Ask a Theologian III

[El_Machinae]

Well, the main source of that hypothesis would be if Jesus brought far-east innovations in thinking (i.e., far-east philosphies) to the rabbinical thinking of the time. I don't know if you can really say that. This is especially confounded by the fact that some of the moral teachings in Matthew are likely attributes to Jesus in a "Confucius says" kinda way.

 

[Kyriakos]

I have a question for you, Plotinus

I sometimes wonder how much theology has occupied itself with the issue of the idea of a god, and how it was possible to be born in the mind of man.

When i was a very small child, possibly in the beginning of my school years, i heard the reference to a god and thought it was something of an external parent, a parent of the cosmos. This was not out of context with the rest of my view of the world, since i kept viewing the world at large (the world outside of my house) as something anonymous, and thus potentially very dangerous.

Whereas i did develop, in those early elementary school years, my idea of a god, it seems it went from a benevolent cosmic entity of the world, to a malignant enslaver of people, and in this i was probably influenced to a large extent by biblical phrases such as "a servant of the lord" (in greek the term used does not merely signify the rather neutral connotation of the english term "servant" but a slave ("doulos"), and even the term "Lord" (Kyrios) itself was something which appeared to me as ominous.

However i yet was not able to examine the issue in a deeper way, namely that which contains the question as to whether the idea of a god was "innate" or developed though the evolution of the mind, and humans through time.

It appears to me, now, that the notion of a god, a very significant one (although possibly not the most complicated one in the human psyche) could be seen as something which was born out the synthesis of fundamentally simple ideas (an example being my reference to my own recollections of how i formed an idea of a god in my early years) or it still could be said to be interwoven at least (if not downright innate itself) with elements of the mind that are by themselves perpetually complicated.

Of course there are examples of intricate works of theology, but it can be argued that they utilize the natural complexity of the human mind, only attaching it to the idea of god, and thus the complexity itself can be said to be not linked naturally to that idea in the first place.

Camus once wrote that "if you name things falsely you extend the misery of the world" and some theologians have created tautologies of god with terms such as "love". This is an example of what could (very crudely in this case) serve as a basis for a false extrapolation of the significance the term "god" has by itself in the human mind.

So, to sum up: does Theology in your view provide an in-depth analysis of how the idea of a god came to be? And does it do so using what, in your own mind, is coherent, logical arguments? Or is it prone to fall pray to such, perceived by me, mental errors of connecting an already intricate term with other ones and thus leading the search into fields where this creature of the mind does not appear to have got formed in the first place?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well, the main source of that hypothesis would be if Jesus brought far-east innovations in thinking (i.e., far-east philosphies) to the rabbinical thinking of the time. I don't know if you can really say that. This is especially confounded by the fact that some of the moral teachings in Matthew are likely attributes to Jesus in a "Confucius says" kinda way.

Hi. I am afraid my English is limited. So you are saying that there are possible similiarities with eastern philosophy?
I dont know no about Jesus being a "thinker", he may not even cared much for philosophy as such but he must have brought some "innovations" to those rabbies who wanted him to be crucified...

 

[El_Machinae]

The evidence would be IF he brought eastern philosophical innovations. I don't know if he did.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I have a question for you, Plotinus

I sometimes wonder how much theology has occupied itself with the issue of the idea of a god, and how it was possible to be born in the mind of man.

When i was a very small child, possibly in the beginning of my school years, i heard the reference to a god and thought it was something of an external parent, a parent of the cosmos. This was not out of context with the rest of my view of the world, since i kept viewing the world at large (the world outside of my house) as something anonymous, and thus potentially very dangerous.

However i yet was not able to examine the issue in a deeper way, namely that which contains the question as to whether the idea of a god was "innate" or developed though the evolution of the mind, and humans through time.

I think that idea of god may be "innate" to the human beings but not to the mind. Rather to what is called psychic being or some part of it. At the age of 6,7 human mind starts to develop and by the age of 11, 12 it forms dominat part of human cosciousness overclouding the psychic, controling the emotional and physical and bringing in doubts and confusion...
This is I think why there is a call for pople (human consciousness) to be "like children" so that they can once again facilitate conection (or comunication) with some inner reality (God).

