Which religion invented the idea of "One god" first?

[Shermana]

Worship of one Deity is Monotheistic, though, I personally feel that the term "Henotheism" does not fit Judaic belief. That being said, sure, it can be viewed as such, I suppose, but I question the intellectual accuracy of that description.

It's a matter of worship in the sense of recognizing the deity as a separate, independent power. Angels are worshiped by Lot, Moses, and Joshua without being told not to. However, these Angels are in the Divine chain of command, so to bow to them would be like kissing the signet Ring of a messenger (Angel means messenger to begin with, it's not a class of being like "god" would be, though this distinction is somewhat wanting in Greek). To worship Satan for example would thus be outside of this chain of command.

In Revelation, John worships the Angel but is only told not to because they are both prophets, of the same rank, why would John even worship the Angel in the first place? A temporary lapse on his part?

(Note: Worship means to bow down physically to in a display of submission).

Regardless though, it's not exactly an unsupported position among those who study ancient Israelite theology.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'd like to see what you consider "religious based analysis" while you're at it.

Even with Isaiah, it seems to have been recognized that After me" means "Like me" like "After this fashion".

As I've brought before, the reference to other lesser gods who were the Angels is clearly cited by Josephus and the particularly very Jewish "Sibylline Oracles" (not the pagan ones the Romans went by) that even the Church Fathers considered authoritative.

in regards to the "other gods", those are shown to be false, merely idols. That only leaves your angel theory, which is refuted by common knowledge and Talmudic commentary. Given the fact that we KNOW the angels are not other gods, the text doesn't leave much else to conclude that the Torah/Tanakh isn't Monotheistic.
Semantics aside, we have to use the most accurate term in order to maintain intellectual honesty.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a matter of worship in the sense of recognizing the deity as a separate, independent power. Angels are worshiped by Lot, Moses, and Joshua without being told not to. However, these Angels are in the Divine chain of command, so to bow to them would be like kissing the signet Ring of a messenger (Angel means messenger to begin with, it's not a class of being like "god" would be, though this distinction is somewhat wanting in Greek). To worship Satan for example would thus be outside of this chain of command.

In Revelation, John worships the Angel but is only told not to because they are both prophets, of the same rank, why would John even worship the Angel in the first place? A temporary lapse on his part?

(Note: Worship means to bow down physically to in a display of submission).

Regardless though, it's not exactly an unsupported position among those who study ancient Israelite theology.

That's reverence, OBVIOUSLY, not worship. You're taking a term and basically using a 'direct translation' method to change the meaning. You have to take the entire text into consideration, otherwise one can infer anything from Scripture.

 

[Shermana]

That's reverence, OBVIOUSLY, not worship. You're taking a term and basically using a 'direct translation' method to change the meaning. You have to take the entire text into consideration, otherwise one can infer anything from Scripture.

By all means explain what "worship" entails in this context. If anything you're agreeing that such reverence would not violate the principle of worshiping the Most high god alone.

I do agree there's a difference between worship and reverence. But the word SHakah and Prosekenos refers to the physical act what we call "worship". Which is to bow down to. So what's the difference between bowing down to THE god and bowing down to a god other than the acknowledgement of the rank of the being?

For example, the people "Shakah" King David and Jesus tells his disciples that they will be "Prosekenos"ed.

I am far from the only person to note this, so I'm not really changing anything based on the text itself. You have to redefine "worship" to get something differently. I'm just going by what the text says. So if you are saying that the idea of bowing to the Angels constitutes "worship of other gods", then you'll have to explain why with this idea of reverence, which I don't disagree with.

How would a "direct translation" change the meaning in the first place? We really only have the text itself to garner the meaning from considering its a dead language. How are we supposed to know exactly what it entails?

Some people think that references to the disciples bowing to Jesus indicates that he was God, so if anything this reverence concept I can agree with. The point however was the "direct translation" implies nonetheless a physical subjugation to the begin in question, whether to THE God or a god.

Nonetheless we should keep in mind that the early Chrisitans refused to even "reverence" (bow down to) the Roman emperor, so apparently this distinction was not necessarily as clear to them. Were they redefining the terms too?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Besides, I've already gone over this with you, the word "god" most definitively refers to Angels without question or dispute in many Biblical passages.

