- This topic has 264 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
YAHWEH AND EL
Were Yahweh and El originally the same Deity or not?
What was the relationship between Yahweh and the Canaanite god El? In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently called El. The question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated later. The Old Testament itself indicates some sense of discontinuity as well as continuity, in that both the E and P sources imply that the patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh and that this was first revealed to Moses (Exod. 3.13-15, E; 6.2-3, P), in contrast to the J source, where the name Yahweh was already known in primaeval times (Gen. 4.26). The P source specifically states that the patriarchs had previously known God under the name El-Shaddai (Exod. 6.3).
In the nineteenth century J. Wellhausen believed Yahweh to be the same as El, and more recently this has been particularly argued by P.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. However, the following arguments may be brought against this. First, in the Ugaritic texts the god El is revealed to be wholly benevolent in nature, whereas Yahweh has a fierce as well as a kind side. Secondly, as T.N.D. Mettinger has rightly emphasized, the earliest evidence, such as that found in Judg. 5.4-5, associates Yahweh with the storm, which was not something with which El was connected at all. Rather, this is reminiscent of Baal. Thirdly, as for P.M. Cross’s view that Yahweh was originally a part of El’s cultic title, ‘El who creates hosts’ (‘il duyahwl saba’dt), this is pure speculation. The formula in question is nowhere attested, whether inside or outside the Bible. Cross’s reasons for thinking that yhwh sb’t cannot simply mean ‘Lord of hosts’, namely, that a proper name should not appear in the construct, is incorrect.
Further, hyh (hwh) is not attested in Hebrew in the hiphil (’cause to be’, ‘create’), though this is the case in Aramaic and Syriac. Yahweh in any case more likely means ‘he is’ (qal) rather than ‘he causes to be/creates’ (hiphil): to suppose otherwise requires emendation of the Hebrew text in Exod. 3.14 (‘ehyeh, ‘I am’), which explains the name Yahweh. I conclude, therefore, that El and Yahweh were originally distinct deities that became amalgamated. This view was held as long ago as F.K. Movers, and has been argued since by scholars such as O. Eissfeldt and T.N.D. Mettinger.
It is interesting that the Old Testament has no qualms in equating Yahweh with El, something which stands in marked contrast to its vehement opposition to Baal, let alone the equation of Yahweh with Baal (cf. Hos. 2.18 [ET 16]). This must reflect a favourable judgment on El’s characteristic attributes: as supreme deity, creator god and one possessed of wisdom, El was deemed wholly fit to be equated with Yahweh. Baal, on the other hand, was not only subordinate to the chief god El, but was also considered to be dead in the underworld for half the year, something hardly compatible with Yahweh, who ‘will neither slumber nor sleep’ (Ps. 121.4).
Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7) and there has been an increasing tendency to locate Mt Sinai and Kadesh in N.W. Arabia rather than the Sinai peninsula itself. The former view, long held by German scholars,has been supported by evidence of a civilization in the Hejaz area in N. W. Arabia (Midian) in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, in contrast to the general lack of this in this period in the Sinai peninsula. Also, the epithet ‘Yahweh of Teman’ in one of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions fits in with this. References to the Shasu Yahweh in Egyptian texts alongside the Shasu Seir may also be cited in support. Though M.C. Astour has questioned this, claiming that the reference was not to Seir in Edom but to Sarara in Syria, on balance, however, the Egyptian Sc’rr still seems more likely to be a slip for S ‘r (Seir) than the name Sarara.
As will be seen at various points later on in this chapter, a plausible case can be made that several of the El epithets referred to in Genesis in connection with patriarchal religion do indeed derive from the worship of the Canaanite god El (El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Bethel, and possibly El-Elyon). As Eissfeldt and others have also noted, the promises of progeny to the patriarchs bear comparison with the promise of progeny by the god El to Keret and Aqhat in the Ugaritic texts. Although no one can today maintain that the patriarchal narratives are historical accounts, there are grounds for believing that their depiction of an El religion does at least in part reflect something of pre-monarchical religion, however much it has been overlaid by later accretions. In favour of a pre-monarchic El religion amongst the Hebrews one may first of all note the very name Israel, meaning probably ‘El will rule’, a name already attested in the late thirteenth century BCE on the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. It is surely an indication of El’s early importance that the very name of the people incorporates the name of the god El. Secondly, as various scholars have noted, prior to the rise of the monarchy theophoric personal names including the name ‘el are very common, whereas explicitly Yahwistic personal names are very rare (apart from Joshua only five from the Judges period).
El’s Influence on Yahweh Accepted by the Old Testament:
Granted that El and Yahweh were originally separate deities who became equated, the question now arises what was the nature of El’s influence on the depiction of Yahweh. Here several points emerge which will be discussed under the following headings.
Yahweh as an Aged God:
One instance where a strong case can be made for the influence of El symbolism on Yahweh concerns those few places where Yahweh is represented as an aged God with many years. In the Ugaritic texts El is frequently given the epithet ‘ab $nm, ‘Father of Years’ (e.g. KTU2 1.4.IV.24), a concept reinforced by the references to his grey hair (e.g. KTU2 1.3.V.2, 24-25; 1.4.V.4). In the Old Testament there are just three places where Yahweh’s ‘years’ are alluded to, and it is therefore particularly striking that in two of these he is specifically called by the name El.The first of these is in Job 36.26, where Elihu declares, ‘Behold, God (‘el) is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable’. Clearly Yahweh is being represented as a supremely aged deity. The second occurrence is in Ps. 102.25 (ET 24), where the Psalmist prays, ‘”O my God (‘elty\ I say, “take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!”‘ The fact that Yahweh is here referred to as ‘my God’ (literally, ‘my El’) is all the more striking in that it is the one place in the whole Psalm in which God is not addressed as Yahweh (cf. vv. 2, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23 [ET 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22]). The only other instance in the Old Testament where Yahweh’s ‘years’ are mentioned is Job 10.5, where Job asks God, ‘Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man’s years?’ (This is part of a section in which God is called ‘e loah, a term related to ‘el, e.g. in Job 10.2.) But these specific references to Yahweh’s years are not the only places where he is depicted as an aged God. As J.A. Emerton was the first to note, Dan. 7.9 also has this concept and has appropriated it from El. In Daniel’s apocalyptic vision God is there entitled the ‘Ancient of Days’, a term reminiscent of ‘Father of Years’, and we read that ‘the hair of his head was like pure wool’, which likewise reminds one of EL In keeping with this, the one like a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven and reigns for ever after being enthroned by the
Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13-14) derives ultimately from Baal, ‘the rider of the clouds’, and the beasts of the sea, whose rule is succeeded by that of the one like a son of man, reflect Yam, Leviathan, and others, who
were defeated by Baal.It seems inherently plausible that we have an Old Testament allusion related to El’s being an aged deity in Gen. 21.33, where the patriarchal deity at Beer-sheba is called El-Olam, ‘El, the Eternal One’, which may
