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

[Shermana]

Ridiculous. I now know that you aren't serious at all.

Thank you for refusing to ask the Judaism DIR and address the concept, but I am in fact being 100% serious.

By all means though, I'd like to know what gave you the remotest indication that I wasn't being serious, considering I gave you a direct challenge to ask the Judaism members themselves.

It is rather telling however that you simply want to dismiss and deny what is the nearly universal scholarly opinion on the matter without substantiating your own claim, but this is hardly the first time.

There's better ways of dodging the question you know.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Once again, if you are interpreting the deific terms in the Bible Henotheistically, then anyone in the Bible using those plural forms of deity worship would be Polytheistic, not just Henotheistic.

 

[Shermana]

Once again, if you are interpreting the deific terms in the Bible Henotheistically, then anyone in the Bible using those plural forms of deity worship would be Polytheistic, not just Henotheistic.

Okay, so what's the problem? I've already said that Henotheism is a form of Polytheism. But I also asked you to address the difference between "worship" and "reverence" that you yourself mentioned earlier to help define what would make it specifically "Polytheistic" as opposed to Henotheistic.

If you'd like we can make yet another thread on the subject of whether the Israelites were Polytheistic/Henotheistic or not. The problem is that the word is a bit of a Semantic quandary just like many others.

 

[Desert Snake]

There's better ways of dodging the question you know.

More nonsense.

 

[Shermana]

I didn't address your point? What point? I asked you to go ask the Judaism DIR the same thing and you refused. So tell me what you think I didn't understand exactly, especially when you said that all the other scholars weren't understanding properly either. (Without explaining what exactly those "implications" are)

I don't think its nonsense to point out that you're dodging the issues I brought up. What is nonsense is accusing me of not ad dressing what you brought up, how didn't I? What exactly was your contention anyway?\

You outright dodged my question about the difference between worship and reverence, so how is it nonsense to point out that you skipped out on that critical issue as to whether it's Polytheism or Henotheism?

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, so what's the problem? I've already said that Henotheism is a form of Polytheism. But I also asked you to address the difference between "worship" and "reverence" that you yourself mentioned earlier to help define what would make it specifically "Polytheistic" as opposed to Henotheistic.

If you'd like we can make yet another thread on the subject of whether the Israelites were Polytheistic/Henotheistic or not. The problem is that the word is a bit of a Semantic quandary just like many others.

Oh, it wouldn't be "semantic" if applied to the terms used for worship in the Bible, it would be quite hard Polytheism.

 

[Shermana]

Oh, it wouldn't be "semantic" if applied to the terms used for worship in the Bible, it would be quite hard Polytheism.

How so? So I assume you are reneging on anything you said involving the difference between reverence and worship then?

So if the Israelites bow to an Angel in the divine chain of command, that makes them as Polytheistic as the Romans who bowed and sacrificed to individual gods and saw them as distinct, independent powers? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Desert Snake]

How so? So I assume you are reneging on anything you said involving the difference between reverence and worship then?

Absolutely not, I'm using you're own argument to show that if we employ your method of deific term definition, that necessarily makes various people in the Bible hard Polytheists. (By the terms they use for worship).

So if the Israelites bow to an Angel in the divine chain of command, that makes them as Polytheistic as the Romans who bowed and sacrificed to individual gods and saw them as distinct, independent powers? Is that what you're saying?

I maintain that Judaic belief isn't Henotheistic or Polytheistic, but Monotheistic, I'm simply showing that you can't say on the one hand that the Bible is Henotheistic without admitting direct Polytheistic worship occurring throughout Scripture.

 

[Shermana]

Absolutely not, I'm using you're own argument to show that if we employ your method of deific term definition, that necessarily makes various people in the Bible hard Polytheists. (By the terms they use for worship).

Okay, I don't see the problem. I invite you again to go ask the Judaism DIR if this is a false proposition, and yes I am being 100% serious. If we go only by the term "worship", then even Jesus himself says his own disciples will be worshiped. Where does that fit in? So apparently we need to look a bit more at what exactly the word "bow down" implies. Perhaps there may also need to be a distinction such as who sacrifices are made to for example.

I maintain that Judaic belief isn't Henotheistic or Polytheistic, but Monotheistic, I'm simply showing that you can't say on the one hand that the Bible is Henotheistic without admitting direct Polytheistic worship occurring throughout Scripture.

