Berzerker
Deity
I thought elohim was the plural form of god...gods
The Sons of God
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
All the "gods" were represented as one. or They viewed the singular God as a trinity (or perhaps having multiple attributes).
This is why you hear "Let us" "In our image". God as an incorporeal being was also referred to as the word, and as a spirit. God was not a collection of beings. God has no being. But how we view God is a collection of tangible items like pneuma and logos. The term used for God is YHWH which would translate to Jehovah. When humans address God, the term used is usually just the generic term for a plural God, but they are not addressing a pantheon of gods. It is understood that they were addressing the whole of the idea of what incorporates one God.
This is why you hear "Let us" "In our image". God as an incorporeal being was also referred to as the word, and as a spirit. God was not a collection of beings. God has no being. But how we view God is a collection of tangible items like pneuma and logos. The term used for God is YHWH which would translate to Jehovah. When humans address God, the term used is usually just the generic term for a plural God, but they are not addressing a pantheon of gods. It is understood that they were addressing the whole of the idea of what incorporates one God.
No, I'm not joking. I've been reading science fiction for 40 years, have read a fair bit about its history, attended discussions involving some of the best-known SF authors, and currently belong to Robert Silverberg's Yahoo! group (yes, he does post there and interact with the members). So I think I have a good grasp of what is and is not science fiction - and am quite aware that some stories are both SF and fantasy, and some may not seem like SF, but they are - they just fall into one of the various subgenres.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Maybe God is like a council, with a whole bunch of entities weighing in with their options, before the spokesperson goes out and delivers the verdict.
Cheetah
Deity
The Canaanites had a pantheon with gods much like/adapted from the older Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian) and Egyptian cultures.
All these different pantheons and their gods were eventually adapted to the Hittites, who just added the local gods to their own pantheon after every conquest - one wonders how they managed to remember them all). The Greeks adopted the Hittite gods for themselves, and renamed the most powerful Hittite god to Zeus. Then the Romans adopted the Greek pantheon and renamed the chief god Jupiter. Then the... etc!
Anyway, back to the Canaanites:
El was the chief god, much like Marduk (normally referred to as Bel "Lord", also bel rabim "great lord", bêl bêlim "lord of lords", ab-kal ilâni bêl terêti "leader of the gods", etc.) for the Babylonians or Ra / Amun-Ra ("king of the gods") / Atum-Ra (father of the deities and pharaohs) for the Egyptians. El held court in heaven, and the gods in the heavenly court would decide what to do ("let us create man in our image", etc.).
Ba'al was the god of thunder and rain, and sometimes rivaled El as the chief god. He was the chief god of the Hittites (and thus later Greeks and Romans), who named him Teshub.
Elohim are the children of El, or put another way, the members of the Canaanite pantheon - the gods.
At some point the royals in Jerusalem turned to monolatrism (belief in many gods, but only worshipping one) much like Athenaken had tried to do in Egypt centuries before. During the Babylonian exile this monolatrism was fused with the Zoroastrian idea that there are just one good and one bad god - Yahwe became the good, almighty god, and the angel Satan became the evil god.
All these different pantheons and their gods were eventually adapted to the Hittites, who just added the local gods to their own pantheon after every conquest - one wonders how they managed to remember them all). The Greeks adopted the Hittite gods for themselves, and renamed the most powerful Hittite god to Zeus. Then the Romans adopted the Greek pantheon and renamed the chief god Jupiter. Then the... etc!
Anyway, back to the Canaanites:
El was the chief god, much like Marduk (normally referred to as Bel "Lord", also bel rabim "great lord", bêl bêlim "lord of lords", ab-kal ilâni bêl terêti "leader of the gods", etc.) for the Babylonians or Ra / Amun-Ra ("king of the gods") / Atum-Ra (father of the deities and pharaohs) for the Egyptians. El held court in heaven, and the gods in the heavenly court would decide what to do ("let us create man in our image", etc.).
Ba'al was the god of thunder and rain, and sometimes rivaled El as the chief god. He was the chief god of the Hittites (and thus later Greeks and Romans), who named him Teshub.
Elohim are the children of El, or put another way, the members of the Canaanite pantheon - the gods.
At some point the royals in Jerusalem turned to monolatrism (belief in many gods, but only worshipping one) much like Athenaken had tried to do in Egypt centuries before. During the Babylonian exile this monolatrism was fused with the Zoroastrian idea that there are just one good and one bad god - Yahwe became the good, almighty god, and the angel Satan became the evil god.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Abraham and the children of Israel were not Canaanites. They may have used the term Elohim after they got to Canaan. They were from Harran which is in modern day Turkey.
