God = He ?

[outhouse]

. Just step back and look at the whole story, then ask yourself, what is it about.

Doesn't this also mean don't look at the details that are very important?

 

[roger1440]

Doesn't this also mean don't look at the details that are very important?

The details must be examined in relationship to how they relate to the story. The details on their own are meaningless. As the saying goes, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

 

[outhouse]

The details must be examined in relationship to how they relate to the story. The details on their own are meaningless. As the saying goes, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

That I agree.

But this is also as not, if more important.

The details must be examined in relationship to how they relate to history and social and cultural anthropology. Context is key. Without education much context is lost

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What we do have though, Is time in our favor. El was worshipped for thousands of years, as well as Asherah.

Yes and no. You have to understand that in antiquity worship of a deity, be it Zeus or El or Asherah, meant worship of multiple different deities incorporated into local cultic traditions [/QUOTE]

 

[outhouse]

. You have to understand that in antiquity worship of a deity, be it Zeus or El or Asherah, meant worship of multiple different deities incorporated into local cultic traditions

Agreed. Understood very well.

 

[Ingledsva]

Point to the word in the Greek that is translated as "world".



I'm not denying that goddesses were worshipped. Clearly they were, and clearly there were many queens of heaven and so forth. That has no relationship to the figurines of the paleolithic which all date to the period between 23,000 BCE to 21,000 BCE. As Dr. Cynthia Eller notes, "The Paleolithic Venuses, relatively few in number and tens of thousands of years old, provide us with few clues to their use or meaning."



No, they haven't. Nor are we usually ever close to sure what figurines from prehistory were supposed to represent. I can't give you Bailey's book on the subject, but I can link you to an accessible article summarizing it and quote from what he says about such figurines:
"They are miniature, they are representational, and they depict the human form. In this sense, I made no distinction among prehistoric, ancient, or modern miniature, anthropomorphic representations. I assumed (as is justified by our knowledge of human evolution) that the ability to make, use, and understand symbolic objects such as figurines is an ability that is shared by all modern humans and thus is a capability that connects you, me, Neolithic men, women, and children, and the Paleolithic painters of caves.
In my work on the figurines of southeastern Europe from the Neolithic and Copper Age (6500–3500 cal. bc), I sought to understand what it was about these objects that would have made them succeed in their past functions (regardless of whether they were used as votives, toys, portraits, or the representation of divinities)...When the people of that Pre-Cucuteni community looked at their figurines, and when they placed the little bodies onto the little chairs, arranging (and rearranging) them into different scenes and settings, they were entering other worlds. It is entirely possible that these other worlds were spiritual, though I am not convinced that they were of the type that either Gimbutas or the excavators of Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru imagined."
The Figurines of Old Europe

For a more technical piece with "goddess figurines" that aren't shown in any books promoting the view that these figurines represent the goddess, I can't offer much that you wouldn't have to pay for but can give you something:
Naumov, G. (2010). Neolithic anthropocentrism: principles of imagery and the symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica (Ljubljana), 37, 227-38.




There are thousands of studies on these statues. I can probably link you to a hundred or more you can access for free and provide you several hundred more (all the way back to Ucko) by uploading them for you. That's without getting into the Catalhöyük debacle and the years wasted because of an inaccurate working model (see e.g. Refiguring the Corpus at Catalhöyük and one of the two uploaded studies).

And I obviously don't agree, and have read many books, and archaeology reports, to the contrary.

EDIT - forgot -

oikoumenē = Terrain of the Globe, earth, world, land, etc.

In the Bible it is translated world 14 times, and earth 1 time.

I get a kick out of males who insist that female Goddess figures have to be dolls - even though many of them have been found with their shrines, or female only, fertility Goddesses. This is funny because almost ALL male Gods also have a fertility role (but we don't hear about that.)

Or they start in with the - They were never alone - there was always a God with them - as if that makes them less Goddess.

Well guess what, - there is no so-called singular God - that didn't at the same time have the people worshiping the Goddess; -

such as YHVH, - as the Bible itself tells us they killed-and killed -and killed - and killed - their own people for continuing to worship the Goddess, - as they were trying to force the new ONE-God YHVH. He never was worshiped alone in Israel.