Okay that's fine, and I maintain along with a host of scholars, even on the conservative side, who say the same thing that the ancient Israelite belief was Henotheistic/"Polytheistic", and I hope you understand that even if Henotheism is a form of what is called "Polytheism" that it's not quite the same kind of "Polytheism" as Roman, Greek, and Aztec mythos. Like I said, it's a Semantic Quandary. As long as you understand that Henotheism is a form of Polytheism while not quite the same thing, we can leave it at that. Even in Josephus's time however we see him retelling that the angels were called "gods". So that's important for the relevance of the OP question.

I just want to clarify your own argument.

Well you haven't really clarified it without addressing the difference between reverence and worship or by stating why all these scholars didn't know the "implications" like you claimed. I'm still waiting to hear why you think ALL these scholars are wrong. It's fine if you disagree with the standard scholarly opinion on something, but you may want to address WHY instead of just saying they "don't understand the implications".

 

[Desert Snake]

So apparently we need to look a bit more at what exactly the word "bow down" implies.

O.k., we seem to disagree on that though, we already discussed it.

Perhaps there may also need to be a distinction such as who sacrifices are made to for example.

Uh, o.k. but it's not like Polytheism necessarily is defined by heirarchy, I don't think that argument would resolve the issue.

Okay that's fine, and I maintain along with a host of scholars, even on the conservative side, who say the same thing that the ancient Israelite belief was Henotheistic/"Polytheistic", and I hope you understand that even if Henotheism is a form of what is called "Polytheism" that it's not quite the same kind of "Polytheism" as Roman, Greek, and Aztec mythos.

Now we're talking semantics, because there is variation in deity Pantheons anyway.

Like I said, it's a Semantic Quandary. As long as you understand that Henotheism is a form of Polytheism while not quite the same thing, we can leave it at that. Even in Josephus's time however we see him retelling that the angels were called "gods". So that's important for the relevance of the OP question.

Well you haven't really clarified it without addressing the difference between reverence and worship or by stating why all these scholars didn't know the "implications" like you claimed. I'm still waiting to hear why you think ALL these scholars are wrong. It's fine if you disagree with the standard scholarly opinion on something, but you may want to address WHY instead of just saying they "don't understand the implications".

I didn't say you or the scholars you are referencing are "wrong", I'm simply stating that instead of simple Henotheism, if your method of interpretation is applied to Scripture, one would have to conclude hard Polytheistic worship.

 

[Shermana]

So what is "hard" polytheism as opposed to say, "soft" Polytheism? Like I said, it's a Semantic issue. Is it the same kind of "hard" Polytheism as the Romans making sacrifices to many gods who they deemed to be independent powers free of any hierarchy as opposed to "bowing down" (reverencing) angels that are merely called "gods"?

If you say it's not addressed by Hierarchy, then where's the difference?

Where do you draw the line then between Henotheism and Polytheism?

Personally, I see the Original Ancient Israelite Henotheistic-Polytheism as "Monotheism", in that the one chief god, the "god of the gods" directs everything and has command over them all, so he is the only TRUE god in the sense of being THE god, the articulated god, since all the other "gods" have him as "their god". The "god of the gods". The other "gods" (powers) are merely gods as a class of being, but not in terms of being independent, all-powerful powers. Thus, the Semantic quandary. I think the issue is best defined as who one has as "their" god, in the possessive sense. I can acknowledge another god's existence (nominative use of the word "god") without having them be "my" god, (the generative/posessive form of the word "god"). There's a world of difference between "a god" and "one's god". Acknowledging that Satan may be "the god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4 as most scholars interpret it, including conservative) but that doesn't make him "My god" even if he is the "god of" this age.

Why do you suppose the word god is articulated so often when referring to the "god of the gods"?

 

[Desert Snake]

So what is "hard" polytheism as opposed to say, "soft" Polytheism? Like I said, it's a Semantic issue. Is it the same kind of "hard" Polytheism as the Romans making sacrifices to many gods who they deemed to be independent powers free of any hierarchy as opposed to "bowing down" (reverencing) angels that are merely called "gods"?

Only "semantic" to a point, Polytheism indicating the worship of more than one deity.

Where do you draw the line then between Henotheism and Polytheism?

Basically, worship, not just "acknowledgement" of other deities.

