/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For what textual reason do you conclude that these three are not the same God?

>>843086

1. Im not totally convinced by the JEDP hypothesis, but it cannot be denied that J (national god) and E (strictly monotheist god) are depicted in different ways.

2. No where in the Pentateuch does it say that Yahweh is the only God or that the other nations are wicked because they don't worship Yahweh (if they were why didn't He just appear to them as well?)

3. The Israelites were constantly falling into polytheism, which is weird if they were firmly monotheistic from the start but makes perfect sense if they were henotheists.

>>843087

>So even Moses admits that God's primary purpose in saving the Jews is so that God will have a people on earth that can bear witness to His saving grace and glory to the nations. This is the point of the whole Pentateuch. This is because God saw that the heart of man was nothing but continual scheming for evil (Gen 6:5). When Jesus comes along, he doesn't overturn this fundamental concept that God wants holy witness from believers, for the purpose of mankind's reform. This is why God is grieved by the Jews, and tells them that he will recruit guests to his wedding feast from the highways and crossroads (Matthew 22). Jesus' grief is the grief of the Old Testament God when he says "how often would I have gathered you under my wings, but you were not willing" (Matt 23:37).

Why would he choose the Jews if he knew they would be stubborn?

>So be anti-semetic all you want, I don't care, but don't be anti-semetic because God isn't nice enough in the Old Testament to be Jesus.

It's not that the old testament God isn't nice, its that he has more in common with Apollo than he does with New testament God, or even the God of Isaiah.

basically, here's how I interpret it:

"i am yahweh, one of many gods in the canaanite pantheon, i have chosen you jews as my people and will give you power in killing your enemies and conquering their lands. In return you will worship me exclusively."

^ this God is metaphysically different from Christ. Neither is nice, (Christ condemns sinners to Hell, Yahweh orders the Jews to kill any canaanites that stand in their way), but one is the universal savior of all mankind and the other is a national God. Maybe im missing something, but I cant get this out of my mind.

>>843088

>Why would he choose the Jews if he knew they would be stubborn?

God chose you, and you're stubborn enough. Why do you care about what God sees fit to do anyway? Do you deny Him the right to do the miracle of making proud and stubborn people humble and meek? The Jews are a proud and stiff-necked people, and some of them were part of the elect.

>one is the universal savior of all mankind and the other is a national God

Are you doing higher criticism at a university, or are you looking for the truth? I told you already that God was very merciful to the Egyptians, he gave them Joseph, who saved them from famine. Is that the act of a wrathful canaanite deity? Or of a universal God who had as much care towards the Egyptians as to the Hebrews? Again, when the Hebrews were enslaved, did that God destroy all the Egyptians at passover? No, because that would be the work of a radical nationalist, not a perfectly just God. Also, even though the canaanites practiced infanticide, and thoroughly deserved to be killed to the last man for it, some were spared, including Rahab, who was a prostitute, and probably therefore had committed infanticide many a time. Yet she was repentant unlike the rest of the city.

The 19th centuries neologisms you use don't fit with Christianity because they were not made to fit. Abandon them and it will become clearer.

>>843089

> I told you already that God was very merciful to the Egyptians, he gave them Joseph, who saved them from famine

With the ultimate goal of saving the Israelites, who were also suffering from a famine.

>Or of a universal God who had as much care towards the Egyptians as to the Hebrews?

Why not reveal himself to the Egyptians? The Israelites did not care to convert the Egyptians to worshipping Yahweh, they despised the goyim and some would even refuse to eat with them at the same table.

Of course, this changes after the Babylonian exile (when they became properly monotheistic) and you begin to see the emergence of so called "god-fearers", monotheistic gentiles who worshiped Yahweh/El as a monotheistic diety.

I'll give you one thing though, I do not think its a coincidence that the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed simultaneously to the rise of Christianity. The Rabbinic Jews of today practice something very different to what was practiced during Second Temple Judaism.

>>843098

>Of course, this changes after the Babylonian exile (when they became properly monotheistic) and you begin to see the emergence of so called "god-fearers", monotheistic gentiles who worshiped Yahweh/El as a monotheistic diety.

Rahab was among these "god-fearers" so was Niaomi from the book of Ruth. The problem here is with your language; perhaps you can speak a little about changing perceptions of God through time, but do any of those human ideas have any weight with God? People's opinion of God can change as people confront the reality of what God has made and allowed to happen, but God cannot change.

Personally I've come to the exact opposite conclusion to you; I see a God who made heaven and earth, who lamented our continual evil (Gen 6:5) but who doesn't allow evil to triumph but plots instead for our good (Gen 50:20). A God that is not exclusive, but a God who would rather send his prophet Elisha to Naaman the Syrian, rather than send him among hard-hearted and unbelieving Jews. (And that was before the exile). Because, if God were just a figment of some ancient nationalism, that figment could hardly endure through the centuries but it would be recognized as being worthless as it really would be.