A good and simple example of this is almost every time a Goddess figurine is found they put what most consider belittling words around it. Two years ago I read an article in an archaeology magazine about the tens of thousands of Goddess figurines dug up in Israel. The author continually used words like sexual and fertility cult every time he mentioned one of them. He ended the article by telling us that this was a WOMEN’S HOUSEHOLD FERTILITY CULT. Completely ignoring the fact that the even the Bible tells us that the people were still turning back to Goddess in Biblical times.

In view of the above I can’t help thinking that some archaeologist thousands of years from now is going to be conducting a dig in what used to be America. He is going to dig up hundreds of thousands of crosses with a nailed man on them. Is the end of his article going to read – this was a MEN’S HOUSEHOLD TORTURE CULT?

LOL!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not to be indelicate, but dildos aren't new and require a handle.

How many phallic sculptures have you seen that were recovered by archaeologists of any period?


Sure. Minus the head, belly, legs, face, arms, pubis, hair, etc.

We have thousands of examples of ancient dildos - and that doesn't look like any of them.

Nor are penises scarified or tattooed in the manor of the decoration on that FEMALE Figurine.

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have thousands of examples of ancient dildos - and that doesn't look like any of them.

We don't have thousands (unless your definition of "ancient" is quite liberal). However, I'm more than happy to be corrected. Simply link to or post pictures of a few dozen to indicate that your assertion (i.e., that the pic I posted doesn't look like any example of an ancient dildo) is supported.

Nor are penises scarified or tattooed in the manner of the decoration on that FEMALE Figurine.

1) Not only are phallic symbols marked in such a fashion (FYI- the word for tattoos in ancient Greek is stigmata), but ethnologists and anthropologists discovered rituals among tribes in which actual penises were scarified in order to appropriate any would-be feminine power associated with menstruation.
2) If that is a female figurine, it is hard to imagine what wouldn't be. The only indication that even you can point to is two protuberances that (you claim) can't be testicles because of their position on what is otherwise a pole. There aren't even any nipples.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Bible does NOT say Jesus is God, nor does Jesus teach that he is God.

There is NO trinity God idea in the Bible, nor does Jesus teach that he is part of a trinity.

He was claiming to be the Messiah, a special, awaited, Promised One, sent from God, to wrap things up, and bring about the end and Final Judgment.

Interesting. What are your thoughts about Jesus's statement that we should worship only God combined with his acceptance of kneeling worship from Thomas, who said of Jesus, "My Lord AND my God"?

He consistently tells us to worship only God, - and also that everything he does is actually God working through him, - not him.

The word translated "God" actually has many meanings. I believe it should have been translated either Master, or more likely, Magistrate/JUDGE. Jesus is judging him for not believing - without seeing/touching.

Thayer's Greek tells us Theos is also "likened unto God," "Godlike," "God's representative," a magistrate or judge, etc. So He could be saying -

Thou art my Lord and my God's Representative. Or

Thou art my Lord and my Judge. Etc.

Read the WHOLE story - he is being JUDGED by Jesus -


Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my JUDGE.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

*
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and but the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not to be indelicate, but dildos aren't new and require a handle.

How many phallic sculptures have you seen that were recovered by archaeologists of any period?


Sure. Minus the head, belly, legs, face, arms, pubis, hair, etc.

I don't know why they have some modern dildos mixed in here - however - it gives a very good representation of what the ancient ones looked like.

Note that all but the double dildos - meant for two women - have the testicles in the correct position, or leave them out entirely.

Ancient dildos - Google Search

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And I obviously don't agree, and have read many books, and archaeology reports, to the contrary.

I don't doubt that you've read many books. I'm more skeptical about your having read many archaeology reports simply because without the kind of access I have (and most researchers, not to mention most undergraduates) these are hard to come by. The problem is both the quality of the books and how representative they are of scholarship in this area.

To illustrate the disparity between the two types of sources, I'll list some books I have from both.

