Inception And Prevalence Of Western Monotheism, monolatry is not monotheism

Explicit Inception Date of Monotheism and Its Prevalence

I have always been baffled by references to the (Jewish) religion, into which I was born, as "monotheistic since Abraham".

A.

I have been born and raised with the Hebrew language, and am reasonably familiar with the old testament, that has been fully compiled and cannonized by circa 100 AD. I am not aware of any statement in the old testament that may be cited to suggest or support monotheism, i.e. the doctrine or belief that there is but one God.

Yes, there is a profusion of urgings of monolatry, i.e. of worship of a single deity, in the old testament, worship only of the Yehovah god that "adopted" Abraham and "promised him The Covenant". But throughout the OT there is a clear "awareness" of "gods of other peoples" without any shred of denial of their existence. Even the declaration of Moses to the multitudes on their way from Egypt to their forefathers' land : "Hear O Israel, Yehovah our god is one Yehovah", is meant by him to allay their apprehension that their long-ago forefathers' god may not be their protector present god. The then prevalent concept was that god was a regional authority, and the Israelites, being then "displaced", felt unprotected and apprehensive. And Moses proceeds then to warn them : (Deuteronomy 6:14) "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you...". Stick with your own historical god...

B.

We thus see that the treatment of, and references to, Abrahamic "monotheism" are incorrectly confused with monolatry, i.e. with worship of a single deity.

One consequence of this confusion is that e-searches of Explicit Inception Date of Monotheism, and e-searches of Prevalence of Monotheism, are hopelessly and desperately fruitless and overwhelmed with irrelevant background noise.

C.

I have a feeling that a discussion and clarification of this subject might contribute more than just information...

Dov Henis

Jews, and Roots of Western monotheism

I thought that within the framework of examination and definition of "Western Civilization" it would be interesting to learn what our attitudes are about monotheism, i.e. about the doctrine or belief that there is but one god. My 'plan' was to follow this with an examination of our attitudes about the 'nature' of 'god' or 'gods'.

As I sought to "research" the background for this thread I became frustrated with the lack of information about the inception and prevalence of monotheism, due to an indiscriminate reference to monolatry as monotheism. The following is an old, somewhat relevant, posting of mine, elsewhere.

From "Jews, and Roots of Western monotheism":
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=138


(a) To me, a student of evolution, Life is a fractal phenomenon, and I see this wherever I look. In the course of evolution of Judaism (religion of the two-tribes kingdom of Judea) there were two revolutionary evolutions.

Until the Judean exile to Babylonia (586 BC) the god of the kingdom of the ten-tribes, Israel, and of Judea was similar to other contemporary near-east gods, i.e. a people's god with jurisdiction over the people's territory. However, when the Judeans were uprooted into exile to Babylonia they expanded to a concept of non-territorial omnipresent omnipotent god. This to me is similar in significance to 1st century AD evolution of Western religion as the 5.4 million yr ago move of our chimpanze/bonobo forefathers from the trees to the plains, that started human's evolution. This was the first step in establishing the present Western monotheistic concepts.

Then in the 1st century AD the Hellenistic Jew Paulus, from Tarsus, started a symbiosis of Jewish thoughts with Hellenistic beliefs, and this evolved into Christianity, which found welcome followers as it released gentile, non-Jewish, joiners from the bothersome daily Mitzvot, commandments, which Jews developed exactly for preventing such a symbiosis.

This turned to be a very successful evolutionary turn, similar to the symbiosis of early cells with either a mitochondria or a chloroplast cell to end up with very successful energy processing cells.

(b) Most present Jewish customs/commandments were formulated and developed in their various exiles, especially since the massive Roman exiles during the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, when for surviving with their unique culture and heritage, their unique phenotype, Jews had to separate themselves in several aspects from surrounding cultures. Some few earlier original customs evolved still prior to the first Judean exile into Babilon, for protecting their culture from surrounding cultures.

© My own feeling is that Western humanity made a big mistake in 1st century AD. It was then on a cultural crossroad and elected not to continue on the inherently tolerant polytheistic culture, which by definition is tolerant, but elected to go on a monotheistic route, which is by definition intolerant and raises self-righteous banners of single absolute truths that have lead to endless pains and injustices.