When Abraham came to the land of Canaan, it was already an established people group. YHWH told Abraham to go there. That El was already an established concept and it carried the idea of a God and the plural was Elohim does not mean that was the concept of YHWH. It just means that Abraham spoke the language of the Canaanites and used their vocabulary.
One can go back and make up stories, but even those who study Biblical criticism for years and understand about the historical and archeological studies that have been made in the area, will tell you there is a difference between the Hebrews and the Canaanites.
There is a very strong possibility that the religion of Zoroastrian was influenced by Noah and his belief in YHWH. Canaan was also the grand son of Noah, but the Canaanites themselves did not stay with the concept of one God and they created the concept of El and the Elohim instead of sticking with the fact that God is one and the plurality is in God's attributes, and not a body of identifiable beings.
The Hebrews at times also left YHWH and followed after the current flavor of god worship. King Ahab and his queen Jezebel did worship Baal. During the captivity in Babylon the Jews were under the influence of Babylonian, Medean, and Persian rulers, but they never lost their relationship with YWHW and even rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed before captivity.
I do not think that it is possible to have a temple before captivity and then obtain the knowledge for YWHW and rebuild a temple and carry on a tradition that they just learned about. The reason that they were in captivity is because they left YWHW and served other gods. Their temple was destroyed and they had to make up 70 years worth of Sabbaths.
Saying that Noah had a relationship with YWHW 1000 years after the fact would not make sense either. Noah influenced the religion of Zoroaster which influenced the Persian rulers that there was one God, which influenced the Hebrews. That would be like saying we descended from Noah, but never figured out who he was until after we learned of Zoroaster. We had this temple tradition for years without any real meaning to it, until after we spent time in Babylon.
The next step would be to prove that Noah did not hold to a pantheon of gods. There were no pantheons before Noah or Noah's period of history. Is it easier to go from one God to a pantheon or to remove gods from a pantheon and narrow it down to just one? That is what science did. It came up with natural phenomenon that explained a miraculous event to take away the mystery. Removing the need for god/gods one test at a time. Giving humans a rational and naturalistic explanation of how nature works does not diminish the fact of God. It does eliminate the need for a pantheon of gods.
When Abraham came to the land of Canaan, it was already an established people group. YHWH told Abraham to go there. That El was already an established concept and it carried the idea of a God and the plural was Elohim does not mean that was the concept of YHWH. It just means that Abraham spoke the language of the Canaanites and used their vocabulary.
One can go back and make up stories, but even those who study Biblical criticism for years and understand about the historical and archeological studies that have been made in the area, will tell you there is a difference between the Hebrews and the Canaanites.
There is a very strong possibility that the religion of Zoroastrian was influenced by Noah and his belief in YHWH. Canaan was also the grand son of Noah, but the Canaanites themselves did not stay with the concept of one God and they created the concept of El and the Elohim instead of sticking with the fact that God is one and the plurality is in God's attributes, and not a body of identifiable beings.
The Hebrews at times also left YHWH and followed after the current flavor of god worship. King Ahab and his queen Jezebel did worship Baal. During the captivity in Babylon the Jews were under the influence of Babylonian, Medean, and Persian rulers, but they never lost their relationship with YWHW and even rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed before captivity.
I do not think that it is possible to have a temple before captivity and then obtain the knowledge for YWHW and rebuild a temple and carry on a tradition that they just learned about. The reason that they were in captivity is because they left YWHW and served other gods. Their temple was destroyed and they had to make up 70 years worth of Sabbaths.
Saying that Noah had a relationship with YWHW 1000 years after the fact would not make sense either. Noah influenced the religion of Zoroaster which influenced the Persian rulers that there was one God, which influenced the Hebrews. That would be like saying we descended from Noah, but never figured out who he was until after we learned of Zoroaster. We had this temple tradition for years without any real meaning to it, until after we spent time in Babylon.
The next step would be to prove that Noah did not hold to a pantheon of gods. There were no pantheons before Noah or Noah's period of history. Is it easier to go from one God to a pantheon or to remove gods from a pantheon and narrow it down to just one? That is what science did. It came up with natural phenomenon that explained a miraculous event to take away the mystery. Removing the need for god/gods one test at a time. Giving humans a rational and naturalistic explanation of how nature works does not diminish the fact of God. It does eliminate the need for a pantheon of gods.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Yeah. Silverberg, I like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Man_(novel)
Son of Man. Plausibly based on science, or not?
I haven't read that one. I'll have to check my bookshelves to see if I have it here or if it's still in storage.
Similar threads
