spin offs

[Gandalf]

Actually, there are many sets of writings called "the Bible." and it brings forth several perspectives on God and gods. Then, at some later point, it takes all these Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of deity and gloms them all together into "God." YHVH is a different God than El. Who is a different God from ... God. So, the concept of "true God" is a rather ineffable concept in the Bible.

More so in the Qur'an, when we say monotheism in terms of the word tawhid it is a big overstatement because with the constant addition of intercession and emphasis on uniqueness it leaves to raise not just dubious claims but very implicit ones. The Qur'an makes the argument there can't be 2 gods that rival each other because creation originates from one source and that a single unique source can't give birth to another unique sources or else neither is unique.

Followed by the fact that no Muslim can prostrate to no man yet Iblis must prostrate to the first of men, Adam and then later added that only the greatest of people "could" be prostrated toward by parable of the power of patriarchy.

You can understand why ghulut sects existed amongst the Shia from the 1st century and removing the concept of hulul (incarnation of divine) and defining monotheism became a big problem.

I just think people misunderstood the power of Emanationism and the fact the Qur'am confirms Gnostic thought so much many heretical groups add it back in but close the religion off by making it an ethnoreligion like the Druze and Nusayi.

In short why believe in the incarnation of Isa when you can make that applicable to every prophet and determine a hierarchy.

 

[sojourner]

More so in the Qur'an, when we say monotheism in terms of the word tawhid it is a big overstatement because with the constant addition of intercession and emphasis on uniqueness it leaves to raise not just dubious claims but very implicit ones. The Qur'an makes the argument there can't be 2 gods that rival each other because creation originates from one source and that a single unique source can't give birth to another unique sources or else neither is unique.

Followed by the fact that no Muslim can prostrate to no man yet Iblis must prostrate to the first of men, Adam and then later added that only the greatest of people "could" be prostrated toward by parable of the power of patriarchy.

You can understand why ghulut sects existed amongst the Shia from the 1st century and removing the concept of hulul (incarnation of divine) and defining monotheism became a big problem.

I just think people misunderstood the power of Emanationism and the fact the Qur'am confirms Gnostic thought so much many heretical groups add it back in but close the religion off by making it an ethnoreligion like the Druze and Nusayi.

In short why believe in the incarnation of Isa when you can make that applicable to every prophet and determine a hierarchy.

Well, and that’s precisely what was in play in the Bible: henotheism, not monotheism — until much later.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, there are many sets of writings called "the Bible." and it brings forth several perspectives on God and gods. Then, at some later point, it takes all these Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of deity and gloms them all together into "God." YHVH is a different God than El. Who is a different God from ... God. So, the concept of "true God" is a rather ineffable concept in the Bible.

Jesus seemed to have a pretty definite opinion as to the one he identified as the "true God."

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, there are many sets of writings called "the Bible." and it brings forth several perspectives on God and gods. Then, at some later point, it takes all these Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of deity and gloms them all together into "God." YHVH is a different God than El. Who is a different God from ... God. So, the concept of "true God" is a rather ineffable concept in the Bible.

The one to record events kept for posterity was Moses. So it is clear that there were dealings with previous persons such as Can and Abel and Noah that Moses knew about.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Actually, there are many sets of writings called "the Bible." and it brings forth several perspectives on God and gods. Then, at some later point, it takes all these Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of deity and gloms them all together into "God." YHVH is a different God than El. Who is a different God from ... God. So, the concept of "true God" is a rather ineffable concept in the Bible.

In the neighboring Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons yes, the Torah however is a different story because of how it recontextualizes these linguistic terms into new semantics (if looked at from a purely secular POV). What it really shows there is the way language evolved across various nations. The theological content in the Torah, whilst reminiscent of the neighboring pantheons, in it's Toraic context makes no sense to apply the aforementioned pagan semantics to them because it becomes self-contradictory.

