(15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...I will be dealing with an unusually important question in this week’s mailbag: is it right to consider Judaism and Christianity monotheistic?
QUESTION:
Aren’t Judaism and Christianity really henotheistic rather than monotheistic? For example, even in the 10 Commandments it merely says YHWH is the only god to be worshiped, not that He is the only god. And in Christianity there is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Satan, angels and demons, and in some sects, Mary the queen of heaven. And I would think all the pagans coming into the church would bring along their polytheistic thinking – perhaps that is part of the reason Jesus was elevated to the status of God.
RESPONSE:
This is a very good question, and as you might imagine, a lot of it comes down to how one defines one’s terms. One set of definitions involves the actual terms themselves. Normally “Monotheism” is understood to be the belief that there is only one God, no other; “Henotheism” is the belief that there are other gods, but only one of them is to be worshiped. The other set of definitions is more a matter of categories: what constitutes a “god”? Are all supernatural and superhuman beings who dwell in heaven to be considered gods? For example, are archangels a kind of god? Some people (ancient and modern) would say yes, others would say no.
And so, is it better to call Judaism and Christianity monotheistic or henotheistic?
My view is …
To see the rest of this post, you need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! It costs less than an order of fries a month, and is *so* much better for you. And every dime you pay goes to charity — so, unlike a trip to Burger King, there is no downside!
On the subject of minor gods, Catholics are encouraged to pray to saints ( individuals whose earthly lives have been adjudged by the Church to be of sufficient holiness to warrant entry into heaven) for intercession with God. Each saint is assigned an area of specialty, i. e. Saint Anthony for lost articles, e.g. They are also encouraged to pray to their guardian angels, each person being assigned one.
As I said below, that is not considered worship. Obviously it’s a thin line, since you do revere saints, but you can revere living people without worshiping them as gods.
There are certain practices within the global structure of the church, such as Santeria, where older pagan practices continue under the guise of Christianity, and the saints are standing in for African tribal gods, such as Chango of the Yoruba tribe (oh, so many good songs from Cuba about him).
That would qualify as henotheism, I believe. But standard Catholic prayers to saints, not being worship per se, are probably not–though I must make this mental reservation–an individual Catholic might well feel such a devotion to (for example) Mary that it amounts to worship. And as long as you don’t say that’s what it is, nobody pays you any mind.
A purely monotheistic faith, where there are no supernatural entities other than ‘God’ is, I think we must confess, rather boring. Even Muslims believe in djinn. And even Hindus can believe in a higher god. It’s a rich tapestry.
Thin line indeed – goes back to defining one’s terms. My recent foray into a local convent (a quite place for prayer and meditation) I observed various vaticanist enter and come before the statues – leave flowers, pray to them….
Looks like “worship” in any meaningful sense to me….
Sango not chango
Your quote from 1 Cor 8:5 surprised me, so I looked. I noticed that the NIV puts scare-quotes around “gods” and “lords”, while the NRSV doesn’t. Is this another example of the NIV translators’ theological bias influencing their choices?
Every translation is necessarily an interpretation — no way around it. So yeah, the thing is full of biases based on previous interpretation, as is true of every translation.
Since I was in my twenties, I’ve thought Christianity – especially, perhaps, Catholicism – is a thinly-disguised polytheism. (The most outrageous part of it being those “guardian angels.” Yuck!)
I once heard the host of a Catholic radio show advise bereaved parents to pray to their dead infants. Utterly revolting.
There is no such doctrine in Catholicism, and never once, growing up, was anything remotely similar to this ever mentioned. People used to say all kinds of things about the beliefs of Catholics that were not true, mainly as a veiled form of bigotry against immigrants from Catholic countries.
Who was this host of which you speak? Just FYI, ANYBODY can host a radio show these days, and pretty much anyone does. Protestants and even atheists have been known to say some truly bizarre things in drive time. Competitive media market.
But all this is assuming you are correctly recounting what you heard, and that you understood what this person was saying.
Why don’t you just stick with the idol-worshiping thing? Or hey, nuns are the priest’s harem?
The thing about child sexual abuse was actually true, but weirdly, none of the nattering nabobs of Nativism talked about that, back in the golden age of Anti-Popery.
(I’m guessing because a lot of them were doing it too)
Dr Bart. The gospel of Mathew narrates a case in which Herod thought Jesus was resurrected John the Baptist based on the rumours that was flying around. again in the Gospel of John there several instances in which the resurrected Jesus was not recognised until he broke bread with them. considering there were many apocalyptic preacher before, during and after Jesus.
1. Is this not an indication that the stories of the gospels might have been woven together from different figures since they will most likely have the same nature?
2. is it not possible that the person thought to be Jesus as in the case of John’s gospel was just another apocalyptic preacher confused to be Jesus? which I think would have fuel the idea of Jesus resurrection
(In connection to my 2nd question) since the people were found of misrepresenting new apocalyptic preacher as old one. There seem to be a pattern right there. And it also indicate that the people were not new to the concept of resurrection.