... and not in others.

 

[Shermana]

... and not in others.

Of course.

Your point?

Angels and Angelology

These beings are clearly designated by the English word "angel." The terminology of biblical Hebrew is not so exact. Malʾakh (מַלְאַך&#1456, the word most often used, means "messenger" (cf. Ugaritic lak "to send"). It is applied frequently to human agents (e.g., Gen. 32:4) and is sometimes used figuratively (e.g., Ps. 104:4). This term was rendered in the Greek Bible by angelos which has the same variety of meanings; only when it was borrowed by the Latin Bible and then passed into other European languages did it acquire the exclusive meaning of "angel." Post-biblical Hebrew employs malʾakh only for superhuman messengers, and uses other words for human agents. Apparently for greater clarity, the Bible frequently calls the angel the malʾakh of God; yet the same title is occasionally applied to human agents of the Deity (Hag. 1:13; Mal. 2:7). Elsewhere angels are called ʾelohim (usually "god" or "gods"; Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6), more often bene ʾelohim or bene ʾelim (lit. "sons of gods") – in the general sense of "divine beings." They are also known as kedoshim (qedoshim; "holy beings"; Ps. 89:8; Job 5:1). Often the angel is called simply "man." The mysterious being who wrestled with Jacob is first called a man, then ʾelohim (Gen. 32:24 (25), 28 (29), 30 (31)), but Hosea refers to him also as a malʾakh (Hos. 12:5)

ANGELOLOGY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Already in Dan. x. 20-21, the idea prevails that each nation has a heavenly guardian angel or prince. In Enoch, lxxxix. 59, the seventy shepherds are the guardian angels of the seventy nations over whom Michael, as Israel's angel-prince, is set as ruler. With these seventy-one angel-princes of the world God sits in council when holding judgment over the world (Hebrew Enoch; Jellinek, "B. H." v. 181); each pleading the cause of his nation before God (Targ. Yer. Gen. xi. 7-8, Pirḳe R. El. xxiv.). At times they accuse Israel (Pesiḳ. xxvii. 176a); at times they find especial merit in him (Suk. 29a). They are the "gods" whom the Lord crushes before He executes His punishment upon the nations in their charge (Suk. 29a, according to Ex. xii. 12; Soṭah, 9a). These angel-princes of the nations— of Babel, Media, Greece, Syria, and Rome—Jacob saw in his dream ascending and descending the ladder (Gen. R. lxviii., Pesiḳ. xxiii. 151a). The angel with whom Jacob wrestled was the angel-prince of Edom (Gen. R. lxxvii.), Samael, the head of all Satans (Tan., Wayishlaḥ, ii. 25). The name of the angel of Egypt is Miẓraim (Ex. R. xxi.) or Uzza (Midr. Wayosha'; Jellinek, "B. H." i. 39; Hekalot, v. 172); that of Persia's angel-prince is Dubbiel (= Beargod; Yoma, 77a, after Dan. vii. 5). But Michael, the angel-prince of Jerusalem (Zion, Targ. Ps. cxxxvii. 7-8), is set over all the seventy angels (Midr. Abkir; Yalḳ., Gen. § 132).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Already in Dan. x. 20-21, the idea prevails that ..."

Actually, the theological shifts one sees in the later text - text that seeks to understand and explain exilic and post-exilic reality laced with Persian and Hellenist influence - is worthy of its own thread, but to pretend that the eclectic Yahwism found after Tiglath-Pileser was fundamentally identical to its antecedent is simply ignorant.

 

[Shermana]

Discple:

Common knowledge/Talmudic reference

Okay, expound on that. What is this "common knowledge" and compare it to "common perceptions". And the Talmudic reference would be great, especially considering its many centuries after the initial Theological implications. You're saying that the Talmud on this matter necessarily reflects the same beliefs as back then? I suppose I should bring up the Masoretic vs Septuagint difference on Deut 32:8 again and the scholarly assessment of that.

Different context.

Okay, explain the difference.

 

[Shermana]

"Already in Dan. x. 20-21, the idea prevails that ..."