Dov Henis

What Is God

Of course, in order to proceed with this discussion about a subject related to god it is necessary to clarify for ourselves what is the god we have in mind...

Here are some paras from "God. What is that?", by Don Havis, April 9, 2006.
Don Havis regards himself "an atheist and scientific thinker".
The following is forwarded/posted by Dov Henis, with permission of Don Havis,
from
http://www.sfatheists.com/essays/donhavis-godwhatisthat.htm


A. By fairly standard definitions

(a) “God – noun. Any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature…regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; a supreme being.”

The “special powers” referred to in the above definition are agreed to by most theologians (those who study this mysterious “god concept”) as consisting of (1) all powerfulness—omnipotence, mentioned above, (2) all-knowingness—omniscience, also mentioned above, (3) “infinite”—also characterized as omnipresent, and (4) all-benevolence, or all-lovingness. This fourth characteristic, unaccountably not mentioned above, is also known as omni-benevolence.

(b) Some more modern liberal theologians would classify god, whom they would agree “exists” in some unfathomable sense, not as a “being” but more as a “spirit.” I’ll spare the reader a lengthy and pointless discussion as to how something might be said to exist as either of those two options, and what might possibly be thought of as “the difference.”

© In an attempt to be all inclusive, I am aware of two other conceptions about, or versions of, the god concept:

(c.1)God for the deist is simply the mysterious force that got everything started. This god/force is not something that intervenes in the affairs of humankind, nor does it answer prayers, nor does it espouse any dogma. This deist god had no sons, nor did he dictate any texts. (c.1') A well-known late eighteenth century deist (not an atheist) and American patriot, Thomas Paine, also considered the deist’s god as a sort of “source” of all moral authority — the fountainhead, if you will - of all that is good, benevolent and just.

(c.2) Secondly, the god of the pantheists is conceived of as the sum total of all there is, with a special emphasis on nature. In other words, the universe, nature, all that exists IS the same thing as god.

These latter two conceptions of god — the deists’ god and the pantheists’ god - are distinct from the gods of any of the "Abrahamic religions" — Christianity, Islam, or Judaism — because they have no attributes or characteristics that further define them. Therefore, these two types of god concepts might be thought of as tautologies. Tautologies are simply self-describing expressions like, “God is ‘the force,’” or “God is love” or “God is everything,” or one of my “favorites” — God is “the ground of being.” Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Obviously, such descriptions or definitions are valueless simply because they don’t really say anything. They are equivalent to saying, “God is god.” We will be concerned here with only the god or gods who have attributes and are said to cause on-going effects.


B. If god has attributes

As soon as one begins to try to understand any sort of god that has attributes and is said to have effects on how we humans live and interact with our environment and each other, then we immediately run into problems. The most immediate and long-recognized problems ensue when it is recognized that an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful god allows things like wars, pestilence, devastating earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. to occur, often killing thousands if not millions of his apparently favorite creatures whom he created, it is said, in his image. Even though the cross-negating effects of this god concept’s supposed powers of omniscience, omni-potent, and omni-benevolence has been well understood for at least 2,300 years, it seems to have had little or no effect on the general public complete willingness to “buy” the concept. The most well-known rendering of this unsolvable paradox was done by the Greek skeptic philosopher, Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE), when he scribed the following famous syllogism: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omni-potent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Besides these obvious internal conflicts, there is simply the nonsensicalness of the idea that some form of consciousness could somehow exist outside of a functioning, blood-nourished brain. Clearly, what we call consciousness — as opposed to something one might call “artificial intelligence” — is a necessary prerequisite in order for the possessor of such consciousness to know anything, and with that knowledge, make judgments and then, somehow without any physical form, take action; that is, intervene in worldly affairs, thus using its power. Nothing in my life experience up to this point has made it possible for me to blithely accept such blatant nonsense.


C. Problematic "god's attributes"

And then there is the vocabulary problem — the words that my god-believing friends frequently use. I have great difficulty understanding what is meant by many of them. Some of these difficult-to-understand words are incorporated in the very definition of the god concept itself. They are abstract words which refer to intangible or even non-existent—as far as I can tell—things. A couple of examples would be the words “spirit” and “soul.” I have found no scientifically verifiable evidence for what I am told a spirit is, or what a soul is. In other instances, I am confused by many adjective noun combinations in which the noun is something I understand, but the adjective is vague or completely indefinable. Two examples would be “revealed knowledge,” and “spiritual” or “supreme” combined with “being.” I understand the words “knowledge” and “being,” but the adjectives seem to negate the meaning of the very words they modify.