1. It’s possible, but seems unlikely; 2. If Jesus wasn’t an actual person, why would someone else be confused to be him?
That’s the point. They were not so much concern if Jesus was john the Baptist or not as it were. Plus they were having problem recognizing him he appears. is it not possible that its the same people that confused Jesus for resurrected John the baptist also confused these new men popping up in John’s gospel as Jesus and promoted the idea of his resurrection
Did the authors of the gospels actually care whether or not the stories actually happened
One would assume so! Especially, e.g., given Luke 1:1-4
Hi Bart,
If I may, I have a question about the fate of Jesus’s body. I have read the arguments about why a common grave was the most likely final resting place, because it was part of the punishment. But if the Romans really didn’t allow victims to be buried, wouldn’t readers of the early gospels have known that? Just as they knew Jesus was from Nazareth, and so stories had to be included to explain that he was somehow born in Bethlehem, wouldn’t have readers of Mark have been aware that crucifixion victims didn’t get a burial?
Yes, that’s probalby why they go out of their way to give an “unusual” explanation (a very wealthy person with connections made a special request for the body)
But wouldn’t gospel readers have been aware that the Romans didn’t surrender bodies to anyone, not even rich Arimatheans?
They probably thought exceptions could be made. See today’s post.
We have Josephus story about how he interceded for 2 crucified friends of his and actually got them down from their crosses, and one of them survived. Josephus had a special position within the Roman hierarchy, as we know, and I’m not sure that any of Jesus’s followers had any clout with the Romans. I suppose if Herod had asked for Jesus’s body (dead or alive), the Romans might have done him that favor, except that as far as we know Herod despised Jesus as the reincarnation of John the Baptist, his “enemy.” Right?
Yes. None of jesus’ followers had any connedtion with any of the elite, let alone with herod or pilate.
I made that same point many months ago in a different thread. If Romans never allowed crucified victims to be buried, then everybody would know that. The contentions of the gospels – that Jesus had been taken off the cross – would have immediately been seen as “bogus”.
Everybody knows “pigs don’t fly”, so as soon as you throw that into your otherwise-credible appearing story, all credibility goes out the window.
My guess is that it was common knowledge that, in Judea at least, Romans allowed crucified victims to be taken off the cross, except in times of war or insurgencies.
How in practice, might the earliest Israelites have followed the commandment to the letter “have no other god before me” by having other gods AFTER Yahweh?
They weren’t ordered to have other gods after Yahweh!
It all depends on what was meant by saying “Have no other gods before me.” In my Hebrew School days (75 years ago), I thought this meant that there was no such thing as another “real” god, but rather idols or fanciful inventions of the pagans. In other words there really wasn’t any other “true” god, just fairy tales. Isn’t that still a possible interpretation of what you call the henotheistic version?
I don’t think so — it is not a command to believe in only one God.
I actually know a guy who understands the verse that way. He thinks there are gods after Yahweh. He has some ither very strange beliefs as well. Every three months or so he tells me Jesus is about to come back and every three months or so he has to recalculate. I don’t wanna say I’ve given up hope on someone but I’ve given up hope on him.
Catholics are often accused of being polytheistic by praying to saints (the standard response is to say that you are praying with the saint, not to him/her, and the saint intercedes on your behalf with God, kind of like a celestial shyster lawyer).
I think most if not all religions tend to vacillate between monotheism and polytheism, and henotheism is the midway point where the two extremes meet. Polytheistic faiths can, at times, show montheistic tendencies–Native Americans clearly had many gods, but still some of them talked about ‘The Great Spirit.’ There’s usually some notion of a higher form of the godhead, the creator figure, the divine overseer, more enigmatic, less involved in our daily existences, and far less human–much harder to tell good stories about. Tricksters like Raven and Coyote are a lot more fun, because they’re standing in for us.
You couldn’t tell an interesting story about the All-knowing All-powerful God of the Israelites. Not without somebody else stirring the pot–a serpent in the garden. Or Lilith. And a religion that can’t tell interesting stories isn’t going to last very long. Tellingly, most of the stories in the Old and New Testament only tantentially deal with Yahweh. They’re about humans. Some of whom are so powerful and/or long-lived, they might as well be gods. Even in Job, where God really is treated as a character with a POV of His own, you need the Adversary.
I will say, my ancestors seemed to be as polytheistic as they come–I’ve studied a lot of their mythology, and I see no indication they believed in any form of higher deity who created Everything. And yet, when Christianity arrived in Ireland, unarmed and defenseless–they embraced it in a few generations. While still holding onto a lot of the old beliefs. Weird. Well, that’s the Irish for you.
I apologize for referring to Native Americans and their (in many cases) still extant religions in the past tense.