possibly have meant originally ‘El, the Ancient One’, as P.M. Cross has noted. However, the proposal of P.M. Cross to find an allusion to ‘El (god) of eternity’ (‘I d 7m) in the Proto-Sinaitic text 358 has proved to be unfounded, since M. Dijkstra, having examined the text at first hand, has shown that this reading is invalid. Probably El-Olam was the local Canaanite god of Beer-sheba, but as we know from archaeology that Beer-sheba was not settled before c. 1200 BCE, the cult there will not antedate that time.Yahweh as Wise:
It was the god El who was especially noted for his wisdom according to the Ugaritic texts (KTU2 1.4.V.65, etc.). It seems that the author of Ezekiel 28 was familiar with this notion, since the king of Tyre’s wisdom is emphasized in vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, and elsewhere in the very same context he claims to be God (‘el). As will be seen below, El traditions lie behind the notion of the garden of Eden, so it is striking that the divine wisdom is connected with the story of the first man in Gen. 3.5, 6, 22; Ezek. 28.12, 17, and Job 15.7- 8. In my opinion it is probable that it was from the god El that the notion of Yahweh’s wisdom was appropriated. Plausibility is added to this view by the fact that wisdom and old age were traditionally associated, and, as noted already, it was from the god El that the notion of Yahweh as an aged deity with many years was derived.Yahweh as Creator:
We do not know whether Yahweh was conceived of as a creator god from the beginning or not. One cannot presuppose this from the name itself, for it is more likely that it means ‘he is’ rather than ‘he causes to be’ (i.e. creates); certainly the former sense is how the Old Testament itself understands it (cf. Exod. 3.14). Anyhow, whether Yahweh was conceived to be a creator god from the beginning or not, there is some evidence that there are occasions on which the Old Testament has appropriated El language when it speaks of Yahweh as creator. Thus, it can hardly be a coincidence that Gen. 14. 19, 22 speaks of ‘El-Elyon, creator (qoneh) of heaven and earth’, and Deut. 32.6 declares, ‘Is not he your father, who created you (qanekaj.This is so because not only is it the case that the verb qnh is used outside the Bible to speak of El’s creative activity, but in both cases cited above we have other evidence supporting El influence: Gen. 14.19 and 22 specifically refer to El(- Elyon), and Deut. 32.8 also refers to the ‘sons of God’ (implicitly seventy, deriving from the seventy sons of El) as well as the name Elyon. (We should also note the personal name Elkanah [‘elqand], ‘God [El] has created’, 1 Sam. 1.1, etc.) It is therefore possible that it is not merely a coincidence when we find the concept of God as creator and the name El together elsewhere in the Old Testament. Psalm 19.2 (ET 1) proclaims, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God (‘el)’, and Ps. 102.26-27 (ET 25-26), which speaks of God’s work as creator, is not only sandwiched between two verses referring to God’s years (cf. El; vv. 25, 28, ET 24, 27), but following the only verse in the Psalm (v. 25, ET 24) to refer to God as ‘eli, ‘my God (lit. El)’, rather than Yahweh.El’s Dwelling Place: The Origin of Paradise:
Does Ezekiel 28.2-10 Reflect El Traditions? Ezekiel 28.2-10 is an oracle of judgment against the king of Tyre, Ittobaal II. Because of his hubris in striving to be like God, he is cast down into the underworld. It has been debated whether traditions of the god El are reflected here. Among the points that may be appealed to in support of this view are the following:(i) The name used for God in Ezek. 28.2 (x2) and 9 is El (‘el). This is found in only one other place in the book of Ezekiel, in Ezek. 10.5 (El-Shaddai). Compare also Ps. 82.1, Job 36.26 and Ps. 102.25-28 (ET 24-27) for some other places in the Old Testament where the name ‘el is used for God in association with ideas that actually pertain to El in the Ugaritic texts (divine assembly, aged deity, and creation).
(ii) In saying, ‘I am El (God)’, the king of Tyre declares, ‘I sit in the seat of God [or gods] (moSab ^lohim) in the heart of the seas’ (Ezek. 28.2). This is suggestive of El, whose dwelling is said in the Ugaritic texts to be ‘at the source of rivers, in the midst of the double deep’. Although the location of Tyre itself was ‘in the heart of the seas’ (cf. Ezek. 27.4, 32), the association of this with the ‘seat of God’ clearly reflects El. (Mtb ‘// actually occurs in Ugaritic, cf. KTU2 1.3.V.38, 1.4.1.12, 1.4.IV.52; mtbt. ‘Urn occurs in KTU2 1.23.19 and KTU 1.53.5.)
(iii) Interestingly, the deity is associated especially with wisdom, as in Ezek. 28.2, ‘though you consider yourself as wise as God’ and 28.6, ‘because you consider yourself as wise as God’. Now El was regarded as particularly wise (cf. KTU2 1.4.V.3,etc.).The combination of these three features creates a good case for seeing El traditions reflected here. Attempts such as those of Zimmerli and Van Dijk to avoid this conclusion are to be rejected. (Canaanite traditions are also present in the reference to Daniel in Ezek. 28.3.) The scholar who first drew attention to El parallels in Ezekiel 28, M.H. Pope, however, was quite wrong in seeing the picture of the fallen figure in Ezek. 28.2-10 as itself being based on the fate of the god El. It is now widely recognized that there is no real evidence for the notion that El was ejected (by Baal) from his seat of authority. In Ezekiel 28, as elsewhere in the Old Testament, El is equated with Yahweh himself, and it is clear that it is the king of Tyre’s striving to be like El that leads to his downfall.
El-Shaddai:
The most likely interpretation of the divine name ElShaddai is ‘El, the mountain one’, with reference to El’s dwelling place on a mountain. This is P’s preferred term for God in the period between Abraham and the revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses (cf. Gen. 17.1, 28.3, 35.11; Exod. 6.3). However, the name Shaddai is already present in what appear to be early, perhaps tenth-century, texts such as Gen. 49.25, Num. 24.4, 16, and Ps. 68.15 (ET 14). Traditionally, ElShaddai has been rendered ‘God Almighty’, following the LXX’s TcavtoKpdxcop and the Vulgate’s omnipotens, but it is widely accepted that this is a later misunderstanding, possibly arising through association with Hebrew Sdd ‘to destroy’ (cf. Isa. 13.6; Joel 1.15, JfSdd miSSadday ‘as destruction from Shaddai’). A rabbinic view understanding the name as meaning ‘who suffices’ (Se + day) is clearly fanciful and has no support. A standpoint occasionally supported by modern scholars connects it with the Hebrew word Sad ‘breast’, but since Shaddai was a masculine deity this is far-fetched.
The two most widely accepted views today render the name ElShaddai either as ‘El, the mountain one’, relating it to Akkadian Sadii ‘mountain’ (and Saddd’u, Saddu’a., ‘mountain inhabitant’), or as ‘El of the field’, connecting it with Hebrew sadeh ‘field’. It is a disadvantage to the latter understanding that the Hebrew word for ‘field’ has s, whereas Shaddai has $. Since the meaning ‘mountain’ is thought to derive from the word for ‘breast’, the fact that Hebrew here has $ is also appropriate. Further, Cross observes that in a Hurrian hymn El is described as ‘El, the one of the mountain’ (‘II paban-hi-wi-ni). He also notes that an epithet resembling ‘el-Sadday, namely, bel fade ‘lord of the mountain’ is employed of the Amorite deity called Amurru; judging from such facts as that this deity is also called Ilu-Amurru and has a liaison with Asratum, the counterpart of Athirat (Asherah), El’s consort, Cross suggests that Amurru is to be regarded as the Amorite El. Interestingly, in the Deir ‘Alia inscription, 1.5-6 we read, ‘I will tell you what the Shadda[yyin have done]. Now come, see the works of the gods! The gods gathered together; the Shaddayyin took their places as the assembly’. In both sentences it is most natural to take the Shaddayyin (Sdyn) and the gods (‘Ihn) as parallel terms referring to the same deities, who constituted the divine assembly. Logically, El, the supreme deity, who also features in the text (1.2; II.6) would therefore be Shaddai par excellence. Since, moreover, this epithet is here applied to the gods in their role as members of the divine assembly, which characteristically met on a mountain, the meaning ‘mountain ones’ seems very appropriate, much more so than ‘those of the field’.
