Posts by peacefulpete

34

Why Did God Create Us?

by Sea Breeze in

jesus is the creator god, but why did he create us?

what say you?.

More Menorah

by peacefulpete in

another brief example of ancient traditions reinterpreted by worshipers of yahweh.

the book of exodus 25:.

31 ¶ and thou shalt make a lampstand of pure gold; of beaten work shall the lampstand be made; its base and its branches, its bowls, its knops, and its flowers shall be of the same.32 and six branches shall come out of the sides of it, three branches of the lampstand out of the one side and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side,33 three bowls made like unto almonds with a knop and a flower in one branch, and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch with a knop and a flower; thus in the six branches that come out of the lampstand.34 and in the lampstand shall be four bowls made like unto almonds with their knops and their flowers.35 and there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the lampstand.36 their knops and their branches shall be of the same; all of it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.37 and thou shalt make its seven lamps; and they shall light its lamps, that they may give light over against it.. ok, so there is this strangely detailed description of a sacred golden lampstand, with 7 lamps in a strict formation of 3 branches on each side a single 7th in the center.

peacefulpete

Kaleb...No offense intended my friend.

The reading in Exodus could have been better written (edited?) but the essential description is fairly clear. (Numbers is pretty brief) I enjoyed the midrash comments that depict Moses' inability to understand the instructions. The proposed visual aids offered him add a humorous touch. Not speaking Hebrew I don't how narrowly the word 'shown' in vs 40 needs be understood, but I can see the same word used in vs 9 in regards the entire tabernacle and furnishings design. That suggests either the word doesn't necessarily imply a vision or conversely the entire section was perceived as a vision at some point. Regardless, it was an entertaining midrash about the confusing description. Thanks for sharing.

Did they just get one from the heathens by then? Not likely since they just had that war with Antiochus IV Epiphanes and purged everything out of Judea that was not "Jewish."

The temple and the menorah were entirely "Jewish" regardless the ancient roots of the decorations and design.

By finding something that looked like what the Jews developed, you "found" a "menorah."

The associations with an 8th century Ashera specifically connected to Yahweh that roughly matches the description from 5th century Exodus, and that also bears a strong resemblance to the menorah design in use in the 2nd century BCE is pretty decent evidence. It also offers a reasonable explanation for the vigorously detailed vegetal decoration. The evidence seems just as persuasive as that used to connect the Christmas tree with Druid use of evergreens in their religious ceremonies. That was the point of this thread after all.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

That question of timing and influence will be debated forever. In many researchers' minds the Greeks (broadly speaking) are the beginning of the whole genre of the 'saga' and it must be said their reach and influence predates, by hundreds of years, the empire of Alexander through trade, mercenaries and migration...Philistines???

The general argument is that the increasing sophistication of Yahwist scribal theology motivated introjections into both rival their national saga (Primary History). The insertion of an angel or Word or Glory is rather clearly a secondary layer. The most likely period for this was the 4th-3rd century BCE IMO. Whether this is the direct result of Greek exposure (post Alexander) is speculative. Until recently I favored this idea, and many still do, but the underlying premise is that the Judeans (or Diaspora) were somehow primitive, less culturally advanced than the empires that repeatedly laid waste to them. That is just not supported by evidence. Wherever the Jews found themselves (Babylon, Peria, Egypt) they asserted an influence and found respect in intellectual circles.

Regarding the Logos terminology, that was the work of great Greek minds specifically. The record is pretty clear on that point. That does not mean other thinkers had not arrived at something somewhat similar. That is likely the case here. While the Alexandrian Jews especially, adopted the language of Neoplatonism, their message would have been familiar to a broader audience. Just how indebted the scribes that introduced the 'Angel of the Lord' (and Glory, or Word, or Name) were to the Greeks is impossible to quantify.

5

More Menorah

by peacefulpete in

another brief example of ancient traditions reinterpreted by worshipers of yahweh.

the book of exodus 25:.

