a reply to: Malocchio
Just so you know, I'm acquainted with the documentary hypothesis and the claims made. While some of it seems legitimate, the idea of the entire Hebrew
Bible just being a "mish-mash" without any coherent organization is totally without merit in my eyes.
Monotheism may be the end result but it took until the end of the Persian Empire for true monotheism to take.
If you read Genesis chapter 1, the Elohim - powers, in Hebrew - may be regarded in totally polytheistic ways.
Then, In Genesis 2, there seems to be a panen
theistic doctrine being propounded. This is akin to the vedantic doctrine and the sufi doctrine
which sees the physical world as illusory and an extension of the 'soul' of God.
Whether this was known as far back as Moses, which seems plausible given the monotheistic revolution in Egypt around 1300 BCE, or as the documentary
hypothesis claims, around the time of the Babylonian exile (500 BCE), neither you nor I can know for certain.
On a side note, I tend to trust what reason and empiricism can demonstrate. Ultimate knowledge - faith - is not appropriate in conversations where
either position can seem to have some merit on their side, which is to say, if you know "absolutely" that the Bible was written at this time period as
if there weren't contending views, is merely to dabble in dissociation and wishful thinking.
So, my view is that the monotheistic doctrine probably goes as far back as ancient Sumer - may not have been a popular doctrine - but the idea of
panentheism doesn't particularly strike me as needing anything more than a mind that can wonder about its own existence, and thus be led to the
thought: "who created me, and this world"?
Molech, El, Baal, Asherah, Shachar, Chiun, Remphan, Nimrod (Osiris), Tammuz, Azazel all were real gods and many worshipped by the Israelites and
Judeans on and off.
I believe the Bible says just that. It is genuinely hard living in a world with multiple perspectives and not to be taken in by one of them -
particularly those which do not stress and burden as greatly as the more difficult ones can.
Further Yahweh began as the tribal Baal of Israel and Judah under El Elyon or God Most High before theology made them the same. Deuteronomy reveals
that Yahweh is one of the Sons of El who number 70 in Canaanite mythology.
See, this is where a knowledge of Hebrew (related, of course, to ancient phoenician languages) comes in handy.
The name translated as "Yahweh", has the connotation of "being" in Hebrew. Conversely, Ba'al has the connotation of "master". Different ideas, and so,
a different relationship to the divine, is being implied by these different names.
So you really shouldn't be throwing out names without a knowledge of what the names - or archetypes - refer to in, which is to say, what they mean
within the language in question.
There seems to be a very ancient idea that the "threshold" of 'heaven and earth' (this is the word used for God by the Jebusite priest who served at
the "threshold of dagon" - of which king David bought for the temple) is said to be at the temple mount in Jerusalem, currently occupied by the Dome
of the rock.
Is this true? I don't know. I'm not a mystic and have not spent my life developing an awareness to know whether this is true or not. But it is
interesting how ancient the walls are. And, from the perspective of modern day systems theory, it would not be too surprising to know that the Earth
system, like biodynamical systems (organisms) possesses a "naval", or a singular point, where the conscious energy of Human awareness 'turns outward'
upon the material processes of physical reality.
Is this true? I don't know. Again, it is so distant and far from the life I know and the coherency I generally seek in living, that all I can say is
"its plausible", which is to say, it could be true, but it is so incredibly distant from the life we live and know that I don't particular feel the
need to dedicate my existence to living as if it were true.
While knowledgeable of spiritual traditions, I have a deep resentment for the way they can phuck with the Human's spiritual well being.
70 in Canaanite mythology.
There's a belief, again, that the number 70 underlies the way spiritual energies "refract" into the physical world, from a "higher name" into a "lower
name", for a total of 72 names.
Is this true? Could be.
It was Persia that introduced monotheism to the Israelites who became more monotheistic than Persia letting it be that God was good and evil.
Perhaps. Zoroastrianism is pretty ancient, and they did have a "good vs. evil" way of seeing things.
My problem with the dualism and oppositionality of some religious views is the way it triggers dissociative processes in the minds of Others.
If you don't speak nicely - that is, if you aren't conscious of HOW you appear (based upon WHAT you feel), you are - as a matter of biological law -
probably going to trigger a dissociative reaction in the mind of the Other, which is to say, the other is going to become reflexively defensive - and
so what appears in their mind will not be a feeling or constraint that is congruent with your position - but, in fact, the exact opposite. Aggressive
opposition towards Others tends to produce aggressive opposition. Surprising?
This is so intuitively obvious, yet the stress of living and the neediness we have to be heard and understood by the Other can cause us to act in
incredibly unrealistic ways.
edit on 18-9-2016 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)