Posts by fulltimestudent

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

fulltimestudent

Let me start with the most recent points and move back.

It's likely important to understand something about 'El' - a point I shall come back to. It is now realised that the background to Israel is to be found in the native peoples of Palestine, often referred to as Canaanites.

I'm using Wikipedia for convenience, I don't think that scholastically, too many people would quibble over the following entry, discussing the deity, El.

ʾĒl (written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic: 𐎛𐎍, Phoenician: 𐤋𐤀,[1] Hebrew: אל‎, Classical Syriac: ܐܠ, Arabic: إل‎ or إله, cognate toAkkadian: ilu) is a Northwest Semitic word meaning "god" or "deity" and it is used as the name of major Ancient Near East deities, including the God of the Hebrew Bible.
In the Canaanite religion, or Levantine religion as a whole, El or Il was a god also known as the Father of humanity and all creatures, and the husband of the goddess Asherah as recorded in the clay tablets of Ugarit (modern Ra′s Shamrā—Arabic: رأس شمرا‎, Syria).[2]
The bull was symbolic to El and his son Baʻal Hadad, and they both wore bull horns on their headdress.[3][4][5][6] He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29

the entry continues: Cognate forms are found throughout the Semitic languages. They include Ugaritic ʾil, pl. ʾlm; Phoenician ʾl pl. ʾlm; Hebrew ʾēl, pl. ʾēlîm; Aramaic ʾl; Akkadian ilu, pl. ilānu.
In northwest Semitic use, El was both a generic word for any god and the special name or title of a particular god who was distinguished from other gods as being "the god".[7]El is listed at the head of many pantheons.

A lot of material has been found dealing with Canaanite religious beliefs and if anyone is not familiar with this material, a good essay to background El, may be this one:

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel

The author is Frank Moore Cross Jr. who was the Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus at Harvard University. (now deceased).

Some prior post on this site by Leolaia will also provide some profound thoughts.

Boyarin alludes to 'El' and his associated god Ba'l, as ancient ideas in Israelite thought, and suggests that they may be the pattern for the vision that the author of Daniel claims to have had. Boyarin cites an ancient text (for which I did not keep a reference).

"Ba'l comes near in his shining storm cloud. 'El is the transcendent one"

Whatever actually was the case in the past is always subject to discussion. Some say that the deity (God, Divinity) Baal, the god of war, became the Yahweh of the Israelites. I cite this to demonstrate historically Judaism developed from its Canaanite background with some different ideas about "God/El etc. But were the original ideas entirely forgotten? We may never know.

My personal view, is that there is another possibility for second god-like figure in the Daniel 7 vision. In the fourth century BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, which had included the Palestinian home of the Jews. Greek colonies were planted all over the empire. Hellenic thought diffused throughout the empire, from Greece down to Egypt and from the Mediterranean seacoast east to present day Afghanistan and the borders of India.

If you're not familiar with that process of Hellenic colonisation, may I suggest Elias Bickerman's, "The Jews in the Greek Age." or Lee I. Levines, "Judaism & Hellenism in Antiquity, Conflict or Congruence."

I'm suggesting that the model for the Daniel vision of two God's, one senior, one junior may be found in the Greek Pantheon where Zeus was the chief divinity, but there were others who were still 'gods' but subject to Zeus. For example, Apollo, the Greek God of healing and prophecy has been suggested as a pattern for the Jesus figure. Or, maybe Dionysus, the only Greek God to have a human mother.

Whether either or neither of those two possibilities is right is likely beyond proof. All we know for sure, is that likely in the second century BCE, an unknown (probable) Jew wrote a story about a divine figure, the Ancient of Days (the English word 'divine' can be used, as the figure is evidently a God who arrives in typical Jewish fashion0, coming to sit on his throne and issuing a royal/divine command that another god-like figure, called the 'son of man,' also coming in the clouds of heaven and being given royal privileges over everyone on the earth,

It is being argued that one 'God' is higher, than the other 'God,' and therefore it is not polytheism. That must be a failed argument. Why? Because in most polytheistic pantheons there is a 'senior' god, and one or more Junior 'gods.' The Graeco-Roman Pantheon has already been mentioned, as well as the Canaanite example, and for good measure we could add the Hindu example, where Vishnu is often cited as the chief God, though he may have a bit of competition.

1

The JW Belief - No Military service contrasted with evidence of Christian Soldiers in 1st and 2nd C Roman Armies

by fulltimestudent in

around the world, tens of thousands of jws have refused military service.

these witnesses have had their lives disrupted, by imprisonment, violence in some cases and execution in a few.. the following article steps aside from the usual theological argument and asks the question, is there evidence of early christians (pre constantinian) serving in roman armies?

if there is evidence of christian military service before the constantinian era, i suggest that it would undermine the witness arguments against christians serving in military forces.. for the record, i only suffered minor inconvenience for my refusal.. the author of this article, written three years ago, is christopher jones.

fulltimestudent

For contrast, we could think of the military record of the Jewish worshippers of Yahweh in the last centuries BCE and first and second centuries CE.