If Jesus was God in the flesh, then was the spirit of the Father inside his body? If the Father’s spirit was in his body, then did heaven go a period without any God? For this and many other reasons it seems impossible to reconcile the Trinity. One plus one plus one equals three. Ironically, I think most Christians would say it’s the Spirit that has borne witness to them that Christianity is true. Yet, this same Spirit gets virtually no gratitude.
That would be a set of questions for theologians, not for a lowly historian like me!
“The Jewish author, Philo, for example, thought that the “Word” (LOGOS) of God was a distinct being from God the Father”
An opinion shared by the Gospel of John author(s) who, in the opening verses, turn the pre-existent “Word” into an earthly Jesus. Similar to Paul’s son of God who was killed and resurrected in the lower heaven.
The “Trinity” is an attempt by Christianity to define and package what can’t be defined or packaged. The key of understanding all of this begins at Genesis 2:4, as has been emphasized. (The Gospel of Thomas is an important element in the grand understanding as well). We have come from Genesis 1:1. Genesis 2:4 cast us into the matrix. It is now time to return home, and reign.
The trinity is an attempt to explain the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, it’s got very little to do with Genesis 1 or 2, aside from the general theme of God’s nature.
As you indicate, these terms are pretty fuzzy and blurred to begin with, but I would argue that the archaeology supports the view that the earliest forms of Israelite religion were fully polytheistic, not henotheistic. Even Yahweh himself was originally a subordinate deity to El, the supreme god in the Canaanite pantheon, which was basically the cosmogony of the ancient Israelites as well. The Hebrew scriptures, which much later were compiled into what we know today as the Hebrew Bible, has Yahweh as the supreme god, with the prophets inveighing against lesser divinities or ‘consorts’ such as Asherah, but this henothestic view was a later development, and throughout it all, the vast majority of the population held fast to their ancient polytheistic folk beliefs and practices.
Two great sources for further exploration I would recommend are:
Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel Jul 23, 2008
by William G. Dever
The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications) Jun 26, 2000
by Judith M. Hadley
Largely, this Asherah and other polytheistic stuff is garbage. It’s clear that the Israelites (not to mention, today’s Israelis) struggled with the idea of the one and only “God.” The ancient prophets were always railing at the people for falling away from the true faith and appealing to other deities, including little clay statues of household gods. But that was heresy, and they knew there was really only one true God. And the prophets and kings always brought the people back to monotheism.
I refer you to William Dever’s book I listed above. The authors of the texts that came to be included in the Hebrew Bible were writing centuries after the events they purport to describe, and they are projecting their own values backward onto a time long before they were born. They inveigh against what they knew to be the polytheism of their ancestors by using the prophets as a literary device. If you don’t have the patience to read Dever’s book, here is an informative video lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjx1c3NAVTQ
The signs of awakening are all over the Bible as we awaken to what they’ve meant all along. Genesis 38 features Jesus’ lineage. Whether it is literal or not does not matter. Tamar birthed twins from which “Jesus,” the Christ, would come into the world. Zerah (light) partially, then Perez (breach), then the full manifestation of Zerah – the light.
Zerah > Perez > Zerah
Christ in the world > Dark ages > Triumphant return
Have the eyes to see this.
Do you mind if I ask, how many others agree with your interpretation of scriptures? It is somewhat interesting but I always have problems with a text that has been analyzed for centuries but an awful lot of brilliant people (and some not so much) yet you are the one that finally has figured out the secret code of the Bible. Humans are very good at pattern seeking and finding, even when there is no pattern there. This would cause me to question myself and ask if I am just creating these “obvious” revelations. Maybe it’s me, but I see none of your patterns.
I am currently working through the thread for July 2014 which you recently highlighted. For July 19th you note that Evans argues that ‘Pilate would not do something so opposed to Jewish custom as allow a body unburied on the day of a person’s death.’ If that were the case, would this not mean that there would be NO Jew left hanging on the cross at the mercy of scavengers after death? Surely this could not simply apply to Jesus. Thus, is it known if the accounts of leaving rotting corpses hanging originate only from non Jewish areas or have we details which specifically indicate that this practice was applied to Jewish criminals?
Right! It kind of boggles the mind….
There was an uprising after the death of Herod the Great, and thousands of Jews were slaughtered, including hundreds (or possibly thousands) who were crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. In that case, I don’t see how it would be possible for the Jews to take down so many corpses or soon-to-be corpses. The Romans would never have permitted it. You might get permission to take down 1, or 2 or 3 bodies, but not hundreds. They must have ended up in mass graves. Isn’t that the most likely result?
Seems like it.
I believe, Bart, that it was through reading Ramsay MacMullen that I first came to realize that even Augustine believed in the existence of the pagan gods. Augustine thought them to be “deceitful demons” inferior to the one true God:
“…the false gods, whom they [the pagan “enemies” of the city of God] openly worshipped, or still worship in secret, are most unclean spirits, and most malignant and deceitful demons….”