>>843083

The common Islamic conception of a monotheistic god is wrong. He actually isn't that powerful despite being the most powerful being in existence. His plan to flood the world and purge evil failed because of Ham's wife. His plan for the Israelites to inherit the Earth is conceivable but the odds don't seem that great. The Scythian descendants of the Israelites spread across Europe and colonized more future White nations like the USA but how many of those people are actually pure Scythian? You don't see many so called "whites" with an Israelite/Scythian warrior spirit or religious devotion to God anymore. They're out there but they're a dying subgroup of a dying race. Maybe God's got another clever ploy to pull out of his back pocket but He never seems to finally pull an ultimate checkmate. The world still always has evil in it and even good people can turn evil. So God's the good guy. He's just not as op as we were told. Like I always say, the truth is never exciting but never what you expect either.

>>843083

>Why did God need to make a covenant with the Jews at all?

Because the world back then wasn't as small as today. There are thousands of tribes everywhere.

>Why are the Jews allowed to do reprehensible things to non-jews,

Because the non-jews were, in their religions, allowed to do much worse to the Israelites and the Jews.

>This doesn't make sense from a Christian perspective

Why not? We are the nation of Deuteronomy 15:6.

>>843098

>The Israelites did not care to convert the Egyptians to worshipping Yahweh

There were plenty of people who converted to Judaism around the nations. God intended the nations to be converted when the Messiah comes.

>they despised the goyim and some would even refuse to eat with them at the same table.

If they eat together with them, later they would worship their Gods with them. It's just part of cultural isolation.

>>843083

>I don't see a clear transition to proper monotheism happening until after the kingdom divides, and its not even cemented until the end of the Babylonian exile.

Then why does Deuteronomy say "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

>I have to ask, why was the covenant with the Jews necessary in the first place?

Read Hebrews, it was all meant to foreshadow the coming messiah from Genesis 3:15, and according to Paul in places like Romans and Galatians the Mosaic Law was also meant not only to prefigure Christ to make his incarnation a fulfillment of it, but also, the Law was meant to show that no man is righteous before God and unable to save himself, hence the need to continually offer sacrifices every year, etc. It all pointed to the true Savior still coming. Those that are saved back then believed that He was coming.

>Why did God need to make a covenant with the Jews at all?

Actually he originally made it with Israel, technically. It's just that by the New Testament, the ten tribes had been dispersed and samaritans had created a new religion of their making so that only the southern kingdom was left. People who call themselves "Jews" today are those who study the talmud, which is totally unrelated to any of this. The latter is just a false "oral" tradition that was made up on the way.

>but makes perfect sense from a Jewish ethnocentric perspective where Yahweh is merely their god who lives among other gods.

People who are unrighteous and lost are often given over to wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction.

>The Israelites were constantly falling into polytheism, which is weird if they were firmly monotheistic from the start but makes perfect sense if they were henotheists.

Which makes sense since they weren't the ones that authored Scripture, the Lord God did and many of them simply didn't get it.

>basically, here's how I interpret it:

>"i am yahweh, one of many gods in the canaanite pantheon, i have chosen you jews as my people and will give you power in killing your enemies and conquering their lands. In return you will worship me exclusively."

What actual scripture references are you thinking of. And don't give me one of the modern versions, because those intentionally add in false ideas. Show me in the KJV or the original languages in which the KJV is based where it is.

>^ this God is metaphysically different from Christ.

There's one pressing issue with this statement, You haven't shown that it's in the Bible.

>>843087

>>843083

Guys, guys, can you please stop using the term "Jews" and instead use the correct terms "Hebrews" or "Israelites when referrring to Abraham or Jacob and the generations that come after? I cringe everytime I read that and God probably does too. For Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob it was impossible to be Jewish because the Jews descended from them, and Moses was not of the tribe of Judah but of Levi. Get your genealogies straight.

Now please continue.

>>843155

>What actual scripture references are you thinking of. And don't give me one of the modern versions, because those intentionally add in false ideas. Show me in the KJV or the original languages in which the KJV is based where it is.

Pslams 82 is generally henotheist but doesn't prove my point.

Basically my entire case is laid out by the proponents of the documentary and supplementary hypothesis as well as archaeological evidence.

scholars call early Judaism "Yahwism" and it is distinct from 2nd temple Judaism and of course rabbinic Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism#:~:text=Yahwism%20was%20the%20historic%20monolatristic,called%20the%20Land%20of%20Israel.

