WHY PRAYING TO JEHOVAH (YAHWEH) IS A WASTE OF TIME!

by Dansk 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  drwtsn32

  Dansk, thanks for the very interesting post!
• 

  Euphemism

  I think we have to distinguish the question of when monotheism originated from when it became prevalent in Israel.

  According to Josh 24:15, many of the early Hebrews were polytheists. Throughout the books of Judges, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings, one finds that polytheism is almost impossible to eradicate in Israel, despite the efforts of various kings, priests, and prophets.

  So no doubt about it, many people worshipped Yahweh as one of many Gods. That does not, however, disprove that Yahweh revealed himself to the early Hebrews as the one and only God, and that there did exist a monotheistic cult throughout Hebrew history.

  Just to take one example, why do you believe that Josiah destoyed the sacred trees of Asherah, if not in a campaign against polytheism? That was the period of the first temple, and yet you state that monotheism wasn't practiced until the second.

  It's true, of course, that monotheism didn't become nationally and permanently dominant in Israel until the Second Temple period. The Jews believed that the main reason they had been exiled to Babylon was because of their polytheistic idolatry; and so while post-exilic Judah soon returned the the moral conditions prevalent before the exile, polytheism did not take hold again.
• 

  avishai

  I posted a similar post awhile back about Asherah.http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/52890/1.ashx Euphemism, how do you explain that "Yahweh" had moses erect a pole representative of Asherah to heal the israelites from snakebite?
• 

  SpunkyChick

  Dansk - Thanks so much for the interesting read!
• 

  hooberus

  Also from an Iranian source, was the idea of a saviour, born in midwinter, in a cave or stable, surrounded by farm animals, and attended by Magi. These elements clearly influenced the development of the Christian traditions about Jesus.

  I don't believe this comment is accurate.

  This comment may be referring to to the so-called "Iranian redeemer myth". According to Robert Morey thuis is a mistaken concept in which post-christian manichean manuscripts were mistakenly placed in a pre-christian context.

  This comment could also be referring to Iranian Mithraism. The following refutes the idea that the birth account in the New Testament came from Mithraism:

  http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html

  We are now ready to embark upon the practical part of our essay in which we consider in turn each of the claims made by Acharya S of alleged "parallels" between Mithraism and Christianity.

  1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

     This claim, which I have seen repeated in part by the Secular Web's James Still, is a mix of truth and obfuscations. Let's begin with the December 25th part by noting Glenn Miller's reply, which is more than sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that it was (at the time) the winter solstice.

     Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

     That leaves the shepherds, and this is one that is entirely true; although the shepherds did more than "attend" (unlike Luke's shepherds, they were witnesses to the birth; there was no angelic mediator), they also helped Mithra out of the rock, and offered him the first-fruits of their flock -- quite a feat for these guys in any event, considering that Mithra's birth took place at a time when (oops!) men had supposedly not been created on earth yet. [Cum.MM, 132] But the clincher here is that this scene, like nearly all Roman Mithraic evidence, dates at least a century after the time of the New Testament. It is too late to say that any "borrowing" was done by the Christian church -- if there was any, it was the other way around; but there probably was not. (It is fair to note also that the Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story...his conception was attributed, variously, to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman...but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of. [Cum.MM, 16] Acharya says that the Indian Mitra, "was born of a female, Aditi, the 'mother of the gods,' the inviolable or virgin dawn; this is simply yet another case of her applying terminology [a "dawn" as "virgin" -- so when does the dawn start "having sex" and how?] illicitly. So likewise this word game: "It could be suggested that Mithra was born of 'Prima Materia,' or 'Primordial Matter,' which could also be considered 'First Mother,' 'Virgin Matter,' 'Virgin Mother,' etc..." -- it can be "considered" no such thing except by vivid imagination; merely playing on the psycho-linguistic similarity of sound in the English words "matter" and "mother" and trying to equare "first" with "virgin" isn't going to do the job.)Acharya now adds in her work iconographic evidence allegedly showing "the babe Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, with the gift-bearing Magi genuflecting in front of them." One is constrained to ask how an icon reflects that Mithra's mother was a virgin, since it is obviously not stated. One also wants to know if any of this evidence is pre-Christian (it is not). Quoting others who merely say it is indicating a virgin birth, yet offer no more evidence, is not an argument. Finally, we are told of the "largest near-eastern Mithraeum [which] was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'." This is a very curious claim which is repeated around the Internet, but no source is given for it, and Acharya attributes it to a "writer" with no name or source. I believe, however, that I have found the terminal source, and it is a paper written in 1993 by a then-high school student, David Fingrut, who made this claim without any documentation whatsoever himself. His paper is now posted on the Net as a text file. That said, it is inaccurate to start with, since the building at Kanagvar is not a Mithraeum at all, but a temple to Anahita (dated 200 BC), and although I have found one source of untested value that affirms that Anahita was depicted as a virgin (in spite of being a fertility goddess!), she is regarded not at Mithra's mother, but as his consort (though it does offer other contradictory info) -- and it knows nothing of such an inscription as described; and the mere existence of the goddess Anahita before the Roman era proves nothing. Acharya appears to be throwing ringers again.
• 

  hooberus