Examples of scholarship in monograph/book/volume form:
Bartlett, J. R. (Ed.). (1997). Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation. Routledge
Binger, T. (1997). Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the old testament (JSOT suppl. Vol. 232). Sheffield Academic Press.
Cross, F. M. (1997). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion. Harvard University Press.
Day, J. (2002) Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. (JSOT suppl. Vol. 265. Sheffield Academic Press.
Eller, C. (2000). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an invented past won't give women a future. Beacon Press.
Fischer-Hansen, T., & Poulsen, B. (Eds.). (2009). From Artemis to Diana: the goddess of man and beast (Acta Hyperborea Vol. 12). Museum Tusculanum Press.
Gnuse, R. K. (1997). No other gods: Emergent monotheism in Israel (JSOT suppl. Vol. 241). Sheffield Academic Press.
Goldenberg, R. (2007). The origins of Judaism: from Canaan to the rise of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, E. M., Edwards, D. R., & McCollough, C. T. (2007). The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the" other" in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 60/61). American School of Oriental Research.
Patai, R. (1990). The Hebrew Goddess (3rd Ed.) (Jewish Folklore and Anthropology). Wayne State University Press.
Petty, R. J. (1985). Asherah: Goddess Of Israel? (Atirat, Canaanite, Syncretism). Doctoral Dissertation (Marquette University).
Ruether, R. R. (2005). Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History. University of California Press.
Smith, M. S. (2001). The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel's polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts. Oxford University Press.
Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the archaic state: Evolution of the earliest cities, states, and civilizations. Cambridge University Press.

Examples of books that aren't scholarship but sensationalism, popular, and/or inaccurate:
Bufie, J. (1981). Lady of the Beasts: Ancient Images of the Goddess and Her Sacred Animals. Harper & Row.
Daves, P. G. (1998). Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality. Spence Publishing.
Freke, T. & Gandy, J. Jesus and the Lost Goddess [I can't find my copy of this book, which is the sequal to their equally worthless The Jesus Mysteries, so alas you'll have to obtain the rest of the citation information on your own if interested).
Gadon, E. W. (1989). The Once & Future Godess: A Sweeping Visual Chronicle of the Sacred Female and Her Reemergence in the Cultural Mythology of our Time. HarperCollins.
Gould, D. E. (1971). The First Sex. G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Gimbutas, M. (1999). The Living Goddesses. University of California Press.
Stone, M. (1976). When God Was a Woman. Doubleday.

Many more could be added to both lists, and of course even more could be added from the list of books/monographs/volumes I haven't read that are relevant here, but I hope you get the idea.

oikoumenē = Terrain of the Globe, earth, world, land, etc.

Excellent identification, bad definition. But before I give you a better one, let me do what I intended to when I asked this question: Does/did Satan deceive the whole world? Because the same exact word describes the influence of Satan in Rev. 12:9. Did Caesar Augustus tax the whole world? Because the same word is used in Luke 2:1.

A better definition would include e.g. "the Roman Empire (which, in the exaggerated language commonly used in ref. to the emperors, was equal to the whole world [as, e.g., the empire of Xerxes: Ael. Aristid. 54 p. 675 D., and of Cyrus: Jos., Ant. 11, 3]: Dit., Or. 666, 3; 668, 5 τῷ σωτῆρι κ. εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης [Nero]; 669, 10, Syll.3 906 A, 3f τὸν πάσης οἰκουμένης δεσπότην [Julian]; POxy. 1021, 5ff; Sb 176, 2.—Cf. 1 Esdr 2:2; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 16; Jos., Ant. 19, 193)" and would note "an extraordinary use: τὴν οἰκ. ἔκτισας 1 Cl 60:1, where οἰκ. seems to mean the whole world (so far as living beings inhabit it, therefore the realm of spirits as well)". Both quotes are from the BDAG.

In the Bible it is translated world 14 times, and earth 1 time.

I'm not really interested in how it is translated, as translations are always imperfect (and I don't need them for this language).

I get a kick out of males who insist that female Goddess figures have to be dolls

The most vocal and ardent critics of the view that they are representations of the goddess are from female archaeologists.

Well guess what, - there is no so-called singular God - that didn't at the same time have the people worshiping the Goddess; -

True. However, until the 20th century there was no monotheistic Goddess religion.

He never was worshiped alone in Israel.

Yes he absolutely was. His "consort" became Israel herself (the land and its people).

Two years ago I read an article in an archaeology magazine about the tens of thousands of Goddess figurines dug up in Israel.

And I provided you with free sources from scholarship on some of the mistakes with this view.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know why they have some modern dildos mixed in here - however - it gives a very good representation of what the ancient ones looked like.