>Then why does Deuteronomy say "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Its likely to Deuteronomy is a much later source written to reflect the more sophisticated views of later Jews

>>843264

Archaeological evidence is irrelevant to the question of the monotheism of the Christian Bible. I'm sure there is archaeological evidence of hebrew polytheism since the book already teaches they regularly fell into idolatry.

>>843292

Im not questioning Christian monotheism. There's no denying that.

You don't commited monotheists falling into polytheism like the Israelites did.

I'm surprised how much the gnostic heresy is gaining traction. Like people keep telling me the God of the OT is the devil and I say get away from gnosticism, that stuff is poison and a bunch of them haven't even heard of gnosticism. Who is promoting this outside of the occult?

>>843417

I never said he was a demon or a demiurge. I said he was a national god.

>>843420

Who cares? Paul says every idol is inhabited by some demon. The gnostic heresy is that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different deities. That would basically leave Christians without a theological anchor if it were true. Either the Bible is reliable or we're up the river without a paddle.

>>843417

It's just a really, really bad fanfiction version of Christianity that throws out virtually the entire Bible. It's exactly the kind of thing that 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 is warning about.

Matthew 5:17-20 King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven .

>>843155

>Then why does Deuteronomy say "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Deuteronomy was compiled in stages. Chapters 5-11 were written after chapters 12-26 for example. Deuteronomy 6:4 reflects the later monotheistic views of the returning exiles. In some of the earliest layers of Deuteronomy we find evidence of polytheistic belief. For example, Deuteronomy 32:8-9

>When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.

Here it is clear that "the Most High" is distinct from Yahweh and that when he divided the nations he assigned Yahweh Israel. This is further supported by the fact that in the LXX it reads:

>"When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance".

And the Dead Sea Scrolls have:

>"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".

The MT text changes it from "angels of God" or "sons of God" to "sons of Israel." It is clear that in the original version, Yahweh is portrayed as one of the sons of Elyon (the Most High) reflecting typical Caananite mythology of the high god El having seventy sons in a divine council. El and Yahweh were considered separate deities at one point in time, with El having been the original god of Israel and Yahweh was imported in from the south, possibly by migrant Levites from Midian or perhaps even Egypt.

>>845233

>The MT text changes it from "angels of God" or "sons of God" to "sons of Israel." It is clear that in the original version, Yahweh is portrayed as one of the sons of Elyon (the Most High) reflecting typical Caananite mythology of the high god El having seventy sons in a divine council. El and Yahweh were considered separate deities at one point in time, with El having been the original god of Israel and Yahweh was imported in from the south, possibly by migrant Levites from Midian or perhaps even Egypt.

The "sons" of El are the Watchers. Specific Angels who were given charge over the nations of the earth. They became corrupted and ceased their watch, and ruled as gods over these nations instead. They were never real gods. They slept with women and taught things men should have never known (magic, divination, advanced sciences and skills they were never ready for, etc). They were called "sons of God" in Genesis 6 as well (the flood story). Exodus didn't suddenly change to a polytheistic pantheon from Genesis. The "sons of God" were always angels in both books.

The most important error in your thinking however is about YHVH. YHVH itself is a shortened form of "I AM THAT I AM". It springs from the verb "to be". This is no name for a typical pagan god. Those gods had limited domains and roles to play (fertility, war, lightning, etc). But this is a God who claims the power of being, existence, time, presence, and creativity itself. Things only the Supreme Creator can do. His domain is everything.

And that verse difference is not just in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's the Septuagint as well. The remarkable thing about the DSS is we finally have a Hebrew version that shows where the Masoretes confused matters. It's another confirmation on the witness of the Septuagint.

Here's something else of interest. YHVH is the name spoken by the Figure in the Burning Bush that Moses saw. He is called the "Angel of the Lord", but speaks in the first person as the "God of your fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". This is somehow the Lord's Word or spokesman on earth. He just finally gave a name to Moses. And it's not some Midian thing or the first time he appeared either. He's the same Angel of the Lord who appeared to Abraham as a man, who appeared to Hagar as a man, and who wrestled with Jacob man to man. He was always called "El" in the past. For example, Jacob was named "Israel" by this mysterious figure and it meant "wrestles with God". Or when this Angel of the Lord rescued Hagar, she called him "El Roi" - which means, "the God who sees me". The God who personally came down and helped her and her son.

Later, Malachi prophesied that the waited for Messiah would actually be the Angel that these stories spoke of:

"Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty." - Malachi 3:1. Who is the "Angel of the Covenant" other than the Angel of the Lord, who gave Moses the Torah (i.e. the Covenant)?

And as we see in the New Testament, Jesus later claims this status in the Gospels:

"You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM." - John 8:57-59. Do you get it yet? Jesus is YHVH. So yes, in one sense, he is the "Son of the Most High" - son of God the Father. Yet at the same time, he is fully God himself. "The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."