 

[Plotinus]

Thank you very much. I see I am even going to improve my English. Thx again.
So I assume you dont know any source or who could possibly made such a statment. I just have may heard it from somebody years ago who possibly read it somewhere.... What I remember being told he was supposed to go there and back with caravan and stay there for about a year or so which would take about a tree years of his life. I didnt discard that information (hypotesis) as it seems to me probable (not incredibly unlikely) that there existed such a trade conection between the twoo corners of the continent and partialy would explain the luck of our knowledge about his life before he become what we call Christ. Also he was a lower class but certainly no ordinary dude.
As for Jesus going to England and south America I agree of course

There certainly is a legend that Jesus went to India. I believe there are even sites in India claiming to be his tomb. But such stories are very late and obviously completely legendary. There's just no evidence of even slight reliability that anything like this happened.

The fact that we don't know much about almost all of Jesus' life doesn't really need explaining. He was a very obscure person from a pretty obscure place, who became significant in the eyes of the world only some time after his death. In his lifetime, he wasn't even the most prominent wandering religious teacher from Galilee (John the Baptist was more prominent). Really it's remarkable that we know as much about him as we do, not that we don't know more.

Also I wanted to ask if Jesus was suposed to make some coments on the Old Testament and which.

There are lots of references to the Old Testament in the Gospels, where Jesus is reported as commenting on it - so I don't know quite what you're asking here.

Hi. I am afraid my English is limited. So you are saying that there are possible similiarities with eastern philosophy?
I dont know no about Jesus being a "thinker", he may not even cared much for philosophy as such but he must have brought some "innovations" to those rabbies who wanted him to be crucified...

No rabbis wanted Jesus crucified - there weren't any rabbis in Jesus' day. Rabbis came later.

The idea that Jesus was crucified because Jewish religious teachers wanted him dead is pretty contentious anyway - let alone that they wanted it because of what he taught. This is more likely to be a later Christian invention. Jesus probably died because he was a potential trouble maker who was going around making inflammatory eschatological predictions at a time of high tension in Jerusalem. We know of various other people who were arrested or executed for things like this, without making any philosophical or theological innovations.

In fact, most of Jesus' actual teaching, as reported in the Gospels, is pretty much in line with Jewish teaching of the day, particularly the more liberal schools of thought within Pharisaism.

The evidence would be IF he brought eastern philosophical innovations. I don't know if he did.

I can't think of any evidence that he did.

I have a question for you, Plotinus

I sometimes wonder how much theology has occupied itself with the issue of the idea of a god, and how it was possible to be born in the mind of man.

When i was a very small child, possibly in the beginning of my school years, i heard the reference to a god and thought it was something of an external parent, a parent of the cosmos. This was not out of context with the rest of my view of the world, since i kept viewing the world at large (the world outside of my house) as something anonymous, and thus potentially very dangerous.

Whereas i did develop, in those early elementary school years, my idea of a god, it seems it went from a benevolent cosmic entity of the world, to a malignant enslaver of people, and in this i was probably influenced to a large extent by biblical phrases such as "a servant of the lord" (in greek the term used does not merely signify the rather neutral connotation of the english term "servant" but a slave ("doulos"), and even the term "Lord" (Kyrios) itself was something which appeared to me as ominous.

However i yet was not able to examine the issue in a deeper way, namely that which contains the question as to whether the idea of a god was "innate" or developed though the evolution of the mind, and humans through time.

It appears to me, now, that the notion of a god, a very significant one (although possibly not the most complicated one in the human psyche) could be seen as something which was born out the synthesis of fundamentally simple ideas (an example being my reference to my own recollections of how i formed an idea of a god in my early years) or it still could be said to be interwoven at least (if not downright innate itself) with elements of the mind that are by themselves perpetually complicated.

Of course there are examples of intricate works of theology, but it can be argued that they utilize the natural complexity of the human mind, only attaching it to the idea of god, and thus the complexity itself can be said to be not linked naturally to that idea in the first place.

Camus once wrote that "if you name things falsely you extend the misery of the world" and some theologians have created tautologies of god with terms such as "love". This is an example of what could (very crudely in this case) serve as a basis for a false extrapolation of the significance the term "god" has by itself in the human mind.