Altogether, though we cannot be certain, a plausible case can be made that Shaddai means ‘the mountain one’, and derives from an epithet of El. Certainly, in addition to the epithet El-Shaddai, the name Shaddai is found parallel with El a remarkable number of times, especially in Job (Num. 24.4, 16; Job 8.3, 5, 13.3, 15.25, 22.17, 23.16, 27.2, 13, 33.4, 34.10, 12, 35.13). If Shaddai originated as an epithet of some other god than El it is surprising that the term became so much approved and was never rejected.
El Influence on Yahweh Ultimately Rejected by the Old Testament:
El the Bull: The Origin of Jeroboam’s Golden Calves Cult I have considered above various aspects of the Canaanite god, El, which were appropriated by Yahweh and which have been taken up into the Old Testament. There were a couple of aspects of the El cult, however, that were accepted by many Israelites, but ultimately came to be rejected by the Old Testament. One was the appropriation by Yahweh of El’s wife, Asherah. The other concerns the symbolism of the deity by a bull. In the Ugaritic texts El is frequently referred to as the ‘Bull El’ (tr ‘//), as, for example, in KTU2 1.2.111.21, 1.4.111.31, and elsewhere. This bull symbolism seems to have been symbolic of El’s strength rather than fertility, as El was not particularly associated with fertility. I shall argue below that the golden calves set up by King Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12.26-30) reflect ancient Yahwistic symbolism deriving from the god El. (That bull symbolism—whether associated with El or some other god
—was known in Palestine prior to Jeroboam is attested archaeologically.) But first I need to reject other origins of this symbolism that have been suggested.Prior to the nineteenth century it was generally thought that Jeroboam’s calves (I Kgs 12.26-30), as well as Aaron’s golden calf (Exod. 32) were Egyptian in origin. This view is already found in Philo of Alexandria and was followed by the Church Fathers and others. In the twentieth century it has been accepted by R.H. Pfeiffer, E. Danelius and J. Oswalt. Danelius curiously argued that the deity in question was the cow goddess, Hathor, because the LXX speaks of Jeroboam’s heifers (1 Kgs 12.28, 33; contrast ‘calf throughout Exod. 32), but there is no reason to believe that the MT is at fault at this point. Against an Egyptian origin it has been noted that it would be improbable for the Hebrews to attribute their deliverance from Egyptian oppression to an Egyptian deity, that the Egyptians worshipped living bulls (such as the Apis bull), and finally, that it is improbable that Jeroboam would have imported such a foreign god. Surprisingly, another view maintained by J. Lewy and L.R. Bailey has it that the golden calves were symbols of the Mesopotamian moongod, Sin. There is little to be said for this theory, since there is no clear evidence for Sin worship in the Old Testament and moon worship, though not absent, does not seem to have played a prominent role in ancient Israel.
Moreover, it was Yahweh who was the God of the Exodus, and we never hear of this being attributed to any other deity. When the Old Testament speaks of Israel’s apostasy to other gods, the most prominent deity in this connection is the Canaanite storm and fertility god, Baal. Baal is, in fact, sometimes associated with bull symbolism, and the view that Jeroboam’s golden calves represented Baal is already attested in the Apocrypha in Tob. 1.5. However, although a few modern scholars have adopted this view, it is now generally rejected. Significantly, Jehu’s revolution, which ‘wiped out Baal from Israel’ (2 Kgs 10.28), did not remove the golden calves (2 Kgs 10.29), clearly indicating that they were not perceived as Baal symbols. Likewise, the prophet Elijah, who was adamant in his opposition to Baal, utters no condemnation of the golden calves, and neither does Elisha.
Although not all agree, most scholars now accept that Jeroboam’s calves were associated with Yahweh, the God of Israel, rather than some foreign god. Thus, first, Jeroboam was attempting to secure his throne
and stop people from going to worship Yahweh in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12.26-27), and would therefore have been unwise at that point to have imposed some alien god. Secondly, Jeroboam declares of the calves,
‘Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt’ (cf. Exod. 32.4). It is Yahweh who is elsewhere the god of the Exodus, and there is no evidence that this deliverance was ever attributed to any other god. Thirdly, Exodus 32, which is clearly polemicizing against Jeroboam’s calves, goes on to connect them with Yahweh in Exod. 32.5, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord’ (cf. the reference to the feast in 1 Kgs 12.32). Fourthly, Jeroboam’s son, Abijah (1 Kgs 14.1) has a Yahwistic name. Fifthly, the one personal name from Israel referring to a bull is ‘glyw, ‘calf of Yahweh’ (or possibly ‘Yahweh is a calf) on Samaria ostracon 41 (about 100 or 150 years later than Jeroboam I), thus associating the calf with Yahweh rather than any other god. Sixthly, the fact that the golden calves were not removed in Jehu’s purge suggests that they were perceived to be Yahwistic.Granted that the golden calves denoted Yahweh rather than some foreign deity, the question still remains whence this imagery was derived. The most likely explanation is that it was appropriated from the Canaanite god El, known as ‘Bull El’ in the Ugaritic texts, with whom Yahweh was identified.