City of God, Book IV, Chapter I
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120104.htm
Many thanks! 🙂
It would have been more exact to speak specifically about ANCIENT Judaism here. What happens later is yet another story, with the medieval appearance of, on the one hand, figures like Maimonides, who pushed for very extreme monotheism, and the Kabbalah, on the other hand, who had easier time speaking about a certain multiplicity in the divine realms.
RIGHT! I stand corrected. (Although these tensions are found earlier as well, in both religions…)
It also doesn’t help that the semi-official Jewish profession of faith — The Shema — is somewhat ambiguous itself. In the Hebrew — שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד — it says, literally, “Listen, Israel, YHWH our god, YHWH only.” It doesn’t help that Hebrew, like most Semitic languages, often drops the “to be” verb in the present tense, so it’s not clear whether this declaration is trying to say “our god YHWH” or “our god *is* YHWH”. More importantly, it’s unclear whether the last phrase is saying “YHWH is [our] only god,” or “YHWH is [the] only god”. My guess would be that the Shema is trying to say: “Listen, Israel. Our god is YHWH, and only YHWH.” The implication is that there are other gods out there, but the one and only god of Israel is YHWH.
I (and others) translate the Shema, “Hear, O’ Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” You’ve given what might be called the “groovy” translation, which, indeed, is plausible, but the one I prefer is both more assertive and more indefinite. I subscribe to the belief that this means there is no such thing as another “God.” The henotheistic interpretation is really more ideological than historical, although our leader claims the opposite.
Bart, here’s one for the mailbag. Have you ever come across any evidence that Peter’s bones are buried under the Vatican? Don’t want to put you on the spot, so you can skip this if you want.
Nope, no evidence.
To readers of this blog, I strongly recommend Dr. Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God.” One thing I learned from the book is that Jesus being considered to be God is not as unique a claim as I had originally thought.
Yehezkel Kaufmann argued that the true difference between polytheism and monotheism is that in monotheism there is no metadivine realm. There is nothing outside of God. Sin is simply a choice.
Would you agree that Paul seemed to believe that sin was a metaphysical force that was defeated by the sacrifice of Jesus?
If that were the case, then Paul was not a monotheist, at least by Kaufmann’s standard.
That’s a rather unusual view of the meaning of “monotheism”! And yes, Paul saw sin as a demonic force.
is that an historic, or a theologic position? It kinda looks theologic to me.
Paul’s view was definitely theological. There can’t be a historical view that subscribes to demonic forces (since it requires a certain religious belief)
Can we presume that the idea that there are multiple gods lead to acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, illogically that Three equals One, and the further absurdity that the simple woman Mary became “Mother of God” ? Who’s kidding whom?
I’m not sure how her presumed simplicity has anything to do with anything? If she were rich and educated, you could believe it?
My understanding is that the idea of the Trinity evolved over time, to explain how Jesus could be both wholly human and wholly divine.
St. Patrick reportedly used to explain it to the pagan Irish (who had innumerable gods) by comparing it to the Shamrock–three leaves, one plant (I’m not sure that’s a sound theological argument, but botanically speaking he was on solid ground).
So really the problem when preaching to pagans was not explaining the three part, but the one part. How you were only worshiping one God, even though you were praying to Jesus and God the Father and the Holy Spirit (though I’ve never met anyone who claimed to have prayed directly to the Holy Spirit in my life–he/she/it isn’t very personable, and if you can talk to the boss, or the boss’ son, why would you bother with a mere messenger?).
Since Jesus addresses God as a separate and distinct entity in the gospels, and there are references to the Holy Spirit, all three have to be justified, and yet monotheism must still be reinforced.
Not everything in Christianity can be explained away as paganism calling itself something else. Judaism was the primary influence, and it was mainly a question of adapting Jewish beliefs to a pagan audience.
It seems to me henotheism is just a special case of polytheism, since you still believe there are a number of gods, you just only worship one. And true monotheism is where you get the devil and demons from, since in polytheism these would simply be thought of as other gods.
Similar but also very different. Not worshiping all the other gods was a really big deal.
Philo writes of Moses preexistence. Many moderns speak, whether they mean it literally or not, of babies being sent from heaven. Did early Christian writers ever claim that all human souls are preeexistent?
Most famously, Origen of Alexandria did.
I have to admit, this idea holds a certain appeal for me as well, being a Platonist at heart. Unless we take a completely materialist, positivist view of reality (in which everything not conducive to experimental falsification is simply ignored and labeled ‘unscientific’), we have to keep an open mind about everything. Positivism is actually rejected by most scientists these days as being a philosophical relic of the post-Enlightenment past, especially since Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem. I don’t wish to sound overly ‘spiritual’, but if consciousness is fundamental to the universe in any sense, it’s as difficult to imagine it coming into existence in each of us at our birth as it is to imagine it ceasing to exist upon our death. So perhaps Origin was onto something, and William Blake similarly inspired when he poetically speculated that we each come into this world ‘trailing clouds of glory’. This universe is already showing itself to be far stranger than we imagined even a few decades ago, and is likely to prove to be stranger than we even *can* imagine in the coming years.