So, to sum up: does Theology in your view provide an in-depth analysis of how the idea of a god came to be? And does it do so using what, in your own mind, is coherent, logical arguments? Or is it prone to fall pray to such, perceived by me, mental errors of connecting an already intricate term with other ones and thus leading the search into fields where this creature of the mind does not appear to have got formed in the first place?

On the tautologies, I don't know why you would call "God is love" a tautology - on the contrary it's in sharp contrast to what a lot of people seem to believe about God, including some people who believe that that statement is scriptural. The statement isn't supposed to be analysing the meaning of the word "God", it's supposed to be saying something about the nature of the entity we denote by the word "God". It may be a true assertion or it may be a false one, but you can't assume it's false just because it's not analytic.

I don't think that connecting one idea to another is an error per se. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is when you think that something has properties when you don't have good reason to do so.

On the main question, it depends on your point of view. From one point of view, theology is little other than an analysis of the idea of God, where it comes from, and how it matches up to the reality. I would say that much of the western liberal theological tradition from Schleiermacher onwards, and especially Barth, is concerned with that question above all. But it doesn't really attempt to answer it historically. From that point of view, theology isn't bothered about this question at all, which is really an anthropological question rather than a theological one. Anthropologically speaking, it's still very much an uncertain question whether the idea of God is somehow innate to human nature, and if so, to what degree. I'd be inclined to think that the idea of the supernatural in general is innate or nearly so, but God in the classical sense is just one possible form of that idea.

 

[Kyriakos]

Interesting, so you claim that the idea of god is a special case of the idea of supernatural.
However it can be said that the supernatural is sometimes connected to a deity in the same way that a clock is connected to its maker. However it is not that clear which idea preceded which; it seems plausible that the idea of the supernatural was there first, or was even innate, and then there came a sense of wonder at what enabled it to be.
It would seem from your own statement that you saw god as a being inside the supernatural, or rather produced as a meaning by the pondering of the supernatural. Would that, projected and expanded, signify that you have the view that the idea of god was in a way behind the idea of the supernatural, not in a way which would diminish its significance next to it, but as advanced mathematics can be said to have been in most cases beyond the foundations of mathematics?

Also, as to whether or not the supernatural is an innate idea, there have been theories according to which it was formed as a (unconscious at first) reaction of primitive man to the incomprehensible and hostile environment, that is man sought to control the external world, but due to his yet pitiful state inside of it he reacted by forming a different connection to it, a connection to an idea of it, thus setting the basis of imaginary appreciation of the external world.

In that respect it might seem that the supernatural is not necessarily an innate idea.

 

[Plotinus]

It depends on what you mean by "innate". I was using it in a loose and vernacular sense to mean an idea which is (a) very common, and (b) very ancient, in the sense that, as far as we know, people have always or almost always had it. That's not to say that it's universal or somehow biologically programmed into us; I think that calling an idea "innate" in this sense is compatible with saying that it emerged at an early stage of human history.

Of course there's a stronger sense of "innate" which means an idea which is absolutely built in to us, to the degree that no-one lacks it, and even someone who never experienced anything would have it. Obviously it's pretty controversial that any such ideas exist at all. I would be inclined to think that there are innate concepts in this sense, but that not of particular things (and certainly not God) - more like time, space, causation, and so on - the categories by which we order our thinking rather than the (usual) objects of thought.

I didn't mean to say that the idea of God is a more advanced form of the idea of the supernatural, as higher maths is to normal maths; I meant more that it's a particular instance of supernatural thinking, so the relation is of the particular to the general. There are all kinds of beliefs which count as beliefs in something supernatural, and to my mind belief in God is just one of these.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The fact that we don't know much about almost all of Jesus' life doesn't really need explaining. He was a very obscure person from a pretty obscure place, who became significant in the eyes of the world only some time after his death. In his lifetime, he wasn't even the most prominent wandering religious teacher from Galilee (John the Baptist was more prominent). Really it's remarkable that we know as much about him as we do, not that we don't know more.

I think it needs an explanation. You have provided one. If I am right John the baptist has pointed out Jesus as somehow superior to himself. Also if I recolect we know some story from Jesus childhood when he was supposed to turn water into wine which I asume he has narrated to his followers.
My explanation of this gap would be that simply Jesus did not consider it to be important to know the details of his past and wanted his disciples to record his present

 

[Plotinus]

I think it needs an explanation. You have provided one. If I am right John the baptist has pointed out Jesus as somehow superior to himself. Also if I recolect we know some story from Jesus childhood when he was supposed to turn water into wine which I asume he has narrated to his followers.