The following points speak in favour of this. First, in Canaanite religion it is supremely the god El with
whom bull symbolism is associated so far as we can tell from the Ugaritic texts. Secondly, it may be significant that one of the two sites at which the golden calves were set up was Bethel, a name that literally means ‘house of El’. The god of Bethel is called El-Bethel in Gen. 35.7 (cf. 31.13), and in Jer. 48.13 the god of the northern kingdom seems to be called simply Bethel: ‘Then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence’. From the context, Bethel can be only the name of the deity, not the place.Thirdly, it may be noted that the cult at Bethel was especially associated with the patriarch Jacob, and Jacob’s god is referred to as ‘ a bfr ya’a qob, ‘the Mighty one of Jacob’ (Gen. 49.24). However, the word ‘a bir is very similar to ‘abbir, which means ‘bull’, so that Jacob’s god may well have been called originally ‘the Bull of Jacob’, which would be appropriate for the deity El. Probably, therefore, Jeroboam’s golden calves derived from the old bull cult associated with El-Bethel at Bethel, which was traced back to Jacob. Unlike other El epithets that have been touched on in this chapter, that of El-Bethel is the only one of which we can detect any sign of growing disapproval in the Old Testament (Jer. 48.13), doubtless because of its association with the bull cult at Bethel. Nevertheless, that some Jews continued to worship Bethel is suggested by the personal name Bethel-sharezer (Zech. 7.2) and by the occurrence of Bethel as a theophorous element in personal names from Elephantine, in addition to the presence of the deities
Anat-Bethel (AP 22.125), Herem-Bethel (AP 7.7) and Eshem-Bethel (AP 22.124) there, besides Yahu and Anat-Yahu.Although it does seem most probable that Jeroboam’s calves were old Yahwistic symbols of the deity, ultimately appropriated from El, there are some biblical passages that have unconvincingly been brought in to support this view. The first of these are in the oracles of Balaam, where in Num 23.22 and 24.8 we find virtually identical words: ‘God (‘el) brings them [or him] out of Egypt, he has as it were the horns
of a wild ox’. Do the horns here belong to God or to Israel? If the horns belong to God, who is interestingly here called El, this, combined with the reference to the Exodus, could provide a parallel to the golden calves incident and support the equation of the deity with El Unfortunately for this view, it seems more likely that the horns are those of Israel, for the following reasons. First, in the succeeding verse, Num. 24.9, the subject (‘he’) is certainly Israel (‘He crouched, he lay down like a lion, and like a lioness; who will rouse him up?’), as the parallel in Num. 23.24 makes indubitable (‘Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up, and as a lion it lifts itself…’). Accordingly, the ‘he’ of Num. 24.8 is naturally also Israel rather than God, and the same therefore follows for Num. 23.22. Secondly, there is a rather similar passage in Deut. 33.17, where it is explicitly said of Joseph (that is, the Joseph tribes), ‘His firstling bull has majesty and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall push the peoples, all of them to the ends of the earth’. A further text that has been invalidly appealed to is Hos. 8.6. This is part of one of Hosea’s oracles condemning the golden calf, and N.H. Tur-Sinai was the first to propose that the words ki miyyisra’el should be redivided to read ki mi $or ‘el, ‘For who is the bull El?’, a viewpoint followed by Motzki and NEB (the latter trans lating, ‘For what sort of a god is this bull?’). This conjecture, which is lacking all versional support, has generally failed to carry conviction and appears more ingenious than correct.The Golden Calves: Pedestals or Images?
On the face of it the golden calves were images. There is little to be said for the view of O. Eissfeldt that they were on the end of a pole or standard: Eissfeldt could cite only one example of a calf in such a role, namely from Mari, though J. Debus notes that such standards were common among the Hittites. As no parallels have been found within the Canaanite cultural sphere, this view does not appear likely. More frequently it has been supposed, following the suggestion of H.T. Obbink, that the golden calves were pedestals on which the deity was believed to be invisibly enthroned. Yahweh’s presence on the cherubim in the Jerusalem temple, and Syrian and Anatolian depictions of the god Hadad standing on a bull, are cited as analogies. There are, however, good reasons for believing that this view is mistaken and for supposing instead that the golden calves were intended to be images of the deity.First, the Old Testament itself consistently represents them as such. Thus, in 1 Kgs 12.28 we read that Jeroboam ‘took counsel, and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.'” Then, a few verses later, we read that Jeroboam was ‘sacrificing to the calves that he had made’. This also seems to be the implication of Exod. 32.5, which states that Aaron ‘made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!'” (The plural ‘gods’ is doubtless a projection back from Jeroboam’s two calves at Bethel and Dan.) Finally, in Hos. 8.6 we read of the calf of Samaria that ‘A workman made it; it is not God’, which is a pointless statement unless there were those who did consider the calf to be a god. The words of Hosea show that this idea cannot be dismissed simply as antinorthern polemic from the Southern Kingdom.
Secondly, I have argued above that the bull imagery appropriated by Yahweh derives from El, not Hadad (Baal). Now, El in the Ugaritic texts is called ‘Bull El’ (tr ‘//): significantly, the epithet ‘Bull’ is applied to El himself and not to his pedestal. Thirdly, it is to be noted that one of Jeroboam’s two calves was set up at Bethel, a site with which the patriarch Jacob was closely associated. As noted earlier, it so happens that Jacob’s god is known as ‘a bir ya’a qob, ‘the Mighty One of Jacob’ (Gen. 49.24), and the word ‘a bir is closely connected with ‘abbir, ‘bull’. If this is correct, one might suppose that Jeroboam took up the old bull symbolism connected with the god of Jacob at Bethel (El-Bethel), and again the epithet would suggest that the bull was more than a mere pedestal. ….(taken from the book “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”)
Adam…….The original prictuoral inscription was a Head of a bull OX, with a Shepards staf leaning into it. Which God was the “power” they leaned on for theire support. THE word God is not a person it the power you lean on for your strength and existence. Therefore we are commanded, by God , “You shall love the LORD (YOHOVAH), YOUR GOD , with “ALL” your heart and “ALL” your “MIGHT” and “ALL” your “STRENGTH” .
The God mentioned their is the “only” true God, to those who believe, all the rest called God , are false God to them even if they are true Gods to those who believe in them , they are all “false” God’s to us.
The word God is a realationship with something, a person or and idol makes no difference the word God only describes you personal relationship with it? IMO
Peace and love to you and your Adam……gene
I am Yahweh, and there is none else,
There is no God besides me. Isaiah 45:5Danny…….Right on, “to us and Jesus”, there is, no “true” God but “ONE”, his name is Yahovah , All the rest may be God’s to OTHER people, but not to us, (true believers) we believe what Jesus said, “this is eternal life, that they may know “YOU” the “ONLY” true GOD” and Jesus Christ who you have sent.” Simple as that, they either believe what Jesus and God the Father said or not.
Peace and love to you and yours Danny……….gene
Yahweh and the Kenite theory
The hypothesis that the worship of Yahweh was learned by Moses from the Kenites or Midianites, among whom he dwelt after his flight from Egypt was first suggested by Ghillany, writing under the pseudonym of Von der Al. It has found the support of Tiele, Stade, Von Gall, Budde, Guthe, Cheyne, H. P. Smith, and other recent writers. The arguments that are urged in support of this view are as follows:
1. The connection of Yahweh with Sinai, that we have already considered so fully, suggests that he was the God of the people who dwelt at Sinai. Apparently he was worshiped there long before the arrival of Israel. A priest of Midian was stationed there, according to Exod. 2: 16 (J), and Exod. 3: 1 (cf. 18: 12 f.) (E). The god whom he served can only have been Yahweh, whom a unanimous and persistent tradition associates with Sinai. Horeb was already the ” mountain of God,” according to Exod. 3: 1 (E), before Moses received there his revelation. In 3:12 (E) Yahweh says: “When thou hast brought forth the children of Israel out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” This implies that Horeb is a sanctuary where the worship of Yahweh is already established. In 19:10 (E) the people on arriving at Horeb sanctify themselves and wash their clothes, as men were accustomed to do when visiting a holy place.
In 3:5 (J) Sinai is holy ground even before any revelation is made to Moses. In 3: 18 (J) the people ask that they may go three days’ journey into the wilderness in order that they may sacrifice to Yahweh. In 19:4 (J) Yahweh says, when Israel arrives at Sinai: “I have brought you to myself.” Such statements are inconsistent with the theory that Sinai first became a sanctuary of Yahweh in consequence of the revelation of Moses; they show that it was already a holy place in pre-Mosaic times. But, as we have seen, Israel did not worship Yahweh before the exodus, and there is no tradition connecting it with Sinai before the time of Moses; consequently, Yahweh must have been the God of the people inhabiting Mount Sinai before the arrival of Israel.