We can certainly speak of supernatural or mythical beings, but I don’t see how we can claim that they in some sense “exist,” except in our imaginations. I hasten to add that I think imagination is a wonderful thing. I’m all in favor of magical and mythical stories. However, I do also believe that both the story-teller/reader as well as the receiver of such stories must be clear about the fact that such stories are indeed imaginary.


D. Disparate words'-meanings matrixes

How god-believers have come to a distinct point of view with its many different word meanings is itself interesting to ponder. When I talk with them, many seem to have very clear understandings in their heads, which make perfectly good sense to them, for words or phrases like “soul,” “spirit,” “revelation,” “holy ghost,” “divine intervention,” etc. It has become clear to me that we do not share common understandings of these and other words which point to a Platonic “second world” or “other realm” of existence. Most philosophers since the time of Aristotle have accepted the “this world,” which can be discerned and understood through our senses, point of view. Christianity comes out of a Platonic, two-world point of view. The true believers in the Christian religion seem to have at least large parts of their brain operating in this more ancient orientation or viewpoint, while at the same time living and functioning in this modern science-based secular world which functions from the one-real-world point of view. I’m not sure how they manage it, but many seem to navigate this course fairly well. What amazes me is how many people—what percentage of the U.S. population for example—seems to be “stuck” in this two-world orientation, especially since it was so long ago abandoned by at least those folks who seem to be the real social and scientific “engineers” of the modern world. Indeed, science itself would not be possible in a two-world paradigm. Given this fact, I am always further amazed that something like 85 percent of the U.S. population do not “self-describe” as atheists, or at least “non-religious.” The good news is that in the latest highly respected American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, 14.1 % of the U.S. population check the “none” box when asked about their religion. This has grown remarkably since in the ARIS poll of 1990 only roughly 8% identified with this category.


E. Witherword human culture

I would like to close with a related suggestion that we atheists and scientific thinkers have an obligation to do whatever we can to improved efforts on the part of secular society to educate our youth in the modern, post-Platonic, scientific point of view or orientation. I believe, in short, that beyond and in addition to our fight for “separation of church and state,” we as citizens and activists have an obligation to support and encourage our public schools to do a much better job of teaching scientific materialism, the scientific method, and “how to think” much more than “what to think.” As a critical part of this activism, we need to be vigilant in speaking up for barring from our classrooms the idea that there are such things as other-worldly, so-called “revealed truths” or “religious truths” which, in some areas, students are urged to consider as parallel to and equally as valuable as scientific truths. The renewed push to teach “creationism,” now re-labeled “intelligent design,” would, of course, fall into this category of beliefs. In plain language, we need to be sure we are diligent in getting what Thomas Edison called the “bunk” out of education.

Fwd by Dov Henis,
with permission of Don Havis.

Apparantly you haven't read the Old Testament as thoroughly as you claim.

When the Old Testament speaks of "other gods" it does not mean that they actually exist. It means that other religions BELIEVE they exist.

In the Bible, baal is NOT a "real" anthropomorphic being. The baal worshippers believe he is, but the Jehovah/YHWH God of the Bible, through the prophets, says that baal does not even exist, and that there is ONLY one God. all others are merely false imaginations in people's mind due to their rebellion against the true God.

2 Chr. 32: 19And they spake against the God of Jerusalem, as against the gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of the hands of man.

20And for this cause Hezekiah the king, and the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz, prayed and cried to heaven.

21And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.

22Thus the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided them on every side.

Here we see, man has made idols with his hands and called them "gods", but the true God does not acknowledge these fantasies.

37Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...ah+45&version=9
Isaiah 45:5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

In fact, one of the main subjects of the entire book of Isaiah is the fact that there is only one true God, anything else is just an imagination invented by people.

Of Science and Religion

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=185


Nov 11 04 - Dec 4 05, Dov in Brights and biologicalEvolution forums

Dear Pen-Pal,

A.

We live on a tiny speck of dust within an infinitely immense swirl.