31 ¶ and thou shalt make a lampstand of pure gold; of beaten work shall the lampstand be made; its base and its branches, its bowls, its knops, and its flowers shall be of the same.32 and six branches shall come out of the sides of it, three branches of the lampstand out of the one side and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side,33 three bowls made like unto almonds with a knop and a flower in one branch, and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch with a knop and a flower; thus in the six branches that come out of the lampstand.34 and in the lampstand shall be four bowls made like unto almonds with their knops and their flowers.35 and there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the lampstand.36 their knops and their branches shall be of the same; all of it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.37 and thou shalt make its seven lamps; and they shall light its lamps, that they may give light over against it.. ok, so there is this strangely detailed description of a sacred golden lampstand, with 7 lamps in a strict formation of 3 branches on each side a single 7th in the center.

peacefulpete

I'm going to disagree on your assessment of the likelihood of antiquity of the menorah design. I do recognize the mythic aspects, such as the expansive united monarchy, but given the extrabiblical evidence for the worship of Yahweh (and Ashera), it would be more incredible if they had not had some kind of temple much like described, filled with cherubim, pomegranates, brazen bulls, sacred pillars and Ashera shaped lampstand. Maybe not covered in gold but the pattern and iconography are typical of the region. Whether that design dated to the 7th or the 10th century is not really important.

Actually, none of it is important, but for the sake of some here who think it is, I post stuff like this.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

Kaleb isn't suggesting otherwise, he's just demonstrating a peace with his culture's unique adaptations to the tides of history. A pretty healthy outlook IMO.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

Lots of good stuff in that comment again.

especially this:

This means that a MALAKH YHWH is not necessarily a traditional "angel" that you think of in common literature or art. It merely means that God is coming forth in a different representation or form to send a message or word.

5

More Menorah

by peacefulpete in

another brief example of ancient traditions reinterpreted by worshipers of yahweh.

the book of exodus 25:.

31 ¶ and thou shalt make a lampstand of pure gold; of beaten work shall the lampstand be made; its base and its branches, its bowls, its knops, and its flowers shall be of the same.32 and six branches shall come out of the sides of it, three branches of the lampstand out of the one side and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side,33 three bowls made like unto almonds with a knop and a flower in one branch, and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch with a knop and a flower; thus in the six branches that come out of the lampstand.34 and in the lampstand shall be four bowls made like unto almonds with their knops and their flowers.35 and there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the lampstand.36 their knops and their branches shall be of the same; all of it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.37 and thou shalt make its seven lamps; and they shall light its lamps, that they may give light over against it.. ok, so there is this strangely detailed description of a sacred golden lampstand, with 7 lamps in a strict formation of 3 branches on each side a single 7th in the center.

peacefulpete

Another brief example of ancient traditions reinterpreted by worshipers of Yahweh.

The book of Exodus 25:

31 ¶ And thou shalt make a lampstand of pure gold; of beaten work shall the lampstand be made; its base and its branches, its bowls, its knops, and its flowers shall be of the same.
32 And six branches shall come out of the sides of it, three branches of the lampstand out of the one side and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side,
33 three bowls made like unto almonds with a knop and a flower in one branch, and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch with a knop and a flower; thus in the six branches that come out of the lampstand.
34 And in the lampstand shall be four bowls made like unto almonds with their knops and their flowers.
35 And there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, and another knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the lampstand.
36 Their knops and their branches shall be of the same; all of it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.
37 And thou shalt make its seven lamps; and they shall light its lamps, that they may give light over against it.

Ok, so there is this strangely detailed description of a sacred golden lampstand, with 7 lamps in a strict formation of 3 branches on each side a single 7th in the center. The whole lampstand was covered in symmetrical decorations of almond tree blossoms, fruit (nuts/nobs). Naturally many have pondered why this particular design. What was the symbolism?

It was long suggested a connection to Ashera, the goddess often associated with trees especially fruiting ones as a symbol of sexual fertility. This is a huge topic if anyone wishes to pursue it, but to be brief, iconography from throughout the ancient Near East suggest that often the trees were pruned and shaped in a particular fashion to represent the goddess. Typical of the period is illustrated with the iconography from Kuntillet Ajrud (800 BCE) which has the added element of referring to Yahweh and his Ashera (wife/lover).