The land to which Moses fled from Egypt is called Midian by J in Exod. 2: 15 f.; 4: 19, and in Numb. 10: 29 (J) Moses’ father-in-law is called Hobab ben Reuel the Midianite; but in Judg. 1: 16 (J) we read: “And the children of …. Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees with the children of Judah.” In the light of Judg. 4: 11 this verse should probably be amended to read: “And Hobab the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees with the children of Judah.” In two E passages
(Exod. 3:1 and 18:1) Moses’ father-in-law is called “the priest of Midian;” but this phrase is open to the suspicion of being a gloss designed to conform E to J. It appears thus that there was a double Judean tradition in regard to the race to which Moses’ father-in-law belonged: according to one he was a Midianite, according to another he was a Kenite. It is generally admitted that the latter conception is more correct. The Kenites, as we shall see presently, were closely connected with Israel and shared its religion throughout its history, while Midian had no relation except that of hostility. The Midianite tradition may be due, as Stade and Budde think, to the fact that the Kenites were a branch of the Midianites, or Midian may be simply a geographical designation derived from the later inhabitants of the region of Sinai. Cheyne cuts the knot by assuming that Midian is a textual corruption of Mutsri, or North Arabia. The connection
of the Kenites with Amalek in I Sam. 15:6; Gen. 36: 10, 13; Numb. 24: 20 f. does not necessarily prove they belonged to the Amalekites, but only that they settled among the Amalekites in consequence of their migration from Sinai. There is no insurmountable difficulty in accepting the view of the J school of historians that the Kenites belonged to the Midianite stock. The Kenite Midianites, accordingly, were the people who at the time of the Exodus were in possession of the sanctuary of Sinai. Since Yahweh was the God of Sinai, they must have been worshipers of him before Israel came to know him.2. Moses’ connection with the family of the priest of Midian makes it probable that he learned the worship of Yahweh from the Kenites. According to J (Exod. 2: 15-22) Moses, fleeing from Egypt, was hospitably received by Reuel, the priest of Midian him his daughter in marriage. In Numb. IO: 29 Moses’ father-in-law appears as Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite; and in Judg. 4:11 (cf. 1: 16) as Hobab, the Kenite. On the strength of these two passages it is commonly supposed that Hobab son of Reuel is the correct text of Exod. 2: 18, or that Reuel is a gloss. In E Moses’ father-in-law is always called Jethro (cf. Exod. 3: 1; 4: 18; 18: 1 ff.). It is impossible to harmonize these traditions and equally impossible to decide between them. It should be noted, however, that although the documents do not agree as to the name of Moses’ father-in-law, they both agree that he was a priest at Horeb-Sinai (J in Exod. 2: 16, E in Exod. 18:12). If Moses, a fugitive from Egypt, came to live with the priest of the Kenites and married his daughter, he would
naturally adopt the religion of this father-in-law. This was the rule of Semitic antiquity. The ” sojourner ” was always expected to worship the god of the place where he lived, and in early times a matriarchal exogamous constitution of the clan demanded that a man should adopt his wife’s religion. That this happened in Moses’ case is implied in the story of Exod. 4:24-26 (J). Here Moses has neglected the rite of circumcision, which is the badge of a worshiper of Yahweh, and Yahweh seeks to slay him; but Zipporah, who knows what is required, takes a flint and fulfils the rite upon her son, and then the divine wrath is appeased. Even if these stories of Moses’ relation to the priest of Midian and to his daughter be not taken as literal history, they still indicate a consciousness on Israel’s part that Moses’ priesthood was derived from the older priesthood.3. In the Elohistic narrative of Exod. 18, Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, appears as a priest of Yahweh, who initiates the elders of Israel into his religion. If, as some hold, vss. 9, 10 came from J, then we have an additional witness that Yahweh was the god of Jethro. In 18:8-10 Moses tells Jethro all that Yahweh has done for Israel in Egypt; and Jethro says: ” Blessed be Yahweh, who hath delivered you out of the hands of the Egyptians Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all gods.” Here is no suggestion that Jethro is recognizing Yahweh, the God of Israel, as greater than his own god. On the contrary, this is an expression of joy that his ancestral god, Yahweh, has proved himself so powerful. In vs. 12 Jethro takes a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel eat bread with him before God. This is not the act of a man who is converted to the religion of Israel. In that case Moses would have offered the sacrifice and has to invited Jethro to partake of it. Jethro himself here offers the sacrifice, because he is the priest of Yahweh who initiates the elders of Israel into his religion. Moses is not present at the meal because he has already previously received initiation as a member of Jethro’s family. Kautzsch’s suggestion that Jethro offers the sacrifice simply because he is the host fails to do justice to the facts, that Jethro is a priest, and that Sinai is the dwelling-place of Yahweh. In vss. 13-26 Jethro observes that Moses is overburdened with judicial cases that are laid before him, and suggests that the decision of the less important matters be placed in the hands of the tribal elders. Here again the origin of one of the most characteristic features of the religious constitution of Israel is traced back to the priest of Midian. Throughout the whole of this chapter, accordingly, it is clear that Jethro does not adopt the religion of
Israel, but that Israel adopts the religion of Jethro, when it arrives at Sinai, the holy mountain of Yahweh, the god of the Kenites.4. The Kenites were attached to Israel from the time of the Exodus onward in such a way as to show that they were adherents of the religion of Yahweh. In Numb. 11:29-,2 (J) we are told:
“And Moses said unto Hobab the son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, We are journeying unto the place of which Yahweh said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for Yahweh hath spoken good concerning Israel. And he said, I will not go, but I will depart unto mine own land and unto my kindred, and he said, Leave us not, I pray thee, forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou shalt be unto us instead of our eyes. And it shall be, if thou wilt go with us, it shall be, that what good so ever Yahweh shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.”
This must have been followed in the original form of the J narrative by an account of how Hobab yielded to Moses’ persuasion, for in Judg. 1:16 (J) we read: “And Hobab the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the Negeb of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the Amalekites ” (emended text, cf. Judg. 4: 11). Further traces of the Kenites in Judah are found in the names Kinah and Kain (Josh. 15:22, 57); Kenites are found among the northern tribes in Judg. 4:11 and 5:14. Heber the Kenite is the friend of Israel, and Jael his wife is the slayer of Sisera, the oppressor of Israel (Judg. 4-5). The Kenites remained nomads (cf. Judg. 5:24), so that they made no permanent settlements with the Israelites. The bulk of the race continued to dwell among the Amalekites in the desert south of Judah. In I Sam. I5:5-7 it is narrated:
“And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the
Amalekites. And Saul smote the Amalekites.”The connection of the Kenites with the Amalekites is also asserted in Gen. 36:10,12; Numb. 24:20. In I Sam. 27:10 David speaks of the Kenites as though they were a people confederate with Israel and hostile to the Philistines, and in 30:29 he sends presents to them of the spoil of Ziklag, as to the villages of Judah. These passages show that the Kenites were regarded by the Israelites as brothers, that they had the freedom of the land to wander about with their flocks, and that they sided with Israel on all matters of national interest. Such a relation was possible in antiquity only on the basis of a common religion. The Kenites must have been worshipers of Yahweh or they could never been such close allies of the Hebrews. If Yahweh had been a new god whom the Kenites had adopted during Israel’s residence at Sinai, it is not likely that they would have long retained his cult after they were left to themselves in the desert. The tenacity with which they clung to him, even when they were separated from Israel, shows that he must have been their ancestral god.