Life ( also a black hole? ) is a substantiation of a temporary containment of cosmic energy dilution. All forms of Earth life are thus temporary energy bubbles. We are not yet able to figure out the implications of this.

Evolution did us a disservice, endowing us with "intelligence", with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, causing us to perceive and explore and wonder.

Some of us, like you, feel desperately lost without an ID (Inteligent Design) or without "everything being shaped by...something". You need to subsist under some form of Providence. Your peace of mind and your reflective elation are founded on a feeling that your existence is purposed towards something vague of which it will somehow sometime become a part.

Some of us, like me, regard our cosmic circumstances, all reality, and our meagre comprehension of them as an invitation to explore and chart the infinite aspects of the evolving universe. In pursuit of this we try to fashion ourselves in accordance with what we progressively learn about the universe and about life and about ourselves.

This, in my opinion, is the difference between religious and science-based worldviews.

B.

Science is science is science, regardless of WHO SAYS WHAT.

Someone says "... if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God".

NO. Nature's patterns, physical laws and rules at all cosmic levels, have not always been there. They have been evolving since the beginning, from nil through ever more complexity at an ever consequent accelerating rate typical of an evolving system, towards an unfathomable end.

Thus this someone's god is an "evolving god"...

C.

And if you are unable to rid yourself of distress and bewilderment without a god of local or personal involvement just ponder what you are and where you are.

Out of the billions of galaxies consider just one, our own galaxy the Milky Way. It, OUR galaxy, just one example out of many many billions, comprises circa 300 billion (10^9) M stars (smaller size than our sun) and 30 billion (10^9) G (our sun-size) stars, with planets and with other dust particles smaller or bigger than the tiny dust particle we call Earth...

Sincerely yours,

Dov

============================

15 June 2006, an added entry:

Science and Religion

Psychiatrist draws a straight vetrticle line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: "what do you see?"

Patient, somewhat excited: "A standing naked woman..."

The psychiatrist draws a horizontal line, shows it and asks: "What do you see now?"

Patient, more excitedly: "A lying naked woman..."

The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: "And what do you see now?"

Patient, overcome with excitement: "A naked woman lying with her legs up..."

"Man", says the psychiatrist, "You're sex crazy!"

"Doc", says the patient, "It's you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!"

Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings...

-------------------------------------------------------

Albert Einstein:

"Without Science there can be no Religion, without Religion there can be no Science".

You don't have to be an Einstein to make such a profound statement.

Obviously there can be no night without day and no day without night. As day and night define each other so proof and faith define each other.

And re the connotation of this statement: just as in looking at a 90 degree angle a scientism-guided person sees the two sides and angle whereas other persons may see more than the two sides and angle, so this statement conjures different implications in different persons.


============================

PS Sept 23 2006 ( Hypo forum)

Re Religion and Re Bible

- Religion, being a component of culture, which is a biological attribute, is one of the evolutionary factors ( not revolutionary, even though, I know, subversive too...) that humans artifacted when/where it served them well for survival. It has been functioning socially and personally for human phenotypes survival (comprising also a feeling of geno- and pheno-type self-esteem) for few thousands of years. However, being a human artifact based on faith and also in many cases (not all) favoring inherently and intolerantly one cultural phenotype to the exclusion of others, it has been becoming socially increasingly more disruptive and destructive. For the human genotype to survive it is sensible to hope and to plan to replace its faith-based ethical-moral foundation of civilization on a rational science-informed comprehension of the evolution of the universe and of life and of humanity. I think.

- I am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially to the "old testament". I am familiar with it only in Hebrew (my mother tongue) and I am also fairly well familiar with its evolution from earlier cultures and literatures in the middle east thus I am able to trace the evolution of its meanings and messages as the tool it has been for the survival of the Judaic culture-phenotype (Yehudi, from the kingdom of the two tribes Yehudah and Benyamin). But most of the discussions and references to it that I see in the electronic media are carried on by persons who have read it only in translations from translations into another language, and furthermore they amazingly refer to the Bible as if it has been compiled and written in anticipation and in reference to present-day ideas and comprehensions of the society and culture in which they presently live. This has always amazed me. It is unbelievable. I think.

