It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More than one god of the Old Testament

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by point

The jealous, vengeful, wrathful god spoken of in the Old testament switching from possible child/human sacrifice to animal sacrifice is an improvement, but why the need for such a sacrifice at all?


If you read Leviticus where it explains how to sacrifice and all, you'll notice that the priests got to eat the meat. So, IMO, it was the first recorded time of religion to exploit the people so a few can reap the rewards of the people. And it still goes on to this day. Remember "a coin in the coffer" or "she's buying the stairway to heaven".




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Well, also keep in mind, preists don't get paid a salary or own farms. The preistly class is allways supported by what the Temple is given, food, cloth, etc.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, also keep in mind, preists don't get paid a salary or own farms. The preistly class is allways supported by what the Temple is given, food, cloth, etc.


Are you talking about today or back then? Because I can tell you, priests today DO get a salary and room and board.

Just in case you don't believe me. www.payscale.com...

Edit: And going by the payscale, most of those priests make alot more than I do. The difference is that I have to pay for my apartment/house. I also have to eat, which costs money (alot here in DC). So, to conclude, yes priests get paid (alot I might add) today.

[edit on 6/14/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 6/14/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 6/14/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I think I remember reading somewhere that the early Hebrew faith included a female consort to god, who was edited out in later years. I'll have to look it up though.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Isn't that what the "Davinci Code" is about kinda? A female consort of Jesus (who is God incarnate). I am one who believes in God and Goddess.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Isn't that what the "Davinci Code" is about kinda? A female consort of Jesus (who is God incarnate). I am one who believes in God and Goddess.

No, this is something a lot more nebulous. There have been some findings in Israel that mention a goddess called Asherah in conjunction as YHWH. Here's a link that goes into more detail. It's fascinating. www.theology.bham.ac.uk...

By the way - the DaVinci Code??? Badly written for a start!



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of this. I'll look into it.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
actually, I think the feminine in God is what we refer to the Holy Spirit. and well, then if you take this farther, when they claim that all sins will be forgiven, except the sin of Blasphamy against the Holy Spirit, well, maybe they're talking about denying the faminine of God, the Holy Spirit, and what she gives to the people of God...the fruits if the spirit...love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

if I were to put a gender to these traits, I'd classify most to be feminine. and, well, the church has, and still does, occasionally teach people to ignore these traits..to fight against them, in the name of obedience to humans, expecially if you are a female.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
or he could be talking to the angels from job 38:4-7

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

posted by dawnstar

I think the feminine in God is what we refer to as the Holy Spirit. When they claim all sins will be forgiven, except the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, well, maybe they're talking about denying the feminine of God, the Holy Spirit, and what she gives to the people of God . . [Edited by Don W]


D/S, I have given that sin, BoHS, a lot of thought. I am convinced it means to teach or preach falsely in the Name of God. A false teacher. A false prophet.



“ . . the church has and still does, occasionally teach people to ignore these traits . . to fight against them, in the name of obedience to humans, especially if you are a female.



For a variety of reasons, the Judeo-Christian religions and especially Islam, have been almost 100% dominated by men. I think that goes back to human pre-history when women were the homemakers and men the hunter-gathers. That put men into a pro-dominant setting. OTOH, it may be no more complicated than the anthropological fact men are larger and stronger than females. On average. Last, the virtues you named also tend to be regarded as “feminine” Western cultures whereas violence, cunning and brutishness tend to be masculine traits. End.


For Reference: Isis, though worshiped all over Egypt, was specially venerated in certain cities, and the following are among the most common of her titles: --"The great lady, the God-mother, lady of Re-a-nefer; Isis-Nebuut, lady of Sekhet; lady of Besitet; the queen of Mesen; Usert-Isis, giver of life, lady of Abaton, lady of Philae, lady of the countries of the south," etc. From a list of title of the goddess collected by Dr. Brugsch, it is clear that Isis was called Usert in Thebes, Aat, in Heliopolis, Menkhet, in Memphis, God-Mother . . See at www.touregypt.net...



[edit on 6/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackofBlades
I'm not like a bible-study-guy so I may be wrong but I thought the Trinity referred to Jesus, God etc?

If it does then wasn't genesis a long LONG time before he was even born? And you could say that God knew he was coming etc, but why would God feel the need to say this to someone who wasn't even concieved (far off)?

I think this is going to get some pretty good responses. Good eye!


Trinity is not an OT topic it is a NT topic



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
It confounds monotheism


posted by Mr Totality



posted by JackofBlades
I thought the Trinity referred to Jesus, God etc? If it does then wasn't Genesis a long time before He was born? you say that God knew he was coming etc, but why would God feel the need to say this to someone who wasn't even conceived? I think this is going to get some pretty good responses. [Edited by Don W]


Trinity is not an OT topic it is a NT topic



Mr T, there are passages in the NT that have Jesus speak of his “Father” which the reader is free to interpret as a reference to God. Other passages speak of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, again, which the reader is free to speculate may be one different and discernible attribute of God. And last, there are some verses which say Jesus is the Son of God, which may well refer to all of us, but also which the reader can infer is speaking of a progeny of God and etc.