5. The Kenites appear in the Old Testament as representatives of the pure original Yahweh religion. According to I Chron. 2:55 the Rechabites were a clan of the Kenites. There is no reason to doubt this statement, since the Rechabites showed the same persistent attachment to a nomadic life in the midst of civilization that was characteristic of the Kenites. In 2 Kings 10:15-28 Jehu, setting out to purge Israel of the worship of the Tyrian Baal, falls in with Jehonadab the son of Rechab and recognizes in him a natural ally.
” Come with me,” he says, ” and see my zeal for Yahweh.” Together they carry out the work of restoring the ancient religion of Yahweh. In Jer. 35 certain nomadic Rechabites take refuge in Jerusalem at the time of Nebuchadrezzar’s invasion, and Jeremiah uses them as an illustration of fidelity to the good old ways of Yahweh. He sets bowls of wine before them and invites them to drink; but they say:
“We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons, forever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all -our days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land wherein ye sojourn.”
For this they are praised by the prophet and are promised a special blessing from Yahweh (vs. 19). It is clear that the Rechabites in their nomadic life had preserved the ways of Yahweh better than the Israelites had done. Houses, fields, vineyards, and the drinking of wine were connected with the Baalim of Canaan. A return to Yahweh was a return to the simpler life of the Kenites. In their wanderings through the land they were a constant reminder of what the religion of Yahweh had been before it was mixed with the religion of the Canaanites. The prophet’s ideal of the messianic age is a restoration of just this sort of life, and it is not unlikely that prophetism owed much of its zeal for Yahweh in antithesis to the Baalim of Canaan to Kenite influence. This primitive quality of the Kenite faith can hardly be explained except by recognizing that Yahweh was originally the god of this people. As the first adherents of his religion they had the right to assume continually the role of teacher that was assumed at Sinai by Jethro.The opinion that the story of Cain in Gen. 4 refers to the eponym ancestor of the Kenites has found favour with a number of recent critics. The name Cain (Qayin) is the same as the gentilic name Qayin (the Kenites) in Numb. 24:22; Judg. 4:11; Josh. 15:57. In Hebrew the name of a race, Israel, Edom, Moab, etc., is always singular, and is identical with the name of its real or assumed father, so that statements may apply indiscriminately to it or to its father. Cain is an exile from the fertile land and is a wanderer in the desert. This corresponds to the Kenites, whom Israel knew as nomads forbidden to make permanent settlements. The Israelitish peasant regarded the nomadic life as a curse; and the only way in which he could explain it was by the assumption that the ancestor of the Kenites had killed his brother, and in punishment had been driven out of Canaan. As an exile, he had no access to the sanctuaries of Yahweh, where the manslayer was safe from the avenger of blood; but in compensation for this loss Yahweh had put a mark upon him which protected him from harm. This can only mean that the Kenites wore on their bodies some sign which designated them as Yahweh-worshipers and protected them from harm when they came into contact with the Israelites. Tattooed symbols of racial or religious brotherhood were common in antiquity, and we are probably to think of a mark on the hand or the forehead as the badge of the Kenites. When this mark is traced back to Cain, the father of the race, it indicates the belief that from time immemorial the Kenites had been worshipers of Yahweh. The mark of Yahweh had been on their foreheads as long as Israel had known anything about them, and they themselves could give no other account of it than that their first father had received it and that they had always worn it. This evidence, accordingly, so far as it goes, points in the same direction as that already cited, namely, that Yahweh was the ancestral god of the Kenites.
6. The Kenite theory of the origin of Yahweh-worship explains most easily the tradition of J in regard to the antiquity of the name Yahweh. According to Judg. 1: 16, the Kenites entered Canaan with the tribe of Judah, and traces of their presence in Judah are found in the names Kinah and Kain (Josh. 15: 22, 57). Even those who did not remain in Judah wandered on the southern border where they came into frequent contact with the Judeans. Under these conditions Kenite ideas must have left a considerable impress upon Judean traditions. During the period of the Judges, Judah had little in common with the other tribes (it is not even mentioned in the Song of Deborah), and it must have been correspondingly open to Kenite
influence. The Kenites knew Yahweh as a God whom their fathers had worshiped from time immemorial. As they mingled with Judah, the idea would naturally be transferred to the Judeans that Yahweh had also been their ancestral God. This belief finds expression in J, the Judean document, which traces back the worship of Yahweh to Enosh, the grandson of Adam. The northern tribes, that were less exposed to Kenite influence, retained the truer tradition found in E, that Yahweh had first become the god of Israel at the time of the exodus.7. The Kenite theory best explains the ethical character of the religion of Israel. It is generally admitted that the most marked peculiarity of the Old Testament religion is its high ethical quality. Other ancient Semitic religions have had ethical elements; but they have attached the main importance to formal acts of worship and have shown no capacity for development. The religion of Israel, on the contrary, although in its early stages similar to other Semitic religions, has possessed an extraordinary power of ethical growth. In the earliest historical records Yahweh already appears as the champion of righteousness and the friend of the oppressed. In the Book of the Covenant, as given by J in Exod. 34, and in a longer form by E in Exod. 21-23, right treatment of the fellow-Israelite is more conspicuous than ritual. In the great literary prophets from Amos to Jeremiah ritual is rejected as worthless in the sight of Yahweh, and righteousness is held up as his sole requirement. In Deuteronomy the ethical teaching of the prophets is made a part of the common religion of the nation. Even the great ritualistic reaction that finds expression in Ezekiel, the Priestly Code, and other post-exilic writings is unable to kill the ethical spirit that breaks forth in the Psalter.
Historians are agreed that the germ of this extraordinary ethical development must be sought at the beginning of the religion, but they are not agreed what that germ was. The traditional view that Moses gave Israel the Pentateuch, and that out of this the later ethical religion was developed, is untenable, because we now know that the Pentateuch is a compilation of writings of many different ages, and that few, if any, of these go back to the time of Moses. If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, there was no growth in the religion of Israel, but it sprung into existence in a completed form. The view of Kuenen, Wellhausen, and many critics of the modern school is that the ethical conception of Yahweh grew out of his judicial function. The earliest documents agree that there was an oracle of Yahweh at Kadesh, where decisions were given in cases of dispute between tribes and between individuals. From the idea of Yahweh, the dispenser of justice, to that of Yahweh, the guardian of righteousness, the step, it is said, is short. Such oracles, however, were found among all Semitic peoples, and their decisions concerned law rather than
morality, so that they furnish no true starting-point for the peculiar ethical development in Israel. Other historians have sought the germ of the ethical quality of the Old Testament religion in a new conception of God gained by Moses. This view is correct so far as it goes, but it does not solve the problem, for the question still remains:
“How did Moses come to hold this new conception ? New ideas come only on the basis of experience; revelations rest upon the foundation of facts in history. We are compelled, therefore, to inquire:
What was there in the experience of Moses and of Israel that tended to awaken belief in the ethical character of Yahweh ?”