Actually, the theological shifts one sees in the later text - text that seeks to understand and explain exilic and post-exilic reality laced with Persian and Hellenist influence - is worthy of its own thread, but to pretend that the eclectic Yahwism found after Tiglath-Pileser was fundamentally identical to its antecedent is simply ignorant.

If I understand correctly, I think we're in 100% agreement that the concept of "Yahwism" from during the Davidic period (1000 B.C.) is different than the later idea of pure Monotheism.

I agree that it's 100% ignorant to assume that the Israelite belief of Henotheism was not the original way and that the Monotheistic idea was the original.

But it would be an interesting thread to discuss how much was actually Persian and Hellenist influence in such Theology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, explain the difference.

In that context you are dealing with a political/social issue also, not just religious.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm thinking Zoroastrianism.

 

[Shermana]

I'm thinking Zoroastrianism.

On the subject of the Semantic aspect of the Ancient Israelite concept of "gods" as Angels which would render it non-Monotheistic,

Zoroastrianism believes in more than one "god", the evil god Angra Mainyu, (Ahriman) as well as Ahura Mazda.

And you have the Daevas who are "wrong gods/gods to be rejected", but nonetheless called "gods".

So in essence, Zoroastrianism is still "Henotheistic" as Ancient Israelite belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

On the subject of the Semantic aspect of the Ancient Israelite concept of "gods" as Angels which would render it non-Monotheistic,

You realize that if you apply this method of interpretation to the Torah/Tanakh it would make various characters in the Bible POLYTHEISTIC, (not Henotheistic) right?

 

[Shermana]

You realize that if you apply this method of interpretation to the Torah/Tanakh it would make various characters in the Bible POLYTHEISTIC, (not Henotheistic) right?

You realize that I've been over this over and over already and that this Henotheism view is backed by a great many scholars?

Why don't you explain what you feel is the difference between Henotheism and Polytheism?

 

[Desert Snake]

You realize that I've been over this over and over already and that this Henotheism view is backed by a great many scholars?

Why don't you explain what you feel is the difference between Henotheism and Polytheism?

O.k. so you're admitting that it would make people in the Bible Polytheistic, that's all, just making sure.

Polytheistic: Wordhip of more than one God
Henotheistic: Belief in more than one deity but not necessarily worship of more than one God.


Your method of interpretation: POLYTHEISTIC

 

[Shermana]

O.k. so you're admitting that it would make people in the Bible Polytheistic, that's all, just making sure.

Polytheistic: Wordhip of more than one God
Henotheistic: Belief in more than one deity but not necessarily worship of more than one God.


Your method of interpretation: POLYTHEISTIC

You're welcome to interpret my interpretation however you want, but the scholars are all against you and all with me on this.

Besides, didn't we have an argument of what exactly "Worship" entails? Didn't you make a distinction between reverence? If so, how is my interpretation Polytheistic?

 

[Desert Snake]

You're welcome to interpret my interpretation however you want, but the scholars are all against you and all with me on this.

Besides, didn't we have an argument of what exactly "Worship" entails? Didn't you make a distinction between reverence? If so, how is my interpretation Polytheistic?

This makes no sense, if you are interpreting Scripture Henotheistically, then that would necessarily make anyone in the Bible worshipping using more than one reference to God(s), Polytheistic. It's quite simple.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're welcome to interpret my interpretation however you want, but the scholars are all against you and all with me on this.

Great. I'm guessing you/they didn't take into account the implications of how the deific terms are used in the Bible.

 

[Shermana]

This makes no sense, if you are interpreting Scripture Henotheistically, then that would necessarily make anyone in the Bible worshipping using more than one reference to God(s), Polytheistic. It's quite simple.

Congratulations, you have come to the conclusion that Henotheism is a form of Polytheism. It will make sense as you read more about it and see why so many scholars say the same thing I do on this. It makes sense to them apparently.

Now if you would kindly go to the Judaism DIR and ask them "Were the ANcient Israelites Polytheistic/Henotheistic", please report your findings.

 

[Shermana]

Great. I'm guessing you/they didn't take into account the implications of how the deific terms are used in the Bible.

I'm guessing you didn't take into account the implications and think you somehow know better than them because of some reason or another.

I appreciate you implying that you think you know what these implications are that they don't nonetheless but it's no substitute for actually discussing the details, which I've gone over and over already.