(As a postscript, I would suggest that we can’t even form an educated opinion on these larger issues without having a basic knowledge of theoretical physics and cosmology. Unless we know the bare bones of what Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says, and understand the basic ideas behind the fine-tuning problem and anthropic argument in cosmology, we’re groping in the dark philosophically)
I agree to this extent–to talk in ‘common sense’ terms about the order of the cosmos presupposes we know enough about the cosmos to do that.
We don’t. We never will.
Extreme rationalism is a logical fallacy–like every other extreme in human belief.
We know that the cosmos (the literal Greek work for ‘order’) is indeed ordered to the extent that the laws of physics are so finely tuned that were they even, in most cases, merely 1% different from what they actually are, this universe would look vastly different, and certainly wouldn’t include us or any other form of life. This is even more true when one considers the fine-tuning required of the cosmological constant – as the physicist Leonard Susskind points out, this is impossible to explain in any other way except by evoking either an intelligent designer or an infinite multiverse. There is no third option, unless you are prepared to throw logic and intellect out completely. If you’re unclear on this, I could suggest several books (sans equations) that would be helpful in understanding what I’m talking about. I agree with you that we may never *totally* understand the universe or why it is exactly the way it is through logical analysis alone (see my reference to Kurt Gödel above), but we must start somewhere, and proceed from what we can reasonably ascertain or hypothesize using our (admittedly) limited intellects.
Worshiping the laws of physics is never going to appeal to anyone, and all it takes is one Einstein and we’re talking about different laws.
We know nothing.
Logic is only useful when you have concrete data.
We still know next to nothing about the universe we live in. And if we knew a thousand times as much, we’d still know next to nothing.
But enjoy the delusion of 99% omniscience.
😉
In light of Old Testament passages such as Psalm 95:3 depicting other gods, would it not seem better to understand the commandment in Exodus 20:3 in a more literal sense, “no other gods before my face” or even “no other gods in my presence?” This would correlate well with ancient texts from the site at Ras Shamra and the divine assembly found therein. Many Old Testament passages relate such an assembly. This would explain why the Philistine deity Dagon cannot stand in the presence of “the ark of God” (I Sam. 5:1-5) as well David having a household god (I Sam.19:13). In I Samuel 26:17-20 David speaks of being sent to serve other gods as well as being driven from the “presence” of YHWH. Can one worship the god of Israel anywhere but in “the land” itself? (cf. II Kings 5:17, Ps. 137:4) If Israel fought in the land of Moab could not the Moabite god take the upper hand? (cf. II Kings 3:27) Perhaps does this not emphasize the significance of being sent into exile? The early Israelite religion was clearly not monotheistic but such a belief was to develop in time.
I’m afraid I’m out of town and don’t have my Hebrew Bible with me to look up “the literal” meaning of the verse.
I was viewing a part of one of the Great Courses where you were discussing gods in the ancient world. Psalm 82 entered into the dialogue. If you get a chance you might wish to check the Hebrew text of Psalm 82. Of all the dozen or so translations that I looked at only the NET gives you the more literal reading, “God stands in the assembly of El.” Obviously this would not be a popular translation but the influence of the Canaanite culture cannot be neglected, one of the strongest being the infiltration of the royal ideology. It would seem that God in the Old Testament moves from being the God of a tribal league to taking the status of an ancient near eastern monarch where access to his presence would be an important issue.
I’ll check it out!
Philo’s ideas about Moses sound a lot like peoples ideas about Jesus (who some thought of as the new Moses), including the idea of the second person of the trinity. I find that especially interesting considering that he lived about the time of Jesus. Do you think Philo himself may have been a source for Gospel writers, maybe not about the life or Jesus but a literary source? I suppose it might just reflect that similar ideas were already floating around, but if so, does that suggest that ideas in John, such as the concept of Jesus’ divinity, might date back to the first half of the first century?
Yes, in How Jesus Became God I argue that the belief in Jesus’ divinity was early.
Does that weaken the case that John must have been written later, considering that more developed theology is one of the reasons it is believed to have been written later?
Good question. But the case for John being later is complicated — it’s not just that it has a high Christology but the *kind* of high Christology it has. John 1:1-18 is far more advanced than anything one finds in Paul or the Synoptics, e.g.
Is the prologue believed to likely be a part of the original gospel? I am not trying to make a case that John was necessarily written earlier. I just find it fascinating how it’s possible to change one’s mind about an issue (e.g. a Christology existing earlier than previously believed or deciding that Jesus really told the story about the sheep and the goats) and then have to reconsider other issues (e.g. the dating of John or when the idea of heaven and hell originated). It seems like one of those sliding puzzles. By arranging some pieces you might put others out of place.