Actually it doesn't. I was going to scan a number of images but the idea of sorting through my books for pictures of ancient dildoes doesn't actually appeal to me so when it occurred to me that there exists an alternative I might try first, I decided to do so. It's often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, less than a thousand words is worth more than a thousand pictures:
"Prehistorians often resort to elaborate and speculative functional explanations to account for artefacts which may have existed solely to mediate sexual pleasure. Many of the Upper Palaeolithic artefacts vaguely labeled 'batons' illustrate this point well. Some of these bone, ivory and antler artefacts bear a striking resemblance to dildoes: they are phallic in form and a number of them are rendered in the shape of a penis, with the glans and urethra clearly defined (for examples see Marshack 1972). The bodies of some of these 'batons' are engraved with explicit sexual images, such as the one from the site of La Madeleine, France (e.g., Marshack 1972: 333). Many others are marked with linear notches such that their surfaces are textured in a manner which may have provided for heightened pleasure, if they were indeed used for sexual stimulation. Taylor (1996: 128) states that 'Looking at the size, shape, and - in some cases - explicit symbolism of the ice age batons, it seems disingenuous to avoid the most obvious and straightforward interpretation.'"
Vasey, P. L. (1998). Intimate sexual relations in prehistory: lessons from the Japanese macaques. World archaeology, 29(3), 407-425.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't doubt that you've read many books. I'm more skeptical about your having read many archaeology reports simply because without the kind of access I have (and most researchers, not to mention most undergraduates) these are hard to come by. The problem is both the quality of the books and how representative they are of scholarship in this area.

To illustrate the disparity between the two types of sources, I'll list some books I have from both.

Examples of scholarship in monograph/book/volume form:
Bartlett, J. R. (Ed.). (1997). Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation. Routledge
Binger, T. (1997). Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the old testament (JSOT suppl. Vol. 232). Sheffield Academic Press.
Cross, F. M. (1997). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of Religion. Harvard University Press.
Day, J. (2002) Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. (JSOT suppl. Vol. 265. Sheffield Academic Press.
Eller, C. (2000). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an invented past won't give women a future. Beacon Press.
Fischer-Hansen, T., & Poulsen, B. (Eds.). (2009). From Artemis to Diana: the goddess of man and beast (Acta Hyperborea Vol. 12). Museum Tusculanum Press.
Gnuse, R. K. (1997). No other gods: Emergent monotheism in Israel (JSOT suppl. Vol. 241). Sheffield Academic Press.
Goldenberg, R. (2007). The origins of Judaism: from Canaan to the rise of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, E. M., Edwards, D. R., & McCollough, C. T. (2007). The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the" other" in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 60/61). American School of Oriental Research.
Patai, R. (1990). The Hebrew Goddess (3rd Ed.) (Jewish Folklore and Anthropology). Wayne State University Press.
Petty, R. J. (1985). Asherah: Goddess Of Israel? (Atirat, Canaanite, Syncretism). Doctoral Dissertation (Marquette University).
Ruether, R. R. (2005). Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History. University of California Press.
Smith, M. S. (2001). The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel's polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts. Oxford University Press.
Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the archaic state: Evolution of the earliest cities, states, and civilizations. Cambridge University Press.

Examples of books that aren't scholarship but sensationalism, popular, and/or inaccurate:
Bufie, J. (1981). Lady of the Beasts: Ancient Images of the Goddess and Her Sacred Animals. Harper & Row.
Daves, P. G. (1998). Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality. Spence Publishing.
Freke, T. & Gandy, J. Jesus and the Lost Goddess [I can't find my copy of this book, which is the sequal to their equally worthless The Jesus Mysteries, so alas you'll have to obtain the rest of the citation information on your own if interested).
Gadon, E. W. (1989). The Once & Future Godess: A Sweeping Visual Chronicle of the Sacred Female and Her Reemergence in the Cultural Mythology of our Time. HarperCollins.
Gould, D. E. (1971). The First Sex. G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Gimbutas, M. (1999). The Living Goddesses. University of California Press.
Stone, M. (1976). When God Was a Woman. Doubleday.

Many more could be added to both lists, and of course even more could be added from the list of books/monographs/volumes I haven't read that are relevant here, but I hope you get the idea.


Excellent identification, bad definition. But before I give you a better one, let me do what I intended to when I asked this question: Does/did Satan deceive the whole world? Because the same exact word describes the influence of Satan in Rev. 12:9. Did Caesar Augustus tax the whole world? Because the same word is used in Luke 2:1.