The Books labelled Maccabees bear witness to Jewish martial spirit. These Jews had no reticence when it came to killing an enemy. They could be merciless. And the record is also clear that in the first (66-73) and second revolts (132-135) they were savage fighters.

So there does not seem much evidence of a Jewish form of pacifism.

1

The JW Belief - No Military service contrasted with evidence of Christian Soldiers in 1st and 2nd C Roman Armies

by fulltimestudent in

around the world, tens of thousands of jws have refused military service.

these witnesses have had their lives disrupted, by imprisonment, violence in some cases and execution in a few.. the following article steps aside from the usual theological argument and asks the question, is there evidence of early christians (pre constantinian) serving in roman armies?

if there is evidence of christian military service before the constantinian era, i suggest that it would undermine the witness arguments against christians serving in military forces.. for the record, i only suffered minor inconvenience for my refusal.. the author of this article, written three years ago, is christopher jones.

fulltimestudent

Around the world, tens of thousands of JWs have refused military service. These witnesses have had their lives disrupted, by imprisonment, violence in some cases and execution in a few.

The following article steps aside from the usual theological argument and asks the question, is there evidence of early Christians (pre Constantinian) serving in Roman Armies? If there is evidence of Christian military service before the Constantinian era, I suggest that it would undermine the witness arguments against Christians serving in military forces.

For the record, I only suffered minor inconvenience for my refusal.

The author of this article, written three years ago, is Christopher Jones.

He is a Ph.D student in ancient Near Eastern history at Columbia University in New York. His primary research interests focus on the Neo-Assyrian Empire, especially the organization and structure of the Assyrian government and military. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011 with a B.A. in Peace, War & Defense and Ancient & Medieval History, and a minor in Archaeology and then graduated from Wheaton College in 2014 with an M.A. in Biblical Archaeology.

In the introduction he writes:

Christian pacifism has raised its profile in recent years, likely prompted by dissatisfaction with increasing political polarization, and promoted by some influential writers. Ideas promoted in the past century by Cecil John Cadoux and John Howard Yoder with little headway have found a modern defender in Stanley Hauerwas and a popularizer in Shane Claiborne, whose books, speaking tours and radical lifestyle have attracted many admirers if few followers.
Central to all of these authors’ ideas is the concept of the “fall of the church.” They hold that early Christianity was pacifist and anarchist in character, and rejected the ideas of military service and loyalty to the state. As Christianity came to be accepted by the Roman government at around the time of Constantine, the church became corrupted by its relationship with state power. After Constantine the church became willing to acquiesce to state power and wage war, execute people in the name of the state, force conversions, and recognize the authority of rulers other than Jesus. According to Yoder, the behavior of the early church is important because the early Christians “read the Bible in a first-century context. They read the New Testament in the same world in which it was written, in the same language in which it was written. They probably read it, therefore, with more understanding than we do. Hence, how they read the New Testament is helpful to us in our reading of the New Testament, whatever the limits of their faithfulness.

If the question interests you read on in the author's personal blog at:

https://gatesofnineveh.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/christians-in-the-roman-army-countering-the-pacifist-narrative/

The Sun - as the authors of the Bible never knew it

by fulltimestudent in

the source of life on earth!.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/sun-time-lapse-video_n_7038672.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000010.

.

fulltimestudent

The source of life on earth!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/sun-time-lapse-video_n_7038672.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000010

2

A slow drive in the Himalayas (Pakistan side)

by fulltimestudent in

not sure if you'll want to go:.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=682830445108335&set=vb.540191909372190&type=2&theater.

fulltimestudent

Not sure if you'll want to go:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=682830445108335&set=vb.540191909372190&type=2&theater

14

God evolved from chimpanzee diety

by freemindfade in

researchers say todays lord almighty shares many traits in common with the chimp deity, including color vision and omniscience.. .

berkeley, cachallenging long-held views on the origins of divinity, biologists at the university of california, berkeley, presented findings thursday that confirm god, the almighty creator of the universe, evolved from an ancient chimpanzee deity.. the recently discovered sacred ancestor, a divine chimp species scientists have named pan sanctorum, reportedly gave rise over millions of years to the lord our god, maker of heaven and earth.. although perhaps not obvious at first glance, there are actually overwhelming similarities between the supreme being of today and this early primate deity who preceded him, said dr. richard kamen, a leading biologist who also heads berkeleys paleotheology department.

the holy chimp moved around on all fours, but its descendants eventually began walking upright to expend less energy while foraging across the infinite reaches of the universe.

fulltimestudent

Umm! No wonder the Yahweh/Jesus combo god tries to make monkeys out of us all, especially around memorial season>

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

fulltimestudent

Response to TTTE.