The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree - Joan E. Taylor, 1995

Regarding the 7 lamps/candles, the significance of the number 7 in many religious contexts prevents any definitive explanation, however the one assumed by Philo may be sufficient for this discussion:

(WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS)

XLVI (215) For the divisions into two equal parts which have been mentioned become six in number, since three animals were divided, so that the Word which divided them made up the number seven, dividing the two triads and establishing itself in the midst of them. ......(221) This much alone we must remind our readers of at this moment, that the sacred candlestick and the seven lights upon it are an imitation of the wandering of the seven planets through the heaven. How so? some one will say. (222) Because, we will reply, in the same manner as the lights, so also does every one of the planets shed its rays. They therefore, being more brilliant, do transmit more brilliant beams to the earth, and brilliant beyond them all is he who is the center one of the seven, the sun. (223) And I call him the center, not merely because he has the central position, as some have thought, but also because he has on many other accounts a right to be ministered unto and attended by the others accompanying him as bodyguards on each side, by reason of his dignity and his magnitude, and the great benefits which he pours upon all earthly things. (224) But men, being unable completely to comprehend the arrangement of the planets (and in fact what other of the heavenly bodies can they understand with certainty and clearness?) speak according to their conjectures. And these persons appear to me to form the best conjectures on such subjects, who, having assigned the central position to the sun, say that there is an equal number of planets, namely, those above him and below him. Those above him being Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars; then comes the Sun himself, and next to him Mercury, Venus, and the Moon, which last is close to the air. (225) The Creator therefore, wishing that there should be a model upon earth among us of the seven-lighted sphere as it exists in heaven, explained this exquisite work to be made, namely, this candlestick. And its likeness to the soul is often pointed out too; for the soul is divisible into three parts, and each of the parts, as has been already pointed out, is divided into two more. And thus there being six divisions, the sacred and divine Word, the divider of them all, very naturally makes up the number seven.

Here Philo relates how the 5 visible planets and the moon represented the branches and the Sun aka the Logos/Word was the center.

In short, we have evidence that the Temple menorah design was a representation of a fruiting, stylized Ashera tree. The 7 lamps may well have represented the 7 principle astrological lights. Philo and his contemporaries (like Christians) had further associated the Logos with the sun.

Does this example suggest the writers of the Torah objected to reinterpretation of ancient enduring symbols? The Temple menorah was a stylized Ashera tree. Vegetal associations with life and fertility are similarly behind the modern Christian use of the Christmas tree. I don't see the difference myself.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

To spring off Jeffro's comment, the word 'satan' has shades of meaning ranging from 'opposer' to 'accuser' and is used in reference to humans as well as spirits. Likely through 5th century extended contact with Zoroastrianism's Ahriman (the hypostasis of destruction) the idea of a 'satan/accuser/executioner' in God's heavenly court arose. It seems in the first few centuries of use, that 'satan' was an agent of God for the purpose of testing and prosecuting evil. Just as happens in human courts that prosecutor at times charges innocents, requiring a testing of the accused. That is the role seen in Zechariah and the prose story in the opening of Job. In Job it is explicit that the 'the satan' character throughout is acting under the authority of God, even the devastation of Job is attributed to forces of God. In light of this, it is not surprising the Chronicler introduced 'satan', an agent of God (the accuser/opposer in God's court) when he saw God himself inciting David in his source.

As we know the 'satan' character was later understood in only negative context, as one who brings grief to the god-fearing, and one who abused his position, and the generic word became a proper noun.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

No, I was not actually suggesting Jesus is Satan the devil.

It is only an ironic, unintended byproduct of those textual alterations, through centuries of interpretation and separate exegetical elaborations of the Devil character as the Destroyer/Apollyon and the 'second power' concept eventuating in a Christ figure, that a literary link between the Destroyer and the Christian Christ appears. Again, the OP was highlighting the adjustments made to these two stories to better conform with the theological sensitives of the author/redactors.

However, both eventual figures (Satan the Devil and Jesus Christ) represent fully developed theological solutions to the same theological problem. The means of a transcendent God to interact with the material word. Either for help or harm.