A better definition would include e.g. "the Roman Empire (which, in the exaggerated language commonly used in ref. to the emperors, was equal to the whole world [as, e.g., the empire of Xerxes: Ael. Aristid. 54 p. 675 D., and of Cyrus: Jos., Ant. 11, 3]: Dit., Or. 666, 3; 668, 5 τῷ σωτῆρι κ. εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης [Nero]; 669, 10, Syll.3 906 A, 3f τὸν πάσης οἰκουμένης δεσπότην [Julian]; POxy. 1021, 5ff; Sb 176, 2.—Cf. 1 Esdr 2:2; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 16; Jos., Ant. 19, 193)" and would note "an extraordinary use: τὴν οἰκ. ἔκτισας 1 Cl 60:1, where οἰκ. seems to mean the whole world (so far as living beings inhabit it, therefore the realm of spirits as well)". Both quotes are from the BDAG.


I'm not really interested in how it is translated, as translations are always imperfect (and I don't need them for this language).


The most vocal and ardent critics of the view that they are representations of the goddess are from female archaeologists.



True. However, until the 20th century there was no monotheistic Goddess religion.


Yes he absolutely was. His "consort" became Israel herself (the land and its people).


And I provided you with free sources from scholarship on some of the mistakes with this view.

And again - as you well know - there are real archaeologists that have the opposite view.

Also - LOL - obviously the word means their KNOWN world - as they didn't know about the whole world.

The verse shows that the known surrounding kingdoms and lands worshiped Goddesses, as did the Hebrew people.

And NO, YHVH did not actually ever reach actual monotheism in Israel. YHVH people claiming it is so, - doesn't make it so. The people continued to worship Goddesses - right up to this day.

*

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually it doesn't. I was going to scan a number of images but the idea of sorting through my books for pictures of ancient dildoes doesn't actually appeal to me so when it occurred to me that there exists an alternative I might try first, I decided to do so. It's often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, less than a thousand words is worth more than a thousand pictures:
"Prehistorians often resort to elaborate and speculative functional explanations to account for artefacts which may have existed solely to mediate sexual pleasure. Many of the Upper Palaeolithic artefacts vaguely labeled 'batons' illustrate this point well. Some of these bone, ivory and antler artefacts bear a striking resemblance to dildoes: they are phallic in form and a number of them are rendered in the shape of a penis, with the glans and urethra clearly defined (for examples see Marshack 1972). The bodies of some of these 'batons' are engraved with explicit sexual images, such as the one from the site of La Madeleine, France (e.g., Marshack 1972: 333). Many others are marked with linear notches such that their surfaces are textured in a manner which may have provided for heightened pleasure, if they were indeed used for sexual stimulation. Taylor (1996: 128) states that 'Looking at the size, shape, and - in some cases - explicit symbolism of the ice age batons, it seems disingenuous to avoid the most obvious and straightforward interpretation.'"
Vasey, P. L. (1998). Intimate sexual relations in prehistory: lessons from the Japanese macaques. World archaeology, 29(3), 407-425.

Again - yes it does, and you can follow any of the links for more images and info.

I'm trying to figure out how that quote is supposed to prove me wrong (other then that a few have notching)? As it obviously doesn't. It is not a dildo.

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And again - as you well know - there are real archaeologists that have the opposite view.

Such as?

Also - LOL - obviously the word means their KNOWN world - as they didn't know about the whole world.

The known world included many, many, many areas that Caesar couldn't tax because they weren't part of the Roman empire. Yet this word is used to refer to the Roman empire in Luke (and elsewhere: "the empire of Xerxes: Ael. Aristid. 54 p. 675 D., and of Cyrus: Jos., Ant. 11, 3]: Dit., Or. 666, 3; 668, 5 τῷ σωτῆρι κ. εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης [Nero]; 669, 10, Syll.3 906 A, 3f τὸν πάσης οἰκουμένης δεσπότην [Julian]; POxy. 1021, 5ff; Sb 176, 2.—Cf. 1 Esdr 2:2; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 16; Jos., Ant. 19, 193). from the BDAG).

The verse shows that the known surrounding kingdoms and lands worshiped Goddesses, as did the Hebrew people.

Of course goddesses were worshipped in "surrounding kingdoms". I never said they weren't (and to say so would be idiotic in the extreme). However, nowhere was there a monotheistic goddess religion until the 20th century. As for "the Hebrew people", they most certainly did NOT worship a Goddess for the vast majority of the history of Judaism, including antiquity.

And NO, YHVH did not actually ever reach actual monotheism in Israel.