Dov

PS re Bible:

And lest there is an impression that I attribute the reading of hidden meanings and messages in the Bible only to or even mainly to the translations, let me clarify that many are also the Israelis and/or Jews whose mother-tongue is Hebrew who likewise find those hidden or implied things in the Bible. I.e., it is not the language but the psychology/state-of-mind...that makes one see an image in the line(s).

Dov

Religious Identification Survey

IMO a "Religious Identification Survey" cannot convey extent of prevalence of intellectual-conceptual attitudes about god(s) or about religion or even of affiliation with an organized religion. This since "religious identification" involves various social/historical/emotional/traditional group-phenotypic elements other than religious elements. Thus in my own case I would definitely check-in as Jewish simply because I "identify" with my phenotype group and, being an organism, I do my best for its survival. My "identification" with the Jewish religion/group does not interfere with my science-based comprehension and concepts about the universe and life and humans. I learn and assess my group's religious matters with a biologist-evolutionist viewpoint, yet simultaneously also with a natural innate group-phenotypic dedication.

Dov Henis

Humanistic Atheism
(From postings elsewhere during 2005-6)

My own humanistic concept/self-image comprises only science-informed-based attitudes and behaviour.

A.

Becoming a humanist is not envisioned/intended to be a religious conversion, shedding off one's phenotype traditions and features and adopting another's phenotype traditions/features. Becoming a humanist/Bright is shedding supernatural beliefs and applying science-informed rational thinking and attitudes. Humanism is broad and firm enough to accept, with scientific rational understanding, concurrent adherence of members to their innate historical phenotypic, former religious customs/traditions, stripped of their elements of faith/belief and sacredness.

B.

"Spreading the humanist/Brights gospel" should be, I think, mostly and primarily by example and by display of principles and behaviour, both within the family and in the community, rather than by deriding religious beliefs anywhere in any way.

C.

In Nov 2005 I came across a link of a "Centre for Science and Religion", comprising:

"The University of Leeds has now established a new Centre for Science and Religion. The connection between science and religion amounts to far more than conflict. Religions are a source of values, and the sciences give power to implement them, so their study is important for all of society."

Thus I finally learned and understood the division of labor between science and religion. It has become clear for me...Dumbfounded DH.

D.

Morality-ethics are human artifacts, extensions and elaborations of the most basic characteristic of life, cooperation.

All aspects of organisms' inter-cooperation within its community are at the base of life's evolution and are an expression of evolution's progress towards survival, at ever higher complexity. This scheme started with the occurrence of life, with individual genes evolving and elaborating cooperative genomes commune associations.

Life is a fractal affair, a repetition of phenomena on ever more complex scale. It cannot be otherwise; this is the nature of the universe. And surviving-proliferating life has always been a cooperative affair since cooperation is a most successful mode for overall survival/proliferation.

Thus all organisms have an innate natural drive and instinctive mode of cooperative action in within-group activities and relationships. This holds for the most complex poly-celled creatures and all the way down to the mono-cell organisms, and it comprises a variety of modes of cooperation including self-sacrifice for the good of the community.

E.

Humans display a different approach to the scientific study of the nature of life than to the study of anything else. This is most probably due to an aversion to accept the dismaying realization that we are, after all, just one of the many life forms on Earth (or in our galaxy or in the universe?).

A most essential, and uniquely human, ingrained/inherent need, is an inflated degree of self-esteem. The survival and bearable existence of human individuals and communities of any size is anchored in and established on a foundation of Self-Esteem Culture which is neatly a complete creation of humans.

The Inflated Self Esteem phenomenon, Religion, has been traced back circa 100,000 years ago, expressed in the form of human graves.

Unbelievably even and still now, in spite of the scientific comprehension amassed todate, there are so many humans clinging to the basic human instinct that attributes to humans, religiously, higher "universal value" than to other lives, to other forms of temporary energy bubbles/packages wherever they are...

F.

Humanity is urgently becoming faced with the vital need to re-formulate the basis of its culture and the communities-format of its organization on Earth, to anchor and build our life edifice on a science-informed rationale of convincing moral/ethical/social values.

end.

Dov Henis

Henis: What do you base this viewpoint on? Certainly not the Hebrew scriptures that you claim to be familiar with. Would you care to provide some scriptural documentation to back up your claim? I, for one, would love to see it as I'm personally convinced that no such scriptural documentation exists to support your claim.