It is often thought that hte prologue was originally composed separately and incorporated into the Gospel, but yes, probably before the Gospel was published.
I am a marginal Mennonite. are you and I at all related?
Yes, we both derive from Adam. 🙂 (would my not being a Mennonite mean we are unrelated??)
Somebody mentioned 2nd Kings 3:27.
The Christian attempts to find something other than a real live Moabite god as the source of the “great wrath” which came against Israel, are abortive:
1 – This great wrath likely isn’t the Hebrew god, since in the context, the Hebrew god is instructing them through Elisha to destroy Moabite land and thus force harsh misery on the Moabites…and that they would win the battle to boot (18-19). Hence God should have known that destroying the crops and land of the pagans who sought refuge from battle in their own city, would eventually drive some of them to desperate measures.
2 – The great wrath likely isn’t the Moabites themselves, with renewed rage in battle after having seen the terrible sight of the king sacrificing his eldest son, since in the context, the Hebrew god promised that the Jews would win the battle (v. 18). God is presumably more powerful than the rage of the heathen.
Of course, nobody can prevent Christians from dreaming up speculations to offer as a gift at the altar of inerrancy, such as that perhaps the Jews did something to offend God during this battle, so God ceased giving them victory therein. Unfortunately, v. 27 portrays the pagan human sacrifice as the point at which the “great wrath” came against Israel. One would think that if that pagan sacrifice wasn’t the real reason for this great wrath, the author, not wishing to mislead the reader, would have qualified his words or put things a bit differently.
Hence, the ancient Jews did a less than perfect job of sanitizing their scriptures of all evidence that the bible authors themselves sometimes espoused henotheism.
If Christ is part of a Trinity then why does Colossians 1:15 say “he is the firstborn of all creation” or, as some translations put it “the firstborn of every creature.”
Also why does Revelation 3:14 say he is “the beginning of the creation of God.”
As a businessman uses a secretary to write a letter, in the same way way didn’t God use Christ as his instrument of creation. In this case who would receive credit for writing the letter and isnt the same true for YHWH and pre existing Christ?
The doctrine of the Trinity did not develop until long after the NT itself was written.
“If Christ is part of a Trinity then why does Colossians 1:15 say “he is the firstborn of all creation” or, as some translations put it “the firstborn of every creature.””
——In Genesis, Ephraim was the second person born:
51 Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household.”
52 He named the second Ephraim, “For,” he said, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.” (Gen. 41:51-52 NAU)
But in Jeremiah 31:9, God says Ephraim is the first-born:
9 “With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.” (Jer. 31:9 NAU)
Apparently, “first-born” also had the connotation of “preeminent” more than “first person to be created”. Sol Paul could refer to Jesus as a “first-born” without necessarily implying he thought Jesus was the first person God created.
“Also why does Revelation 3:14 say he is “the beginning of the creation of God.”
——–“Beginning” takes the sense of “source”. The Greek word is ἀρχή/arche. Of course, nobody says biblical theology is the least bit consistent or clear, but it is also true that the famous arguments put forward by Jehovah’s Witnesses can often be refuted, so that the passage they cite does not necessarily say Jesus was created.
If you want to refute the Trinity, cite to Matthew 26:39, where Jesus makes it clear that his will isn’t always 100% aligned with God the Father’s will 100% of the time. He would never ask to be relieved from enduring his “cup of suffering” if his will and the will of the Father were always in perfect alignment. This also proves that Jesus wasn’t perfect, lest we adopt a watered down concept of “perfection” by which pretty much any nice mature educated civilized adult can be considered “perfect”. The Trinity can still be true if one ratchets down one’s high view of God’s perfection so that God is like a committee whose members are in “essential” agreement, but then this would contradict the bible’s high view of God’s perfection, and disallow the Nicene Creed’s “light from light” idea.
Once again, you should be careful to avoid trying to adopt some interpretation that causes all of the biblical data to harmonize. The presupposition of bible inerrancy interrupts the cause of truth the way a washed out road interrupts a Sunday drive. Matthew’s corrections to Mark’s gospel statements exhibit a pattern of replacing a lower Christology with a higher one, so it’s perfectly reasonable to assert that the NT contradicts itself on just how close to being deity Jesus really was.
But didn’t Arius at the Council of Nicaea and several historical figures before Arius argue Colossians 1:15 meant the pre-existing human Christ was created earlier than the angels, His first creation.
Was Arius wrongly declared as a heretic at the Nicene Council.
Remember Emperor Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by a disciple who held Arius’ views.
So was Emperor Constantine influenced by erring presbytery at Nicaea and the Roman
Emperor
might have later regretted the Nicene Creed
That could explain some of the reason his successor went against the Council’s decisions
or Eusebius may also have had some influence
Actually it doesn’t if its translated correctly with the correct and right systematic
hermeneutics.