1. Origin of the word divine:
Late Middle English: via Old French from Latin divinus, from divus 'godlike' (related to deus 'god').MORE Divine ‘godlike’ came via Old French from Latindivinus, from divus ‘godlike’ (related to deus ‘god’, source of Middle English deify).

Reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/divine

Used as an adjective, the Oxford defines the word this way:

adjective (diviner, divinest)1Of or like God or a god:

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

And as a noun: (the Divine)Providence or God.

In the descriptive verses in Daniel 7, the terms used are descriptive.

In the case of the first figure, he is called, " The Ancient of Days"

And the second, "one like the son of man."

Are this figures supposed to represent humans or Divinities. (Gods)?

You are (of course) entitled to give whatever meaning you wish to a word, but the plain English meaning is as a reference to "the/a God"

So some translations render the controversial text in John 1:1 by using the word divine in lieu of "God", or, "a god."

Here's a quotation from Wikipedia:

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine."

An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos".

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

I cite that verse, not to sidetrack into that controversy, but simply to give an example of the use of the Englsih word, Divine, by some translators.

Therefore when you argue:

"Now Boyarin makes a fundamental mistake as almost all of us do when he said...
"What this text projects is a second divine figure, to whom will be given eternal dominion of the entire world. .
There is no second “divine figure” in view here as there is no first “divine figure” in view. He has wrongly used the word divine from our language to try to describe something from ancient Hebrew."

I ask simply, according to English usage, is the word 'divine,' out of place? I don't think that can be argued. All the English words that can be used, are English and not original.

What word do you think Boyarin should have used?

16

When did Christianity Separate from Judaism?

by fulltimestudent in

this is a subject of some importance, the view of the witnesses, likely inherited from franz's influence, seems to be that early christianity developed as a separate religion to the jews.. the view of most contemporary scholars is that the separation occurred slowly, and that influential early christians (e.g.

such as paul, peter, john and james) still saw themselves as jews.. to those of us that are no longer christians (and, most ex-witnesses here, seem to gradually move to that position) this is not an important issue.. but to an organisation that claims it has "the truth," surely it should know the truth about its origins.

yet the evidence is that the modern day religion of jehovah's witnesses, does not know the "truth" concerning the origins of early christianity.

fulltimestudent

Great story, CalebinFloroda. Thnx, for telling it here.

The biggest mistake (IMHO), is that standard (for lack of a better word) Christians including the standard JWs, is to assume that both first century CE Judaism and Christianity was homogenous and united in their belief systems. Of course, there were some common beliefs, but there were also some really wild beliefs also.

3

Translating Animal 'Talk.'

by fulltimestudent in

listen first:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=30&v=wozgcyoi9l8.

this is an area of particular interest to me.

fulltimestudent

Listen first:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=30&v=wOzgCyoi9l8

This is an area of particular interest to me. One of the first realisations in my 'awakening,' was eth realisation that the Bible was plain wrong in the statement made at 2 Peter 2:12:

The KJV translates it as:

But these, as natural brute* beasts, ...

In the NWT (large study version), Freddy decided to say:

But these, like unreasoning animals ...

The NIV is similar:

They are like unreasoning animals

The RSV decided on:

these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct,

Even 30 years ago, it was becoming evident, that the idea that animals could not reason (think) was wrong. And, if that idea, as expressed in the above verse, is wrong, then clearly the Bible is not inspired and the whole christian thingie is bullsh*t.

Since then, science has collected more and more evidence that the idea of 'unreasoning' animals is based on superstition, not evidence. I've posted on this from time to time.

Now, none of us will understand the gibbon 'talk' in the above video, but by a process of recording sounds, and watching reactions it became clear that different sounds meant different things, and the article in this link discusses the research that went into decoding gibbon-speak.

link: http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-language-lar-gibbons-02683.html

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

*The word that the KJV translates as 'brute,' is alogos with the essential English meaning of:

destitute of reason
See, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G249&t=KJV
hence 'unreasoning'

16

When did Christianity Separate from Judaism?

by fulltimestudent in

this is a subject of some importance, the view of the witnesses, likely inherited from franz's influence, seems to be that early christianity developed as a separate religion to the jews.. the view of most contemporary scholars is that the separation occurred slowly, and that influential early christians (e.g.

such as paul, peter, john and james) still saw themselves as jews.. to those of us that are no longer christians (and, most ex-witnesses here, seem to gradually move to that position) this is not an important issue.. but to an organisation that claims it has "the truth," surely it should know the truth about its origins.

yet the evidence is that the modern day religion of jehovah's witnesses, does not know the "truth" concerning the origins of early christianity.

fulltimestudent

Vidiot- I agree, and I noted last semester that it was likely a gradual process and that some scholars were talking about 200 years, and not the JW idea of an immediate split

Anyway, someone has gone to a lot of trouble with this "Evolutionery Tree of Myth and Religion:"

reference: http://rahoorkhuit93.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/timeline-myth-religion.jpg