Personally, I see the Original Ancient Israelite Henotheistic-Polytheism as "Monotheism", in that the one chief god, the "god of the gods" directs everything and has command over them all, so he is the only TRUE god in the sense of being THE god, the articulated god, since all the other "gods" have him as "their god". The other "gods" (powers) are merely gods as a class, but not in terms of being independent, all-powerful powers. Thus, the Semantic quandary. I think the issue is best defined as who one has as "their" god, in the possessive sense. I can acknowledge another god's existence (nominative use of the word "god") without having them be "my" god, (the generative/posessive form of the word "god"). There's a world of difference between "a god" and "one's god". Acknowledging that Satan may be "the god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4 as most scholars interpret it, including conservative) but that doesn't make him "My god" even if he is the "god of" this age.

The problem arises if one is interpreting 'gods' for the terms of deific worship that occurs in the Bible. This might not even be an issue if there actually was no Scripture, and we were only dealing with, say, a pantheon and their descriptions.

Why do you suppose the word god is articulated so often when referring to the "god of the gods"?

The Judaic religion is Monotheistic, but is open to other beliefs existing, other "gods", pantheons, however...This doesn't make the Torah/Tanakh Henotheistic, or Polytheistic, it's simply an admittance/allowance of other religions.

 

[Shermana]

Only "semantic" to a point, Polytheism indicating the worship of more than one deity.

So let me ask again, what is the meaning of "hard" Polytheism, and what would "soft" Polytheism be? Is it the same kind of "Polytheism" as the Roman and Greek religion? Is there no difference than between "worship" and "reverence"? Is "bowing down" the same thing regardless who it's done for and how it's done?

Basically, worship, not just "acknowledgement" of other deities.

So when Moses, Lot, and Joshua "bow down" to Angels, is that the same kind of "worship" as Romans who would sacrifice to many gods?

The problem arises if one is interpreting 'gods' for the terms of deific worship that occurs in the Bible. This might not even be an issue if there actually was no Scripture, and we were only dealing with, say, a pantheon and their descriptions.

I'm not sure I understand completely what you're saying. So what do you consider Lot bowing down before the Angels/gods? This is why I brought up the issue of reverence vs. worship more than once, we still haven't resolved that.

Actually I will address this. The Judaic religion is Monotheistic, but is open to other beliefs existing, other "gods", pantheons, however...This doesn't make the Torah/Tanakh Henotheistic, or Polytheistic, it's simply an admittance/allowance of other religions.

Ok, so when the "god" that wrestles with Jacob is called an Angel in Hosea 12:5, and when Josephus says that lesser/subordinate gods were involved in the work of the Creation process, and when THE god is called "the god of the gods", is that acknowledging the existence of other beings called gods? How would that not be Henotheistic?

 

[Desert Snake]

So let me ask again, what is the meaning of "hard" Polytheism, and what would "soft" Polytheism be? Is it the same kind of "Polytheism" as the Roman and Greek religion? Is there no difference than between "worship" and "reverence"? Is "bowing down" the same thing regardless who it's done for and how it's done?

Personally I think it's completely different, and the difference is indicated by context.

So when Moses, Lot, and Joshua "bow down" to Angels, is that the same kind of "worship" as Romans who would sacrifice to many gods?

Probably not, but that's dealing with the Roman Deities anyways, I'm not sure how they were worshipped, actually.

I'm not sure I understand completely what you're saying. So what do you consider Lot bowing down before the Angels/gods? This is why I brought up the issue of reverence vs. worship more than once, we still haven't resolved that.

Context. It's just reverence.

Ok, so when the "god" that wrestles with Jacob is called an Angel in Hosea 12:5, and when Josephus says that lesser/subordinate gods were involved in the work of the Creation process, and when THE god is called "the god of the gods", is that acknowledging the existence of other beings called gods? How would that not be Henotheistic?

It's an angel, which we already know isn't a 'god'.
As to the other point we've already argued that, I gave my opinion anyway

 

[Shermana]

Personally I think it's completely different, and the difference is indicated by context.

You repeatedly say "Context" but don't actually explain what you think the context is. As far as I'm concerned, my understanding of the context is just fine. Bowing down to Angels in the Divine Chain of command is reverence and not Polytheistic "worship". Bowing to Satan however would be. If you disagree, just leave it at that, but if you want to say I don't have the right context, by all means explain how and actually substantiate. Calling Satan "The god of this age" as Paul did in 2 Cor 4:4 is not Polytheism, it's Henotheism. Josephus referring to lesser subordinate gods who helped work out the creation of the world is not Polytheism, it's Henotheism. This is far from just my view on the matter.