Paul? "Hellenistic beliefs"? What exactly do you mean by that? Please clarify and then I'll answer your claims. Thank you.

This post has been edited by newguy on Oct 2 2007, 09:42 PM

I can answer for him....but without "quoting the bible"
If you are familiar with the old testament, then you are familiar with references to other pagan deities. When Moses came down from the mount....the people had already begun worshiping another deity...

Here is a short list borrowed from another website of gods mentioned in the bible...

SO, the bible writers keep mentioning these other deities....why?
There is only one true God...but they also reference their own God thusly:
1Ki 18:36
"And it came to pass at [the time of] the offering of the [evening] sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou [art] God in Israel, and [that] I [am] thy servant, and [that] I have done all these things at thy word."

Why did they define God(the only all-powerful God in existence) as "the Lord of Abraham"?
He was Lord of EVERYONE....
And why was Elijah simply claiming that God was lord in Israel(after showing that Baal was impotent)?
If they had always believed that God was the all-father, total creator and not relegated to provincial zoning....then why make statements like this?
I think that it is obvious that an O3 God(omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) was a later creation not embraced during the early history of judaism....

Are you actually claiming that Paul DID NOT have conflict with early church fathers who believed that all christians must also embrace all Jewish laws and traditions?
If I remember...Jesus' closest apostle Peter and Jesus' brother James had some seriously heated debates with Paul on this topic.....

PuckSR: If you feel compelled to answer for someone else, then please take the time to understand the question(s) first. Let's try this again:

What does your list of other "deities/gods" have to do with my question? Henis claims that, before the Babylonian exile, Jews believed that their God only had jurisdiction over their territory. Where is his proof to support this claim? Certainly NOT in what you provided. Why did the Old Testament prophets take up lamentations to leaders of OTHER NATIONS and instruct them in the ways of the God of Israel if the God of Israel was merely "territorial" as you both seem to claim? Your(collective) problem lies in the fact that you have absolutely no Biblical understanding whatsoever in regards to "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) that is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who have been reconciled back unto God through Jesus Christ. In fact, if you truly understood the scriptures, then you would understand that Jesus Christ Himself is referred to as "Israel" in the book of Isaiah.

"Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then said I, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."(Isaiah 49:1-6)

There are two different "Israels" spoken of all throughout scripture, including this very verse that I just cited. The first "Israel"(in red) is speaking of Jesus Christ Who is God's "salvation unto the end of the earth". Nothing "territorial" about that. This first "Israel" also includes those who truly belong to Christ...those who are referenced as "the preserved of Israel" in the passage that I just cited. In stark contrast, the second "Israel"(in blue), the ones who are referenced as the "Isreal that shall not be gathered", are natural Jews who have rejected Jesus Christ(spare me the "anti-Semitic" comments...there are plenty of Gentiles who have rejected Him as well). Additionally, that you can speak of a "territorial God" and Abraham in the same breath only further displays your Biblical ignorance.

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."(Genesis 17:1-8)

Abraham's very name means "a father of a multitude" or "a father of many nations". What is "territorial" in that? Through Abraham's "seed,(singular) which is Christ"(Galatians 3:16), ALL nations can be blessed.

Because He is the God Who promised to bless WHOMSOEVER will be reconciled unto Him through Abraham's seed, which is Christ.

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."(Galatians 3:26-29)

Well, I guess the epistle of the night is Galatians. Here is what you referenced:

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himself and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh by justified."(Galatians 2:11-16)

Once again, your "answers" have absolutely nothing to do with my questions. What does any of this have to do with Paul's supposed "Hellenistic beliefs"? The correct answer is NOTHING. God gave Peter the same vision three times:

"On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."(Acts 10:9-16)

Peter was given the same vision three times in which he saw "unclean beasts"(you know[would to God that you did], the same "unclean beasts" from the Old Testament that were symbolic of unclean people) before him. Peter rejected these "unclean and common beasts" until God instructed Him to no longer do so. Immediately after this vision, Peter was summoned to the home of a Gentile and he preached the gospel to him and his guests. Many people were converted that day. This happened PRIOR TO Paul's confrontation with Peter. Peter knew better, as God Himself had PREVIOUSLY instructed him along these lines. Anyhow, as I said, your comments have nothing to do with my questions. With this in mind, I'll wait to see how Henis Dov answers for himself. Take care.