Systematic hermeneutics and theological differences affect the translations sometimes
I’ve learned another system of hermeneutics also
Some of it should be interpreted by look for the type and looking at how it prefigured the ante-type and the similarities in modern day historical fulfillment.
Other scriptures have a literal sense
How did Matthew correct
Mark’s gospel?
What Scriptures are you referring to
in the two accounts of Matthew’s and Mark’s
Didn’t some of Origen’s predecessors have some form of interpretation that caused the Bible to harmonize.
There was some truth in the Alexandrian school of theology but it was watered down
and misused.
He had another system of interpretative hermeneutics
similar to what JW have today
The pagans also brought in their teachings originating in ancient Babylon and has grown into the monstrosity known today as Babylon the Great
Also some others have this systematic hermeneutics today
Eʹphra·im
Son of Joseph by his wife Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On. Ephraim, the younger brother of Manasseh, was born in Egypt before the seven-year famine began. The name Ephraim was given to him by his father “because, to quote [Joseph], ‘God has made me fruitful in the land of my wretchedness.’”—Ge 41:50-52.
On his deathbed, Jacob, in effect, adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh and appointed them to be the equals of his direct sons. (Ge 48:5) Their father Joseph, who received the right as firstborn among Jacob’s sons, received two parts of his father’s inheritance by means of the tribal inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh. (1Ch 5:1; compare Ge 48:21, 22; De 21:17; Jos 14:4.) In blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, the patriarch Jacob gave the preference to Ephraim and prophetically indicated that he would become the greater.—Ge 48:13-20.
First Chronicles 7:20-27 provides a genealogical listing of Ephraim’s sons and later descendants, concluding with Joshua, who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. Ezer and Elead, who were likely sons of Ephraim, were slain by the men of Gath. Sometime after the death of these sons, Ephraim fathered Beriah.
If Jesus was exalted to a higher position after his ascension wouldn’t that make him higher than God if he was already equal to God prior to his ascension?
Yes, that’s the problem with thinking that Paul understood the pre-incarnate Christ as fully equal with God.
Bart
Your terms often are unclear (as are many writers on this subject). “Equal with God” has more than one sense – so the issue is “equal” in WHAT SENSE??
In the sense of pre-eminence??
vs
In the ontological sense?
Comment?
Thanks
Greg
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I spell this out as clearly as I can in my book How Jesus Became God. If you haven’t read it yet, that would be the place to go. (I explain the various senses in which Christians have thought Jesus was / is God).
True Christianity is monotheistic and has always been persecuted like Christ said it would but the Church that triumphed at the Council of Nicaea isnt the true Christianity.
The Devil did it. The “tares” Christ foretold
There are two forms of Christianity, one is false, one is true.
Decide which one is true and which one is falsely
The false church came to power at the Nicene Council.
Please research the immortal soul doctrine
too.
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10
Psalm 146:4
Job 14:14
John 11:11
AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY” (John 6:40).
Christ taught the resurrection of the dead, not the immortality of the soul.
How can the wicked have an “immortal soul” since immortality is a gift God bestows on the righteous
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Chapter XLIV.-The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office(188) of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,(189) that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,(190) or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate(191) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.(192) Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
Chapter XLV.-It is the Part of the Wicked to Vex the Righteous.
Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe(193) that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. There(194) you will not find that the righteous were cast off by men who themselves were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them. Exposed to such sufferings, they endured them gloriously. For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel(195) cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishael shut up in a furnace(196) of fire by those who observed(197) the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate(198) His all-excellent name; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious(199) by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter XLVI.-Let Us Cleave to the Righteous: Your Strife is Pernicious.
Such examples, therefore, brethren, it is right that we should follow;(200) since it is written, “Cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them shall [themselves] be made holy.”(201) And again, in another place, [the Scripture] saith, “With a harmless man thou shalt prove(202) thyself harmless, and with an elect man thou shalt be elect, and with a perverse man thou shalt show(203) thyself perverse.”(204) Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars(205) among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?(206) Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another? “(207) Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how(208) He said, “Woe to that man [by whom(209) offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.(210) Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.
Chapter XLVII.-Your Recent Discord is Worse Than the Former Which Took Place in the Times of Paul.
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?(211) Truly, under the inspiration(212) of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos,(213) because even then parties(214) had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession,(215) that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected(216) with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.
In the ante-nicene period was there sedition against the presbytery appointed by Christ’s apostolic successors and were they replaced by the according to their desires to
2 Timothy 4:3 ►
New International Version
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Are the titled paid clergy and their systems of theology the teachers they gathered after the sedition against the presbrytery
Clement, a tough it doesn’t appear he’s under inspiration, was much closer to the apostolic era and there was still mostly truth left in Christ’s congregation but gradually later the church went further and further away from the true teachings slowly but their was still no hierarchy class of clerical system yet developed until after Clement, if Clements letter is indeed authentic.