(And please use the quote function correctly).

Probably not, but that's dealing with the Roman Deities anyways, I'm not sure how they were worshipped, actually.

You said it was "Hard Polytheism", so define Hard Polytheism and "Soft Polytheism" and explain the difference with pagan societies. As far as I'm concerned, it's not "Hard Polytheism" whatsoever. It's Hard Henotheism, and it's "Soft Polytheism" whatever that would imply, as opposed to "Hard polytheism" which I'd call the Roman system. I gave you all you need to know about the Roman system, they revered each deity as a separate, independent power and sacrificed to them and didn't consider them as under some hierarchy.

Context. It's just reverence.

Okay, you agree it's just reverence. Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself and vindicated my own point that it's not exactly the same kind of "Worship" as in Pagan Polytheists. Thanks!

It's an angel, which we already know isn't a 'god'.

You mean "Which I already have come to the opinion of even though it goes against what the text and scholars say". When you say "We already know", that implies you somehow have proven it, which you have not whatsoever. Even Josephus refers to them as "gods" in the 1st century. Repeating that they're not "gods" goes against what the text says. Why would the text even call them "Elohim" in the first place? "Context"? Well here's the context: It's implying that the "god of the gods" is called the "god of the gods" because THEY ARE IN FACT CALLED GODS. Simple enough. Nowhere does it imply that these angels are not gods. What is implied is that the hand-crafted idols themselves are not gods.

The issue is a Semantic quandary of what the word "god" means, which means "power". The problem is that an overreaction to Hellenism has led to a total distortion of what the word "god" means in the first place. Few scholars seem to deny that the Israelites did in fact accept the existence of other beings called "gods" including the Angels themselves. You have yet to substantiate why this constitutes Polytheism and not Henotheism even when you agree that the "Context" is about reverence when Lot, Moses, and Joshua bow down to them. Even Abraham bowed down to the 3 visiting Angels. Now if that's just 'Reverence", then it's not "Hard Polytheism" no matter how much you insist.

As to the other point we've already argued that, I gave my opinion anyway

Okay, and I've given mine. And mine is supported by the text itself and the scholars, and you can even take it to the Judaism DIR which I've offered you to do twice now, despite you thinking I wasn't serious, if you disagree. Otherwise, if you want to continue to insist that I'm wrong even when the Judaism members themselves would back me on this one, even when the Jewish Encyclopedia backs me on this one, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Ivan-Michael]

Ok, whom shall we crown with first inventing a monotheistic (one god only) religion?

It’s probably not news to most regular members here, but there was a time in humanity’s past that monotheism was a radical concept…that there was but “one god”.

Just wondering..whom or what religion do you believe or feel deserves the royalties and benefits (or potentially lucrative Trademarks) of finishing first in that definitive distinction?

Who’s portrait or bust do we place in the religion hall of fame as being the progenitor (inventor) of monotheistic beliefs?

Not just a poll here… but hoping that some contributors might offer some support for any claims that their religion was indeed the “first” to insist that a singular “god” was/is existent, and perhaps rules the cosmos today.

Just to be clear, I do not even know if there is any claim of originality available as answer.

I’m simply inviting others to stake their claim with compelling support

Who done it?
Those who coined the concepts and confounded our language, the worshippers of Lord-YHVH Gen.11
They did so by introducing the Akkadian language in place of the old, global Sumerian language, or even pre Sumerian language and changed or masked the old meanings of words.
In Ur they had schools where they 'taught' the children, the Inka did the same to the children in the places they took over, pretty much a modus operandi by the rulers (the new Molech-pass the children through the fire, burn the disc).
You can see it in old Assyrian wall reliefs, the eagle people place the 'Pine cone' in their 'Tree of Life'.
Pine cone is our Pineal gland, our mind.
By confounding our language they can easily influence our minds, enjoy the fruit of our labour and force us, through ignorance, to obey their dictats.
It is done to us on a daily basis, never stopped, it is a perpetual ongoing process.

Reading the Bible and seeing the play and the teachings therein is not made easy.
Easy in Hebrew 'kal', it is a curse, part of the curse word 'Klala'.
The ones who wrote the books and doctrines masked it, and hid it behind stories and then taught the stories to us as if they were real events.
Most of the stories we read in the Bible are concepts that have to be studied.

Just an example:
God is Plural, Elohim.
The confusion starts when idententifying God with Lord as the same thing which is not.
Listen oh ISRAEL the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE.
So the Lord is ONE
who is Israel? Who is Lord? Who is God?