This post has been edited by newguy on Oct 3 2007, 02:07 AM

What makes this all very funny.....

This is hilarious......really, really, really hilarious
I guess there is no arguing with someone who has an irrational belief that their view is correct....

Don't be stupid, Henis Dov made a comment about the Old Testament...no need to bring ol' JC into the discussion.
Apparently your definition of "biblical knowledge"=sharing newguy's religious convictions and unwaveringly naive commitment to a pentecostal reading of the bible.

BTW...I am pretty sure that Isaiah was talking about a guy named Emmanuel...and his mother(a young woman, not a virgin...stupid KJV) seems to have been an actual living person at the time of Isaiah...
So....why do you think a guy NAMED Emmanuel=Jesus?
Did Jesus change his name?
While we are on the topic...where are the dragons in Babylon...and you might want to tell all of those Iraqis that they need to leave...they aren't supposed to be there...
Oh also...God really needs to get around to destroying Damascus....

This post has been edited by PuckSR on Oct 3 2007, 03:15 AM

Sad to say, once again, the laugh is on you.

Which is exactly why I'll ignore any further posts of yours on this thread and wait to see if Henis Dov has anything further to say on this topic.

Jesus Christ is seen all throughout the Old Testament scriptures. In the volume of the book it is written of Him.

Naive? You must be drunk again.

You're "pretty sure"? How about this...I'm certain that you're wrong again.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

Emmanuel
male personal name, from Gk. form of Heb. Immanu'el, lit. "God is with us."

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."(Matthew 1:21-23)

The name "Jesus" means "Jehovah is salvation". Christ is His title or office as the Messiah or Anointed One.

I wish you the best. Take care.

This post has been edited by newguy on Oct 3 2007, 03:38 AM

Except that "virgin" is a mistranslation....ask anyone who reads hebrew...
The term should be "young woman", and is corrected in all modern translations...
Silly KJV

secondly....

So even Matthew admits that the original prophecy is "they shall call his name Emmanuel"....
So....why is he named Jesus?

I would love to hear you twist in the wind on this....

Think about it for a minute, Matthew's justification is ridiculous and self-serving...
"Oh crap, Isaiah said his name should be Emmanuel(God is with us), but his name was Jesus(he will save[a shortened version of Joshua and not an uncommon name])....
Crap, well I guess Jesus could have been God, and he was with us....so if we do a lil Nostradamus act...we can partially justify it"---Writer(s) of Matthew's thought process

Oh...you might want to read this JEWISH commentary on the passage
Isaiah 7:14

Then you know NOTHING about that passage of the bible....read up on it before you start an argument

This post has been edited by PuckSR on Oct 3 2007, 03:55 AM

Rationality vs Faith

PuckSR, I sincerely appreciate your heroic rationality vs newguy's religious, duel.

I admit that I am incapable and unable to engage in such duels even in Hebrew with religious Jews, my own phenotypic cultural group members.

There are two times when I do not understand religious persons: before they explain and afterwards. They seem to think that everyone should become religious, since after all, rational observation is the most important thing to shun in life.

Obviously conversion from "faith hypnosis" to "rationality" involves a deep personal radical process. Faith-Religion, the circa 100,000 yr old biological-cultural tool of humanity, has been serving humans in various ways for many useful ends and, simultaneously, for some horrible ends. Sadly, the state of survival-balance of humanity on planet Earth is fast becoming too dangerously precarious especially due to evolving survival competition between incompatible human cultural phenotypic groups, and the only hope to avoid an approaching catasthrophe is adoption of science-based rationality.

I think,

Dov Henis

Henis: If PuckSR is your "hero", then you're in very bad shape, indeed.

Or, in other words, you are unable to back up your bogus claims. No surprise here.

What a surprise. Another stereotypical cop-out. So I'm "irrational", am I? Why? Because I challenged your bogus claim? The only thing I "shun" is posers like yourself who can't back up their claims when challenged.

Actually, what should be obvious to all is that you couldn't back up your bogus claim and have instead resorted to all sorts of stereotypical name-calling. Physician, heal thyself. You can go back to talking to yourself on this thread now, as you seem incapable of dialogue when questioned. Shalom.