The answer to this question is found in the peculiar relation of Yahweh to Israel. He was not the ancestral God of Israel, but of the Kenites. Israel was not bound to him by natural kinship, as other Semitic peoples were bound to their gods. It had no claim on him as on a tutelary deity, and had no reason to expect that he would do anything for it. Yet he took pity upon its sufferings in Egypt and determined to deliver it. All the documents of the Hexateuch agree that the main point of Yahweh’s revelation to Moses at Sinai was the commission to bring Israel up out of Egypt. The God who thus had compassion upon the oppressed, and who came to their rescue even though they did not worship him, was evidently a God possessed of a moral character. He redeemed Israel, not because of kinship, or because it was for his interest to do so, but because of his love of righteousness. This was a new thing in the history of religion, and it could not fail to be fraught with far-reaching consequences.Yahweh’s demands of Israel correspond to his moral character. Since he has chosen Israel to be his people, he asks that it shall choose him to be its God. It is not to worship him because it has always worshiped him and cannot do differently, but because it recognizes him to be worthy of worship. Its relation to him is not
necessary, like that of a son to a father, but voluntary, like that of a wife to a husband. This is the thought of the covenant that under lies the whole Hebrew religion. Moreover, since Yahweh has shown himself gracious toward the helpless and the oppressed it is natural to think that he will be pleased when men show a similar graciousness to their fellows. Thus the two leading ethical characteristics of the Old Testament religion devotion to Yahweh and kindness toward the helpless, are seen to be inferences from the fact that Yahweh, the God of the Kenites had pity upon an alien people. “I have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt out of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me” (Exod. 20: 2 f.). “An alien shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him, for ye were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 22 : 21).Not only was the moral impulse awakened by the thought of Yahweh’s free choice, but it was strengthened by the consciousness that his choice could be withdrawn. If he had been a tutelary deity of the ordinary Semitic type, he could not have given up his worshipers any more than they could have given him up; but, since his relation to Israel was free, he could terminate it at any moment. The common people in the days of Amos had come to think of him in the same way in which other Semites thought of their gods. Their motto was “Yahweh is with us” (Amos 5:14), and they were sure that he was bound to defend them regardless of their moral character; but the choicer spirits of the nation knew that his relation to Israel was not indissoluble. If the wife proved unfaithful, he could put her away. This thought of a possible loss of Yahweh’s favour was always present, and it explains in large measure the intense moral earnestness of the prophets of Israel. We see, accordingly, that the ethical characteristics of the Old Testament religion find a satisfactory explanation when once we recognize that Yahweh was not an ancestral god of the ordinary Semitic type, but the God of the Kenites who chose Israel and whom Israel chose. As Budde has forcibly expressed it: “Israel’s religion became ethical because it was a religion of choice and not of nature, because it rested on a voluntary decision which established an ethical relation between the people and its god for all time.”
These are the reasons for thinking that the worship of Yahweh was learned by Israel from the Kenites. …(taken from the article “The Origin of Yahweh-Worship in Israel: II”)
Hi Gene,
Yes, we have only ONE God in the Bible.
But I’m still not sure if our God is a Trinitarian, Binitarian
or Unitarian God.God bless
Clanging Cymbal: …I am not here to take any challenges on these ancient religious texts.
Then why are you spamming my thread with that nonsense? Do you think that we don’t know how to use Google? Do you think we are incapable of finding those articles by ourselves if we want to? Why on earth would someone post a bunch of stuff in a DISCUSSION FORUM if they don’t want to actually DISCUSS what they post?
@Admin Is it right for gadam to spam this thread (and HN in general) with billions of words of writings that he has no intention of discussing?Clanging Cymbal: 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.
I can assure you that all one has to do is read the Bible (OT or NT) to know that your claim is ludicrous.
Exodus 12:12… On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Yahweh.
That’s just one of hundreds of OT verses that speak of many gods other than the Most High God. Here’s one from the NT…
1 Cor 8:5… for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as indeed there are many gods and many lords…
Heck, the very title “Most High God” (OT: Gen 14:19, Ps 57:2… NT: Mark 5:7, Heb 7:1…) insists that there exist other gods for the Most High to be higher than! And the title “God of gods” (Deut 10:17, Dan 2:47, Joshua 22:22) also insists that there exist other gods for Yahweh to be the God of!
The funniest part is that your statement above contradicts your own claim that Deut 32:8-9 speaks of the Canaanite god El as the Most High, and as Yahweh as one of the many subservient local tribal gods under El!
Clanging Cymbal, how on earth can you make that claim, while also claiming that the three Abrahamic religions don’t teach of many gods and a Most High God? How could El be the Most High while Yahweh and the others are local tribal gods if Deut 32:8-9 doesn’t teach of a Most High God and a bunch of other gods?
I don’t even have to call out your nonsense… you’re doing it all by yourself! 😂
The funniest part is that your statement above contradicts your own claim that Deut 32:8-9 speaks of the Canaanite god El as the Most High, and as Yahweh as one of the many subservient local tribal gods under El!
Clanging Cymbal, how on earth can you make that claim, while also claiming that the three Abrahamic religions don’t teach of many gods and a Most High God? How could El be the Most High while Yahweh and the others are local tribal gods if Deut 32:8-9 doesn’t teach of a Most High God and a bunch of other gods?
I don’t even have to call out your nonsense… you’re doing it all by yourself!
Hello Mike, thanks for your reply to my posts. Sorry I am only bringing arguments from the historians and scholars on the same topic of this thread. I am not scholar by myself that is the reason why I take the help of other sources.
Coming to your criticism on my arguments on Many Gods and Most high God of the Bible;
In fact our Bible itself is full of such deviations on its religious beliefs. For example the earlier texts talk about Polytheism with most high God with multiple number of gods like Deut 32:8-9 and the later texts like Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
I am the first, and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.What I am finding here is that the Hebrew religion took its evolution from Polytheistic background and developed into most hardcore type of Monotheism. You can ask any Jew or Christian or Muslim about their God. They will certainly state that their God is the only God and no other god available with him. This is what I meant when mentioned about three Abrahamic faiths.
I am bringing various arguments on God of the Bible, Yahweh and about his origins based on ancient texts and the Hebrew Bible. There are some comparisons of Yahweh with Canaanites god EL but may not be fully true. Similarly I am bringing few arguments on Yahweh’s origins from Southern regions like Teman, Paran, Edom, Seir as well as the theory of Kenites or Midianites. They are all some scholarly arguments based on certain texts as well as on some historians’ findings like Kuntillet Ajrud.
So please simply don’t scoff at my arguments or posts. You are free to ignore them if you don’t like them.
Thank you.
@Admin Is it right for gadam to spam this thread (and HN in general) with billions of words of writings that he has no intention of discussing?
No that is not alright.
If you post it, then defend it.
Please defend your teachings. Spam and flooding the forums is not allowed.
Tell us what you think. Don’t be lazy and copy and paste stuff all the time. I call that drive by posting. You say it, then essentially leave without defending it.
Forums are for discussions.
If you do copy and paste or if you type out your own words, then defend it. Otherwise, don’t make the post.