I don't know if there's any good reason to think that John the Baptist really said Jesus was superior to himself; I should think that's more easily explained by the authors of the Gospels wanting to make it clear that Jesus was more important than John the Baptist even though he started off as a follower of John the Baptist. (Which in itself suggests that he really was a follower of John the Baptist, since if he hadn't been, they wouldn't have made it up.)

The water into wine episode supposedly took place when Jesus was an adult, not when he was a child. The only story about Jesus as a child which appears in the canonical Gospels is the story about his parents leaving him behind accidentally at the Temple, which appears in Luke. There are plenty of other stories about his childhood in non-canonical texts, but they're obviously legendary, and indeed the Temple story seems pretty legendary too.

My explanation of this gap would be that simply Jesus did not consider it imporatant to know the details of his past and wanted his disciples to record his present

I don't think there's any reason to suppose that Jesus wanted them to record anything; there's no evidence that the Gospels were written because Jesus had instructed anyone to do so. Surely the most obvious explanation is that the Gospels were written on the basis of memories and stories originally passed on by the people who followed him, that is, his disciples; so naturally they would be concerned exclusively with his ministry, since that's when he had disciples. Moreover, they were written not to be biographies of the Great Man but to persuade people that he was, among other things, the Messiah. Describing all the furniture he made in the years before his ministry wouldn't be very helpful from that point of view.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Also, as to whether or not the supernatural is an innate idea, there have been theories according to which it was formed as a (unconscious at first) reaction of primitive man to the incomprehensible and hostile environment, that is man sought to control the external world, but due to his yet pitiful state inside of it he reacted by forming a different connection to it, a connection to an idea of it, thus setting the basis of imaginary appreciation of the external world.

In that respect it might seem that the supernatural is not necessarily an innate idea.

I think its more complex than that. Surely people even being an atheists sometimes in the case of danger invoke the supernatural just like the last instance.
But what the primitive man thought about his heartbeat, digestion, procreation? these are examples of things which are for him incomprehensible not within his control (partialy) yet within his own existence and very inteligent procesess (signes of higher inteligence).
Also why would I try to invent supernatural to control the external? Becouse I need to control the internal (emotions, vitality) first...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Moreover, they were written not to be biographies of the Great Man but to persuade people that he was, among other things, the Messiah. Describing all the furniture he made in the years before his ministry wouldn't be very helpful from that point of view.

Surely those around Jesus wanted as much prove for themselfs as possible that he was the One. Do you think they didnt ask him about his past? Do you think he replied that he was just making some furniture?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think its more complex than that. Surely people even being an atheists sometimes in the case of danger invoke the supernatural just like the last instance.
But what the primitive man thought about his heartbeat, digestion, procreation? these are examples of things which are for him incomprehensible not within his control (partialy) yet within his own existence and very inteligent procesess (signes of higher inteligence).
Also why would I try to invent supernatural to control the external? Becouse I need to control the internal (emotions, vitality) first...

It would seem possible that no matter how incomplete (at best) control one has over his emotions and other internal processes (perhaps having control would make the whole system fail, after all, as a certain lack of control could be the prerequisite for immediate consciousness to exist) the thousands of years of human evolution have stabilized us in a way which is beneficial to our survival.
But the first primitive man did not have that. It is not known how his psyche was, perhaps it was pronouncedly different from that of the man of the historic period.
One has to estimate that the first man did not have language, or had something of an ancient precursor to it. This too would seem to mean that he could not stabilize his ideas of a clear distinction between the external and the imaginary world, not in the form of communicated notions. An eternity of darkness might have preceded the notions we take for granted now, such as the internal world, the external world, the supernatural and so on.