It does appear that there is some error that already crept in at the time of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians
That is why the letter may be a forgery
But the person who wrote it may have been a Christian who deviated in some of Christ’s teachings.
But the person who wrote Clement’s letter evidently had some knowledge of the problems within some of the congregations.
However there are some sincere clergy but the have been misled because of the systematic theologies taught in the seminaries. The systematic hermeneutics is also a problem
◄ 2 Peter 3:16 ►
New International Version
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
“I completely agree with the questioner: the oldest forms of Israelite religion were clearly henotheistic, not monotheistic. When the Ten Commandments says that the Israelite is to “have no other god before me,” it presupposes there are other gods, who are actual gods. But they are not to be worshiped above (or even alongside) Yahweh himself.”
My understanding is that these “other gods” were not gods at all, but whatever became more important to a person than the One True God.
A some say all true 1st century baptised Christians “ordained” ministers before the foretold later “apostasy” of a “clergy” and also a “laity” developed beginning in the 2nd century or possibly earlier
Bart, do we have any reliable evidence, or any evidence at all, indicating how many Jews (at the time of Jesus) lived outside Judea–from Babylon to Northern Africa and the rest of the Mediterranean, and other places? Do you know any figures or, if not, can you refer me to a study on this?
I’m not sure off hand, other than that there were way more outside of Judea than in it. . I’d suggest you look at the authoritative study of John Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora.
I’ve been wondering about the origins of the Hebrew God lately and would love a reference to a scholarly source where I can read up more on it. I would just Google it myself but as a lay person I wouldn’t know how to distinguish between a hack and a respected scholar. One thing that intrigues me is how the Arabs n Mecca before Muhammad worshiped the same God as the Jews, considered themselves to be descended from Abraham and Ishmael, and practiced male circumcision. When I was a Muslim this made sense but now as an agnostic I’m wondering when the Arabs borrowed these religious characteristics from the Jews. I’m thinking that if I can find the oldest sources for people who worshiped Yahweh that it might give me some insight.
Have you tried Karen Armstrong A History of God? Or Reza Aslan, God: A Human History?
Dr Ehrman,
“You find this first, and most strongly, in the 6th-century writing of “2 Isaiah” ”
The 6th-century is BCE or CE?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
BCE. None of the writings in the Hebrew Bible were written after the time of Jesus.
Dr. Ehrman,
Have you by any chance read the book “The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel,” by Benjamin D. Sommer (published 2011)? In summary, it connects the anthropomorphic theology of the J and E sources with the West Semitic and Mesopotamian characterization of the gods found in, e.g., the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. The central thesis is that all of these theologies assumed “divine fluidity”, i.e., that individual gods could “fragment” into separate deities, as well as “merge” with other deities to form a united super-deity. Biblical instances such as the “angel of the Lord” would in this schema actually be instances of YHWH temporarily “merging” with an angel/divine being. I suspect this thesis could have relevant implications for our understanding of how early Jewish Christians might have theorized the divinization of Jesus, which could help to constructively augment the account already given in your work.
Nope, afraid I ahven’t seen it!
It’s a very interesting read. I highly recommend it.
Nope, afraid I ahven’t seen it!
I have heard that Philo’s Logos was influenced by Heraclites and the Stoics. Do you know anything about that?
Yup, Logos was a widely held concept in Greek philosophical circles, especially among the Stoics.
Do you have any articles (or books) you can recommend on the subject of Philo’s influence from the Stoics?
A superb resource (in general) is the STanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; check out this entry on Philo (which deals with your issue): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo/#Stoi
I would very much like to know, what makes Satan to be non-deity in Christianity? Christians accept Satan being worshipped (Satanism) and he has all the usual properties of a god (supernatural, powerful being affecting universe and intercting with humans.
Is it really enough that Christians themselves define there being just one deity, totally disregarding general notions?
If Satan is not a deity, why then are Ra, Amor, Hermes, Loki and Moloch?
It completely depends on what one means by “deity.” Some Christians would say that only God can be the deity. Others would say that there are lesser deities — e.g., archangels, angels, seraphim, cherabim, etc. If by “deity” you mean “the eternal God,” then yes there is only one (even if you believe in the Trinity,since the “three are one”); if it means superhuman divine forces, then it could include the bad ones as well as the good ones. But Chjristians are hesitant as a rule to go that way.
I totally agree, in particular to the reluctance of Christians admitting there being other deities.
But, in the sense of general religious studies, does this not make Christianity henoteistic or monolatristic religion? And because no religion should be given special treatment, shoudn’t this general description be applied to Christianity despite anything Christians and/or Christian theology states?
It depends, again — since most Christians would say that there is only one God, and that the other supernatural powers are not actually “deities.” But others would say, well, they are divine in a sense. So it depends whom you’re talking to.