How do you combine all this speculation and vague or ambiguous references to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Well, the early Christians concocted this notion of One God in three manifestations, ipso facto, the Doctrine of the Trinity. One equals three. Three equals one. Simple. So much for monotheism.

If you did not accept that as an article of faith, you could be burned at the stake. People took religion seriously in the good old days.



[edit on 6/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
We may be looking at an issue of interpretation here.

I don't speak Hebrew, but I speak English and Spanish.

In Spanish I would use plural forms of words if I were talking about a group OR if I were talking to/about someone of great importance.

I would say "tu" (you - singular) to my friend, "usted" (you - singular) to my boss, and "ustedes" (you - plural) if I were speaking to the president, king, god, etc.

There are many forms of the word you, depending on who you are talking about. Other pronouns work the same way.

If I wrote about a higher power in Spanish, all words that refer to that higher power would be the plural versions of the word. It would simply be a form of respect, not a belief that I was writing about more than one higher power.

If someone were to later translate my writing into English and translate them literally, they might mistakenly believe that I was talking about more than one deity.

Could Hebrew have worked the same way when Genesis was written?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   


posted by wellwhatnow

We may be looking at an issue of interpretation here. I don't speak Hebrew; I speak English and Spanish. In Spanish there are many forms of the word for “you,” depending on who you are talking about. All words in Spanish that refer to a higher power would be in the plural versions of the word. It would simply be a form of respect, not a belief that I was writing about more than one higher power.

If someone later was to translate my writing into English and translate the words literally, they might mistakenly believe that I was talking about more than one deity. Could Hebrew have worked the same way when Genesis was written? [Edited by Don W]


Very keen and I think, pertinent observations, wellwhatnow. I am amazed how we cannot agree on what was said over the WMD issue just 3 years ago. I thought the president said there were WMDs but now he says he only said he had credible evidence to believe there were WMDs. And etc.

Can you imagine how difficult it is for us to know what, if anything, Jesus said about anything? Jesus spoke in Aramaic. A Semitic language. It is generally agreed the first writing down of Jesus’ sayings was done 20-30 years after the fact, and in Greek. Those original manuscripts were long ago lost. At some point in time, the Greek was translated into Latin, which I believe is the oldest extant manuscript available today. 4th of 5th century.

We know every language and every age nuances its language. We know languages are in continuos evolution despite what one may think of Charles Darwin. So here we are today, wondering what someone said, in Language A, some 2000 years ago, in a wholly different time-set, a foreign and vastly different culture to our own, which was then written in Language B, and later copied into Language C, and now translated in Language D. And people want to kill other people over what it says?

Shortly after Vatican II, there was a “Jesus Group” of like minded people from all Christian faiths and a couple Jewish fellows. About 20-30 scholarly people. It was their goal to see if they could agree on what in the New Testament Jesus had actually said. Himself. It turned out all they could agree was Jesus’ own words were a couple partial lines from the Sermon on the Mount. Much of the Sermon was adopted from other religions or philosophies. Well, after that, we found the Ecumenical Spirit of V2 was much wider than it was deep, and the Catholic scholars were told to leave the group. With that, the group disbanded.

At that same time, a survey was made of seminarians. Somehow or other, a question was included whether the individuals believed in a Literal God. 10% of the seminarians said “no.” The seminaries did the “right” thing, and banned further polls. So much for scholarship.



[edit on 6/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
www.wrestedscriptures.com...

The trinity and angels were the first to come to my mind, good point though.


That is a great site, Mirthful Me, thanks for the link.

A year ago, I would have said it referred to the Three In One, God, the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spiirt, but I've recently been introduced to a teaching that there is actually only Two in the "Trinity". Don't want to get into that here though.

Elohim was a generalized term for God, I believe, and used by the recorders rather than Yahweh, simply because, in Genesis, God had not yet revealed His Name to mankind. See Exo 3:13-14.

If you'll notice, in KJV Strong's Concordance, neither "us", nor "our" is included in the original text and although the word transliterated as Elohim is defined in primarily plural terms, which no doubt prompted their uses, it isn't clear that the One speaking meant anything but "God said".

Also in the Hebrew Lexicon, this statement is included in the definition of the word, as a secondary meaning: (plural intensive - singular meaning) godlike one, works or special possessions of God, the (true) God, God.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

Many students of the ancient religions in the Land of Canaan and the struggles of the Hebrew people, believe that the story of Abraham and Isaac is the way the writer had to explain the end of child sacrifice which may have - indeed probably - was practiced by the old time Hebrews. The writer for the God of Abraham was suggesting an offering of a ram or goat might work as well as the sacrifice of a child. A big improvement, I’d say.


Good point, donwhite.

This act by Abraham and God was a pivotal point in human history, the likes of which wouldn't be seen again until we learned of Calvary. Abraham's absolute obedience and trust in God, shown in his telling Issac God would "provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (Gen 22:8), caused him to be named the father of the faith and remembered for all time, as well as prophecying the substitutionary death of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, for the sin of all mankind.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, also keep in mind, preists don't get paid a salary or own farms. The preistly class is allways supported by what the Temple is given, food, cloth, etc.