Perhaps the first man was in some ways even animal-like, i am agnostic on that. But i like the saying "Deus est Anima Brutorum" (God is the soul of the animals) since it seems to me to work in a symbolic way, ie that the soul of primitive man might have been dominated by such wild, sporadic, often violent, ideas which to us can be expressed by terms such as god and the supernatural, but to him they would have appeared to have been something very different from the usually anodyne specter they are for the man of the historic era, and even more so the man of modernity.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It would seem possible that no matter how incomplete (at best) control one has over his emotions and other internal processes (perhaps having control would make the whole system fail, after all, as a certain lack of control could be the prerequisite for immediate consciousness to exist) the thousands of years of human evolution have stabilized us in a way which is beneficial to our survival.
But the first primitive man did not have that. It is not known how his psyche was, perhaps it was pronouncedly different from that of the man of the historic period.
One has to estimate that the first man did not have language, or had something of an ancient precursor to it. This too would seem to mean that he could not stabilize his ideas of a clear distinction between the external and the imaginary world, not in the form of communicated notions. An eternity of darkness might have preceded the notions we take for granted now, such as the internal world, the external world, the supernatural and so on.

Perhaps the first man was in some ways even animal-like, i am agnostic on that. But i like the saying "Deus est Anima Brutorum" (God is the soul of the animals) since it seems to me to work in a symbolic way, ie that the soul of primitive man might have been dominated by such wild, sporadic, often violent, ideas which to us can be expressed by terms such as god and the supernatural, but to him they would have appeared to have been something very different from the usually anodyne specter they are for the man of the historic era, and even more so the man of modernity.

Yeah, I really do not feel like I need to be in full control of my digestion, thank God for that! Not to speak that every cell in our body performs some inteligent action on its own and with harmony with the rest. Ithink I would be really busy if I had to take care of all that and probably wouldnt have time to play civilization and if I would have made as many mistakes as I do in my job I would have been in a real mess.
I am sorry I dont understand how lack of contol can support the consciousness. I see it the other way around. More I master the different forces of nature (external, internal, lower or higher) the more developed (finer, powerful) my consciousness is.
I think you are right that humans needed some stabilization when evolved from animals as the developed mind alowes to subdue and dominate the animal (internal and external) but it also brings troubles on its own. When I think about it there is still big part of animal in us covered by coat of human.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, I really do not feel like I need to be in full control of my digestion, thank God for that! Not to speak that every cell in our body performs some inteligent action on its own and with harmony with the rest. Ithink I would be really busy if I had to take care of all that and probably wouldnt have time to play civilization and if I would have made as many mistakes as I do in my job I would have been in a real mess.
I am sorry I dont understand how lack of contol can support the consciousness. I see it the other way around. More I master the different forces of nature (external, internal, lower or higher) the more developed (finer, powerful) my consciousness is.
I think you are right that humans needed some stabilization when evolved from animals as the developed mind alowes to subdue and dominate the animal (internal and external) but it also brings troubles on its own. When I think about it there is still big part of animal in us covered by coat of human.

Interesting that you should mention digestion, since in fact there have been known cases of people who were of the view that they consciously controlled part of it, along with other physical mechanisms of their body. Perhaps a very famous one of those was the writer Franz Kafka, who often appears to have believed with varying levels of seriousness that he was causing his internal organs to collapse with his thoughts. A characteristic line in that manner was his final reasoning that his tuberculosis was the result of his symbolic trauma regarding Felice Bauer.
Also there is a modern connection of consciousness with the body, in that sickness in the world of thought can either lead to, or worsen, sickness of the body.

I claimed that a degree of lack of control of the soul (which obviously exists; are you of the view that you control that inside your soul which enables you to have a consciousness, or an Ego in the first place? ) seems to be beneficial in the sustaining of healthy extroverted interests as well, without which the individual would probably become an ouroboros of thought (eating his 'metaphorical' tail, ie endlessly reflecting on his mental world).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Interesting that you should mention digestion, since in fact there have been known cases of people who were of the view that they consciously controlled part of it, along with other physical mechanisms of their body. Perhaps a very famous one of those was the writer Franz Kafka, who often appears to have believed with varying levels of seriousness that he was causing his internal organs to collapse with his thoughts. A characteristic line in that manner was his final reasoning that his tuberculosis was the result of his symbolic trauma regarding Felice Bauer.
Also there is a modern connection of consciousness with the body, in that sickness in the world of thought can either lead to, or worsen, sickness of the body.