God-Elohim is the Mind, plural, why is the mind plural?
What do we know about focus and directing our mind into a single dierction, not easy to do, we need a lot of training.
Lord-YHVH (Hebrew) Adonai, there can be only one Lord (Baal-Husband, owner, in Hebrew).
Lord, the procreative cycle, becomes our God and dictates our thought process.
We, through indocrination, don't See the bible, we confuse the players through not paying attention.
I say this because I too couldn't see the 'play' until I was told to pay close attention.

When we were children we learned to read it as one and the same entity and it got stuck in our minds as one.
There are two forces here, Up and Down, like the 'star of David', male female, God-up, Lord-down, Father of Heaven v Lord Earth, Elohim v YHVH.
These concepts were fashioned (created) to keep us confused, but also to teach those who wish to see and learn the message.
God is reason, Lord is reaction.
Who is the jealous one? Who is the angry one? God or Lord?
YHVH, Lord, is the one Israel is worshiping, Lord is ISRAEL's Mind, He made a deal with the 'House of Jacob' Ex.19,3-8, Moses goes up to consult the MIND (Elohim) and YHVH (Lord) calls him from the mountain, (not exactly mountain more like temple-Hebrew-HAR. In the old language, KUR=mountain, E-KUR= house mountain for the Gods, Ziggurats) and makes him an 'offer' he can't refuse;
3: Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell (command-in Hebrew) the children of Israe.
6 and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.
Then the deception in the script, designed to confuse the uninitiated into believing something else:
'These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'
Why deception? Because the 'Children of israel' have 'No standing', they are commanded, the 'children have to obey.
The 'House of Jacob' made the agreement with the Lord and accepted the offer, not the children of Israel.
I hope this will help a little, although many tend to become more confused by the way I write these things, perhaps because the beliefs were cemented in our minds from a young age, very difficult to 'see' properly, we've been hypnotised for a long time.

 

[Desert Snake]

You repeatedly say "Context" but don't actually explain what

Otherwise, if you want to continue to insist that I'm wrong even when the Judaism members themselves would back me on this one, even when the Jewish Encyclopedia backs me on this one, let's just agree to disagree.

Fine with me, debate went quickly to semantics anyway, look...you can call it "soft Polytheism" or hard Henotheism, but either way you are stating that it's not Monotheistic, if the terms to you are that flexible then why even use them. My position: Monotheistic, not even Henotheistic.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

And my advice to you is to consult traditional Rabbinic commentary and talk to people in real life, and come back and report your findings.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Not knowing much about it yet, I was under the impression that Ahriman was an evil spirit. A spirit is not a God, IMO, but more like an angel or demon.

 

[repiv]

Ok, whom shall we crown with first inventing a monotheistic (one god only) religion?

It’s probably not news to most regular members here, but there was a time in humanity’s past that monotheism was a radical concept…that there was but “one god”.

Just wondering..whom or what religion do you believe or feel deserves the royalties and benefits (or potentially lucrative Trademarks) of finishing first in that definitive distinction?

Who’s portrait or bust do we place in the religion hall of fame as being the progenitor (inventor) of monotheistic beliefs?

Not just a poll here… but hoping that some contributors might offer some support for any claims that their religion was indeed the “first” to insist that a singular “god” was/is existent, and perhaps rules the cosmos today.

Just to be clear, I do not even know if there is any claim of originality available as answer.

I’m simply inviting others to stake their claim with compelling support

Interesting,

I would have to say that is was known at the beginning and lost and then re-established mainly through Abraham and his decedents.

Most religious beliefs have a story (understanding) of a time of mankind was with God before a separation (fall) from him (or the ideal world) and mankind becoming lost and attempting for find their way back to what was lost.

Using the bible, Old Testament as one of many examples you have both Cain and Able making offerings and communicating with a singular god right after the initial casting out (Adam and Eve out of the Garden). But then you have a period where that is lost and not taking root as a cultural / social belief until Abraham / Issac (Ishmael) / Jacob and the rise of their linage and social custom and understanding of a singular creator.

Yet still using the old testament you have examples of individuals and their direct families believing an in a singular creator and acting upon it. Notably Enoch and Noah.

I do not believe there has ever been a time in human history when someone some where did not have that belief (understanding) as an individual, but on a larger scale you do have to give credit to those decedents of Abraham, (Both Jewish and Islamic)