OK Admin, thanks for your advice.
Some times we need Scholars’ information for debates as we always post the messages based on our own myths and misconceptions.
Sure I will not post unwanted information.
You can post it if it’s relevant. As long as your willing to defend it or critique it when asked.
That said, I like your attitude.
Berean: I disagree that Jesus is *a different god
Mike: Who is the “God” that the Word was with in the beginning?
Berean: THE WORD WAS WITH… THE FATHER… THE WORD WAS NOT GOD THE FATHER
So if the Word was with the Father, who is a god, but the Word isn’t the Father… then the Word has no choice but to be… *a different god.
Berean: 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.
John not only called Jesus the only begotten son of God, but also “the only begotten god”. Again, that clearly means a different god than the God who begot him. But what the apostles mostly emphasized was that Jesus was the promised messiah/christ – which means the anointed one of God. They also called him the spokesman (Word), prophet, priest, mediator, son (heavenly son – ie: a god), sacrificial lamb and servant of God.
Berean: 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.
Yes, you and your father are both human… but you are different humans. Jesus and his Father are both gods, but they are different gods.
Yes, they both have the same nature… but that nature is “spirit” – just as you and your father share the same “human” nature. And just as billions of other humans share your human nature, billion of other spirit sons of God share His spirit nature – not just Jesus.
And finally, let’s say your father was Pharaoh of Egypt when you were born. You having the same human nature as your father who begot you is not equal to saying you are also Pharaoh. Likewise, Jesus having the same spirit nature as his Father who begot him is not equal to saying Jesus is also God.
Berean, there are only two choices here. Jesus either is the same god as his Father… or *a different god.
Gene: 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.
Psalm 82:6-7… I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fall.
John 10:34-36… Jesus replied, “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 the Scripture cannot be broken— then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world?
Here we have both God the Father and Jesus acknowledging the existence of other gods, Gene. What do you do with those scriptures, since they clearly contradict your understanding?
Gene: 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.
Jesus did include himself, Gene. That’s the entire point of John 10:33-36! The Jews accused Jesus of making himself out to be a god. Jesus pointed out that even God’s disobedient spirit sons are gods (according to Yahweh Himself!), and asked why then the Father’s most obedient son who was sent down from heaven wouldn’t also be the same.
Danny: Yes, we have only ONE God in the Bible.
Exodus 12:12… On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Yahweh.
Danny, if there is literally only one god in the Bible, who are these other gods that Yahweh brought judgement upon?
Danny: But I’m still not sure if our God is a Trinitarian, Binitarian or Unitarian God.
John 3:16… For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son…
Who is “God”? Who is God’s Son? Are they one and the same? Can the Son of God be the very God he is the Son of?
Hebrews 1:1-2… On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son…
Who spoke in the past? God. Who did God speak through? The prophets. Is it possible for the prophets to be the very God who spoke through them?
Who spoke in these last days? God. Who did God speak through? His Son. Is it possible for the Son to be the very God who spoke through him?
Berean……..Jesus said , not me, God the Father was “IN” HIM, now ask yourself how was He “in” him?, God is a Spirit Jesus said right, so being a Spirit God the Father can indwell us , Just as he indwelled Jesus who is also a human being, just like we are right? When we recieve that same anointing Spirit of God “IN” us, God abides in us also, exactly, as he abided in Jesus .
Scripture say not me, “but if the Spirit of Him (God) that raised Jesus from the dead, dwell (IN) YOU, He (God) that raised up Christ (the anointed) From the “dead”, shall “ALSO” quicken (bring to life) your mortal (dead) bodies, how? , by his Spirit, that dwells “IN” YOU.
The way it worked with Jesus is “EXACTLY” the way it works with us, not so much as an ounce of difference. He was the first to be resurected from the dead, from mankind, but certanily not the last , the first of “MANY” BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
Berean you truly need to start letting go, of some of theses false teaching you have learned over the years from those false teachers, you listen to , and start a new , Berean.
Peace and love to you and your Berean………gene
Adam: …the earlier texts talk about Polytheism with most high God with multiple number of gods like Deut 32:8-9…
But you just said…
Adam: 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.
So which is it? The OT does talk about a Most High God and multiple other gods? Or it doesn’t? Both of your own claims above cannot be true. Which one is?
Mike, but those same people said their is “ONLY” ONE “TRUE” God , Now how do you deal with that , God the Father Said he looked for other God’s and found “NONE” not even One other God. TO RESOLUVE THIS BIG OBSTICAL you have , is that Jesus was speaking in a “possesive sence,. IF jesus said he was a God as he is presented that way by false teachers, he would have been going against the words of God the Father himself also. But he said as i have stated above that there was “Only” One “TRUE GOD” ,
QUESTION IS , do you “truly” believe what God the Father and Jesus said. If you did you would not create a countradiction to their words. When Jesus said he called them God’s unto whom the word of God was sents, the only answer that fits what He and God the Father said before , is that he must have been speaking of in a possesive sense. Didn’t Jesus also say he only spoke to them in parables, so they couldn’t understand what he meant. I can produce the scripture for you is you need it.
You push to convience us that there are all kinds of other God’s is right in one sence, that the word God is not a Person, unless it is applied to someone or thing by any individual, but unto us The saved , We, “only”, have “ONE” TRUE GOD, and it’s not Jesus or anyone or thing else. The God we, Jesus and we (true believers) believe in is God the Father. All other so-called God’s are false God TO US, that is. Anyone can make to themselve God’s , from anything that exists, but not us.
I think Mike you are confused because you do not correctly understand what the word God means. it never means a person or thing , it means you relationship with something, anything, that exists can become a God to a person., but not to the true believers we have a God and he is the “only true” God that exists , TO US, and to Jesus also.
Peace and love to you and your Mike……….gene
Adam: What I am finding here is that the Hebrew religion took its evolution from Polytheistic background and developed into most hardcore type of Monotheism.
Yes, we are aware of your claim. But the fact is that I’ve already showed you scriptures, both OT and NT, that refute your statement that “the Hebrew religion” developed into monotheism. It was polytheistic (many gods exist) in the OT, and it was polytheistic in the NT.
Jesus himself said, “He called them gods – and scripture cannot be broken…”, right? So what does that tell you? In what you call the “most hardcore type of Monotheism”, the plural word “gods” wouldn’t have even come out of Jesus’ mouth – since there would be no such thing as “gods”, but literally only one God.
Nor would the Jews have even claimed Jesus was making himself out to be a god when there was no such thing as “a god”.
Adam: You can ask any Jew or Christian or Muslim about their God. They will certainly state that their God is the only God and no other god available with him.
Really? You already mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses, right? Will they state what you claim “any Christian” will state? How about me? I’m a Christian. Will I state what you claim I will? See… you’re defeating your own arguments again.
How about all the Christians who translated these Bibles…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
Would they all agree with your claim? But it doesn’t really matter how many people believe A or B. It matters only what the scriptures actually teach. And they teach that there are many gods, both in heaven and on earth, and one Most High God who is the Creator and God of all the other gods. And this is taught in both the OT and the NT.
The people who do state what you claim “any Jew or Christian or Muslim” will state are brainwashed by people who have told them things contrary to scripture. This thread is my attempt to correct the matter using the actual scriptures.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