Though the connections and differences between YHWH and Baal is something I'm fascinated in.
The Torah uses the word "Baal" (lord) as simply just one of the names of YHWH, but in 1 Kings it refers to it as false pagan idol worshiped by Ahab etc. - which then becomes an enemy of YHWH and the Israelites.
I think though, it is a matter of associations when it comes to Baal because later in the Tanakh the word "Baal" is not associated with YHWH after that event, possibly to prevent the idolatrous associations, which is constant within the Tanakh's narrative against idolatry etc.
Though the word "Baal" still appears in Jewish titles for people, places and things.

What I know of the Hebrew in the Tanakh is quite elastic in the way words are used.


At the same time, the words that it shares in connection with the pagan pantheons are actually quite generic words, aka "God", "Lord", "The Most High".


Very interesting nonetheless.

By extension, in the Qur'an, we see no 'personal name' of God, instead we have an appelation similar in meaning to both El and Elyon (respectively, God and "the most high") as well as aural similarity to the Hebrew "Elah", in the form of "Allah" which just means "The God".

 

[Gandalf]

Well, and that’s precisely what was in play in the Bible: henotheism, not monotheism — until much later.

Funny because I feel as if I am the only Abrahamic who needs to fight against this word monotheism because it does not actually define what we are talking about because even Tawhid in Islam is just referencing the unification or oneness in a verbal sense. I don't think any religion until much later was created with our modern conception of monotheism in mind, I think this is a result of contemporary theology and its lack of interest in actual theology.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus seemed to have a pretty definite opinion as to the one he identified as the "true God."

And that opinion most likely differs from ours. God is too big for us to completely wrap our minds around.

 

[sojourner]

The one to record events kept for posterity was Moses.

False. Moses was most likely a fictional character. Even if Moses were an historical person, he most likely would have been illiterate -- and he certainly could not have written about his own death and what took place in the aftermath of that event.

 

[sojourner]

In the neighboring Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons yes, the Torah however is a different story because of how it recontextualizes these linguistic terms into new semantics (if looked at from a purely secular POV). What it really shows there is the way language evolved across various nations. The theological content in the Torah, whilst reminiscent of the neighboring pantheons, in it's Toraic context makes no sense to apply the aforementioned pagan semantics to them because it becomes self-contradictory.

Though the connections and differences between YHWH and Baal is something I'm fascinated in.
The Torah uses the word "Baal" (lord) as simply just one of the names of YHWH, but in 1 Kings it refers to it as false pagan idol worshiped by Ahab etc. - which then becomes an enemy of YHWH and the Israelites.
I think though, it is a matter of associations when it comes to Baal because later in the Tanakh the word "Baal" is not associated with YHWH after that event, possibly to prevent the idolatrous associations, which is constant within the Tanakh's narrative against idolatry etc.
Though the word "Baal" still appears in Jewish titles for people, places and things.

What I know of the Hebrew in the Tanakh is quite elastic in the way words are used.


At the same time, the words that it shares in connection with the pagan pantheons are actually quite generic words, aka "God", "Lord", "The Most High".


Very interesting nonetheless.

By extension, in the Qur'an, we see no 'personal name' of God, instead we have an appelation similar in meaning to both El and Elyon (respectively, God and "the most high") as well as aural similarity to the Hebrew "Elah", in the form of "Allah" which just means "The God".

Thanks for that. I'd like to briefly touch on one particular that you mention: that the Hebrew of the Tanakh is quite elastic. English tends to be more precise than many ancient languages. And the way in which we use our language differs widely from the way the ancients used theirs. A great example is the way in which history is transmitted. The ancients told oral stories, using myth and citing example. We relate verifiable facts. These differences in language and usage present special problems in interpretation of the Biblical texts.

 

[sojourner]

Funny because I feel as if I am the only Abrahamic who needs to fight against this word monotheism because it does not actually define what we are talking about because even Tawhid in Islam is just referencing the unification or oneness in a verbal sense. I don't think any religion until much later was created with our modern conception of monotheism in mind, I think this is a result of contemporary theology and its lack of interest in actual theology.

Well, I think that contemporary theology is as legitimate as ancient theology. Theology develops as the human family and society develop. I have no need to fight against either the term or the concept of monotheism. However, I do fight against the propensity of many to insist that their version of the One God is the only correct version. For me, God is known by many names, and yet is the Unnameable One.