I claimed that a degree of lack of control of the soul (which obviously exists; are you of the view that you control that inside your soul which enables you to have a consciousness, or an Ego in the first place? ) seems to be beneficial in the sustaining of healthy extroverted interests as well, without which the individual would probably become an ouroboros of thought (eating his 'metaphorical' tail, ie endlessly reflecting on his mental world).

I guess I see consciousness as a watter like surface in which are projected the different parts which constitute me as a being. Some parts may be just temporary(ego) some are in process of evolution(mind, emotions) some in process of involution(soul).
I would see the soul as actual me even thought I am unaware of it. Which infact enables the rest of the being its proper functionality.

So maybe one could think it to be possible that through a medium of consciousness one can affect the different parts of ones being either consciously or not.

 

[Kyriakos]

I guess I see consciousness as a watter like surface in which are projected the different parts which constitute me as a being. Some parts may be just temporary(ego) some are in process of evolution(mind, emotions) some in process of involution(soul).
I would see the soul as actual me even thought I am unaware of it. Which infact enables the rest of the being its proper functionality.

So maybe one could think it to be possible that through a medium of consciousness one can affect the different parts of ones being either consciously or not.

I find the statement that this way of thinking "enables the rest of the being its proper functionality" rather worth a remark

Perhaps it is indeed so, although this is an issue of vast proportion and i would not try to sum it up in one sentence. But i mean that perhaps indeed the lack of awareness of the deeper parts of the soul is beneficial to the healthy development of consciousness. This is a delicate equation, and one can be only intuitive about it if one is to produce such aphorisms.
But my own statement was not necessarily contradictory to that: i claimed that it seems that at least a degree of extroverted interest seems crucial to health in the mental world. However as someone very interested in the more esoteric realms of the psyche i cannot agree with you that it should be the case that consciousness should be developed without glimpses in the deeper layers below it.
Now the vast majority of people will not interest themselves with such a task, or barely see it as intelligible either. But this does not have to mean it is detrimental in principle to our development.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have three questions:

My first one is about Augustine. Did he believe in Predestination? And to what point? I have heard that he did from some people, but I have heard from others that he was inconsistent on that belief. What did Augustine teach about it?

My second question is about Martin Luther, and basically the same question I asked about Augustine; did he accept Predestination? I've heard people tell me IRL that he definitely did, but according to his Wikipedia page he did not.

My third question is about early Christianity (First 500 years.) Were there any known Christians in the first 500 years which addressed those who had never heard the Gospel? Did they ever consider whether or not their fate would be different than those who heard the Gospel and rejected it? What did they say about it?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I find the statement that this way of thinking "enables the rest of the being its proper functionality" rather worth a remark

Perhaps it is indeed so, although this is an issue of vast proportion and i would not try to sum it up in one sentence. But i mean that perhaps indeed the lack of awareness of the deeper parts of the soul is beneficial to the healthy development of consciousness. This is a delicate equation, and one can be only intuitive about it if one is to produce such aphorisms.
But my own statement was not necessarily contradictory to that: i claimed that it seems that at least a degree of extroverted interest seems crucial to health in the mental world. However as someone very interested in the more esoteric realms of the psyche i cannot agree with you that it should be the case that consciousness should be developed without glimpses in the deeper layers below it.
Now the vast majority of people will not interest themselves with such a task, or barely see it as intelligible either. But this does not have to mean it is detrimental in principle to our development.

Here is an aphorism I like: the soul is a real gentleman which waits to be invited to come in.

I dont think we have a dissagreement. The man just lives on the "surface" of his consciousness so indeed by a slow process of its development one can achieve ones full potential.

 

[Arakhor]

Plotinus, what do you think of the theory that many of the Bible passages actually contain coded (or outright concealed) passages that refer to early polytheistic beliefs amongst the Israelites? Modern archaeology hints very strongly that the Israelites and the Canaanites were actually the same people, so it wouldn't be too unlikely to believe they were polytheists as well. The names El and Ashera keep popping up in the Bible and they are very similar to the Babylonian chief deity (portrayed as a kindly, long-bearded old man) and his wife. There was even a piece of pottery found (and lost) in the Sinai desert in the 1990s, said to have been marked with the names of both Yahweh and Ashera.

It doesn't make any difference to me whether the early Israelites were polytheistic or not, but I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.