The Levites, the priests of the OT, had no particular share in the division of the land of Israel among their brothers, while those others were given land on which to build homes, grow crops and so on.

The Levites part was the "tithe" and except for that which was sacrificed in honor of God, eaten or otherwise used by them. That included, apparently, money as well as crops, bread, animals, cloth, and so on, etc.

Ref: Joshua 13:14 Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as he said unto them. In Numbers 35:2-8, the Levites were also given cities and "suburbs" at God's commandment as well as some land around the cities circumference(This can also be found in Joshua and Chronicles)



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   


posted by curiousity



posted by Nygdan
“ . . priests don't get paid a salary. . The priestly class is always supported by what the Temple is given, food, cloth, etc. [Edited by Don W]


The Levites, priests of the OT . . Joshua 13:14 "Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as he said unto them . . “
[Edited by Don W]


Actually, it is also thought the first priests of Israel were the descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother. This priesthood was called the “Aaronic” priesthood. They prevailed early in biblical history, especially in the Sinai. Later, after the conquest of the Promised Land, the Levites became dominant. Almost all of the OT was written by the Levites and only passing and usually derogatory references are made to the Aaronites who settled in Samaria.




“ . . had no particular share in the division of the land of Israel among their brothers, The Levites part was the "tithe" and except for that which was sacrificed in honor of God, included, apparently, money as well as crops, bread, animals, cloth, and so on, etc.”



But yet, C, you then offer a reference, Numbers 35, in which you quote, “ . . the Levites were also given cities and "suburbs" at God's commandment as well as some land around the cities circumference . . “

On the one hand you quote Joshua, “ . . [The Levites] had no particular share in the division of the land of Israel among their brothers, The Levites part was the "tithe" . . “

So which is it? No share in the land, or cities and suburbs? It seems each award is mutually exclusive.

Secular scholars think the OT was written between 1100-1300 BC and 200-400 BC. It was composed by many authors. As in Isaiah, at least 2 and more likely 3. Genesis is at least 2 and maybe many more. Up to 6. The varied names of God are no mystery if you see the final production we call a “book” was made of parts written over many years and by many people. Ultimately, the many fragments of writings were collected and then complied into one manuscript, not for the reason we give, but simply for convenience.

The old Israelites knew when they read the first Creation story who wrote it and so on, and they also knew when they read the second Creation story in Genesis who wrote it and what it signified. It posed no problems to them. They did not demand conformity. A "Harmony of the Bible" was not necessray for them.

We are the unitarians. One way. One book. One God. One way usually means our way. The ancient peoples seemed to have been very much more tolerant and much less certain of "the truth" than we today think or act like we are. 99% of our disputes arise when we assert the 39 books of the OT are the alpha and omega.

Non-Jewish people are very unlikely to really “know” or “understand” the intricacies and meanings embedded in the OT. 2 semesters of Old Testament in seminary does not an authority make. Pardon my Yiddish.



Ref: Joshua 13:14 Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as he said unto them. In Numbers 35:2-8, the Levites were also given cities and "suburbs" at God's commandment as well as some land around the cities circumference (This can also be found in Joshua and Chronicles)




[edit on 6/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhiteActually, it is also thought the first priests of Israel were the descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother. This priesthood was called the “Aaronic” priesthood.


Aaron was named the first priest, with his sons also named, they were of the tribe known as the Levites. (Exo 4:14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? Exo 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.)


Originally posted by donwhiteThey prevailed early in biblical history, especially in the Sinai. Later, after the conquest of the Promised Land, the Levites became dominant. Almost all of the OT was written by the Levites and only passing and usually derogatory references are made to the Aaronites who settled in Samaria.


There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about "Aaronites", derogatory, secular, or otherwise. As for the Levites 'becoming dominant', they were the priests named by God to tend the temple in the wilderness and to receive the tithes, if that is what you mean by "becoming dominant".


Originally posted by donwhiteBut yet, C, you then offer a reference, Numbers 35, in which you quote, “ . . the Levites were also given cities and "suburbs" at God's commandment as well as some land around the cities circumference . . “

On the one hand you quote Joshua, “ . . [The Levites] had no particular share in the division of the land of Israel among their brothers, The Levites part was the "tithe" . . ....So which is it? No share in the land, or cities and suburbs? It seems each award is mutually exclusive.


For someone who presents as being so "learned" in SECULAR OT history, you should have recognized the reference to the cities meant that they were located within the lands of the other tribes, I would think since the OT clearly says so. How could you not READ the OT and still apparently know so much about it?

Don't know if it is the racism inherent in your post and ones like it I've "tasted" , or the smug satisfaction in your own ignorance that parades itself so unbecomingly that's more inappropiate.

Knowledge puffeth up. Pardon my KJV English.


Edited to correct error in highlighting




[edit on 24-6-2006 by curiousity]

[edit on 24-6-2006 by curiousity]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
There is no one more dangerous than a religious man who is certain.

I believe you read the Holy Book backwards. That is, you start with 2006, and work backwards to find support for your conclusions.





[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join