big difference, in my opinion. If Jesus was telling they were actual God, he would have said , yes we are all God’s , but he sure never said that now did he. But that’s the way he would have answered them and their false accusations right, if that is what he meant to say , he would have simply said yes to them, “I am a God too.” , But you see he never said that, now did he? I wounder why? , maybe it’s because God the Father himself said , “you shall have “NO” other God’s. besides me, you shall make “NO” image of me in heaven above nor earth below. Seems you forgot to think about those many, many scriptures written in our text .
The only one that i know of in scripture, who wants other God’s is Satan himself, and other pagans nations. I believe in the “Shema”, ” hear O Israel, the LORD “our” GOD IS “ONE” LORD.” , JESUS BELIEVED IT ALSO, HE EVEN QUOTED IT MIKE.
You big and little god’s thing falls apart when you consider there were no lower case text in the original Greek scriptures , they were all written in upper case littering, in the original texts.
Wouldn’t it be counterdictory for Jedus to say “there is “only “one” true God, then say you are all God’s too. And not include himself when he made those statements.
Think about it Mike maybe you are trying so hard to prove yourself right, your over looking the rest of many scriptures that present it differently. THINK ABOUT IT. , kind of like the flat earth thing brother.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike………gene
The Sons of El (God)
In the Old Testament there appears the concept of Yahweh’s having a heavenly court, the sons of God. They are referred to variously as the ‘sons of God’ (bene ha’ elohim, Gen. 6.2, 4; Job 1.6, 2.2; or bene ‘elohim, Job 38.7), the ‘sons of gods’ (bene ‘elim, Ps. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6]), or the ‘sons of the Most High’ (bene ‘elyon, Ps. 82.6). It is also generally agreed that we should read ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) for ‘sons of Israel’ in Deut. 32.8.
There are further numerous places where the heavenly court is referred to without specific use of the expressions ‘sons of God(s)’ or ‘sons of the Most High’. Thus, the heavenly court is mentioned in connection with the first human(s) (Gen. 1.26, 3.22; Job 15.7-8) or elsewhere in the primaeval history (Gen. 11.7; cf. Gen. 6.2 above), and in the context of the divine call or commission to prophesy (1 Kgs 22.19-22; Isa. 40.3, 6; Jer. 23.18, 22; cf. Amos 3.7). We also find it referred to in connection with the guardian gods or angels of the nations (Isa. 24.21; Ps. 82.1; Ecclus 17.17; Jub. 15.31-32; cf. Deut. 32.8 and Ps. 82.6 above; implied in Dan. 10.13, 20; 12.1). Apart from isolated references to the divine assembly on the sacred mountain in Isa. 14.13 and to personified Wisdom in the divine assembly in Ecclus 24.2, the other references to the heavenly court are more general (Zech. 1.10-11, 3.7, 14.5; Ps. 89.6-8 [ET 5-7]; Dan. 4.14 [ET 17], 7.10, 21, 25, 27, 8.10-13; cf. Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7 and Ps. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6] above). Just as an earthly king is supported by a body of courtiers, so Yahweh has a heavenly court. Originally, these were gods, but as monotheism became absolute, so these were demoted to the status of angels.
It was H. Wheeler Robinson who first drew attention to this concept n the Old Testament, though he cited only Babylonian parallels and so concluded that the origin of the Israelite notion was Babylonian, overlooking the more recently discovered Ugaritic parallels concerning the sons of EL It is in connection with the Canaanite god El and his pantheon of gods, known as ‘the sons of El’, that a direct relationship with the Old Testament is to be found. That this is certain can be established from the fact that both were seventy in number. At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of ‘the seventy sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (Sb’m. bn. ‘am, KTU2 1.4.VI.46). Since Asherah was El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were seventy in number. Now Deut. 32.8, which is clearly dependent on this concept, declares, ‘When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God’. The reading ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) has the support
of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambr. Or. 929.This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the MT’s ‘sons of Israel’ (bene yisra’el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase ‘sons of God’. Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be seventy nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also seventy in number. This emerges from the table of the nations in Genesis 10, where there are seventy nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were seventy guardian angels of the nations (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27). This view, which I have defended previously, seems eminently reasonable. The criticisms that it has received seem unconvincing. Thus, first, R.N. Whybray claims that it is illegitimate to argue from the number seventy, since this is merely a conventional way of referring to a large, but indeterminate, number.
But this does not seem to be the case here, since Genesis 10 lists precisely seventy nations on earth. Secondly, D.I. Block has claimed that the seventy gods of the nations implied in Deut. 32.8 are rather to be seen as a back projection from the notion of seventy nations on earth, such as is found in Genesis 10. Since, however, the idea of seventy sons of God (El) is already attested prior to Deut. 32.8, as the Ugaritic texts prove, Block’s theory seems strained.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the Old Testament never refers to the heavenly court as ‘the sons of Yahweh’. As we have seen above, apart from one instance of bene ‘elyon, we always find ‘sons of God’, with words for God containing the letters ‘/ (bene ha’ elohim, bene ‘elohim, bene ‘elim). This finds a ready explanation in their origin in the sons of the Canaanite god El. …..(taken from the book “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