"Many scholars claim great antiquity for biblical monotheism. W. F. Albright, Y. Kaufman, C. H. Gordon, H. Orlinsky, J. C. de Moor, W. H. C. Propp, and others have viewed monotheism as an original feature of Israel, at least from Sinai onward.1 Other scholars more recently have sought to identify monotheism as a feature of Israelite religion throughout the period of the monarchy and often suggest the possibility of an earlier dating...A second group of scholars, including T. J. Meek,8 date the emergence of monotheism around the time of the “Exile” (587–538)"
Smith, M. S. (2001). The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel's polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts. Oxford University Press.

No matter which group is correct, we still find monotheism in Israel. Even if monotheism didn't exist until after the exile, we would still have monotheism in ancient Israel (recall that after Cyrus defeated the Babylonians many Israelites returned home, and it was not until the 2nd century CE that Israel was finally "destroyed" (until the 20th century, of course).

The people continued to worship Goddesses - right up to this day.

There are many goddess worshippers today, yes. I have known many and been friends with many (and some I still keep in touch with). However, like Wicca, this is a modern phenomenon, not a continuation of some tradition.

 

[outhouse]

The details on their own are meaningless. As the saying goes, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

What you may be failing to understand is that early stories and books were not written start to finish.

They were books that were collections of collections that were compiled together, then rewritten hundreds of years later by different people, then later redacted yet again to make a new story from old stories, when monotheism originated.


Your saying to take these at face value, that ignores completely the real history surrounding their creation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again - yes it does, and you can follow any of the links for more images and info.

They don't match the images I have already, nor do the match the description from the archaeological journal article I quoted from. Guess what matches that description perfectly? The pic I originally posted. In fact, it's indirectly referenced as it is an example of Paleolithic "batons" referred to in the article.

I'm trying to figure out how that quote is supposed to prove me wrong (other then that a few have notching)?

As I said, it is an example of what archaeologists used to refer to as "batons", "rods", and similar names, and for those who follow Gimbutas by interpreting everything as somehow a representative of the goddess or goddess worship, it is referred to as "shaft with breasts" or "rod with breasts". In other words, they simply take the generic descriptions of an older archaeology and tack on the word "breasts".

As it obviously doesn't. It is not a dildo.

Feminist scholar & religious studies expert Cynthia Eller references this particular "figurine" specifically. In fact, she includes a picture of it alongside a sketch from an archaeologist of another "rod" or "baton" from prehistory:

Of both of the above and of others she says the following:
"as archaeologist Timothy Taylor declares, 'it seems disingenuous to avoid the most obvious and straightforward interpretation" that these are 'phallic objects.' Indeed, some of them, at a length of six to eight inches, are hard to mistake for anything else"
Eller, C. (2000). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future. Beacon press.

 

[Ingledsva]

They don't match the images I have already, nor do the match the description from the archaeological journal article I quoted from. Guess what matches that description perfectly? The pic I originally posted. In fact, it's indirectly referenced as it is an example of Paleolithic "batons" referred to in the article.


As I said, it is an example of what archaeologists used to refer to as "batons", "rods", and similar names, and for those who follow Gimbutas by interpreting everything as somehow a representative of the goddess or goddess worship, it is referred to as "shaft with breasts" or "rod with breasts". In other words, they simply take the generic descriptions of an older archaeology and tack on the word "breasts".



Feminist scholar & religious studies expert Cynthia Eller references this particular "figurine" specifically. In fact, she includes a picture of it alongside a sketch from an archaeologist of another "rod" or "baton" from prehistory:

Of both of the above and of others she says the following:
"as archaeologist Timothy Taylor declares, 'it seems disingenuous to avoid the most obvious and straightforward interpretation" that these are 'phallic objects.' Indeed, some of them, at a length of six to eight inches, are hard to mistake for anything else"
Eller, C. (2000). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future. Beacon press.

Carved etchings on a dildo are not the same as pendulous boobs protruding from the other object.


*

 

[outhouse]

Carved etchings on a dildo are not the same as pendulous boobs protruding from the other object.


*

I wouldn't make a call on that thing one way or the other. Could work either way equally IMHO.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Carved etchings on a dildo are not the same as pendulous boobs protruding from the other object.

I didn't say they were. Note, however, that there are etchings up and down the shaft. Also, note the distinctive lack of nipples. In fact, note that there is absolutely nothing to suggest these are breasts. Despite the variety of ways in which the so-called "Venuses" were constructed, these are abnormal in shape and placement relative to one another. However, it is most definitely similar to many phallic representations found worldwide, whether it is a dildo or not.