An even more ironic twist is how the later WT theologians, as a result of denying the notion of the Devil ruling Hell, identify the Destroyer/Abadon/Apollyon of Revelation as Jesus. lol.

26

God or Satan?

by peacefulpete in

the theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'word/logos' had become understood to be implied within ot texts that mention an angel or destroyer (in the case of ex 12).

the comment got no response so i'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:.

here's another example of the extreme personification of the logos/word from the wisdom of solomon (approx.

peacefulpete

The theme of my recent comment in another thread demonstrated how in some circles the 'Word/Logos' had become understood to be implied within OT texts that mention an Angel or Destroyer (in the case of Ex 12). The comment got no response so I'll repost it now as a springboard for a further observation:

Here's another example of the extreme personification of the Logos/Word from the Wisdom of Solomon (approx. 100BCE) describing the Word as the Destroyer in the Exodus 12 story. The original in Exodus reads:
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. ..23 For the Lord will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, (and will not allow the Destroyer to enter your houses to slay you).
First of all, notice how the text repeatedly says 'the Lord' would do the slaying, then note the added phrase at the end that suddenly without explanation introduces a Destroyer. Clearly some scribal sensitivities motivated the introduction of an agent of the Lord who, as the text now reads, is easily (if not intentionally) identified as the Lord.
The Wisdom of Solomon describing this story reads: 18:14
...when their firstborn were destroyed, they acknowledged your people to be God’s child. .For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone,15 your all-powerful Word leapt from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior 16 carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command,
and stood and filled all things with death and touched heaven while standing on the earth.
The Destroyer/Lord is now referred to as the all-powerful Word who comes from the 'royal throne'.
The description of the Word as immense spanning from heaven to the earth is reminiscent of the 1 Chron 21 story of the Angel of the Lord sent to destroy Jerusalem with a sword:
15 And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The Angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah[b] the Jebusite. 16 David looked up and saw the Angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem.
This also reminds us of the immense Mighty Angel in Rev 10 and various other apocalyptic works of the period.
Anyway, the Wisdom of Solomon passage demonstrates the concept of the Logos/Word acting as an agent of the Lord but also equated with the Lord. This is Logos theology.
The related point I wish to expand upon now is how the evolving conception of God is demonstrated in the 1 Chron 21 story as well. Reading the whole pericope, we read that the Angel of the Lord was sent to destroy Jerusalem because of the census David conducted.
Note how the Chronicler's version of the story reads:
21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”3 But Joab replied, “May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord want to do this?
As we know the Chronicler was basically rewriting material from the Deuteronomist histories, doing so with slightly different concerns and perspectives. His/their source in this case was 2 Sam 24 which reads:
24 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”[a] 2 So the king said to Joab and the commanders of the army,[b] who were with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people.” 3 But Joab said to the king, “May the Lord your God add to the people a hundred times as many as they are, while the eyes of my lord the king still see it; but why does my lord the king delight in this thing?
The difference in the opening of the two versions is obvious. 2 Sam says it was an angry Yahweh/Lord that inspired David whereas the Chronicler (or a later editor) changed that to 'Satan'. (The reference to Satan as a proper name here is surprising, given it is the only reference to a 'satan' in the OT without a definite article. In fact, if the word here is meant to be understood a proper name, it is the oldest example of this by about 200 years. This has led to suggestions that this usage ought also be understood as a descriptive role like the other examples (the satan, Job 1,2 and Zechariah) and not a proper name) Regardless how we understand the term, the fact stands that the Chronicler adjusted his source. Why? The scholarly suggestion is simple, the Chronicler did not conceive his God the same way the Deuteronomist did. While he apparently had no issue with his God using a deceptive spirit agent (see 2 Chron 18 and the source 1 Kings 22) he was not comfortable with his God inspiring (or tempting) humans directly.
Interestingly scholar Peggy day (An Adversary in Heaven: śātan in the Hebrew Bible 1988) suggests the Chronicler intended the 'satan' (opponent) in this verse not to be a name but rather to be the role/title of the same figure called the 'Angel of the Lord destroying/executing a few verses later (in a manner similar to the 'the satan' in Job and Zechariah). This would then parallel the story mentioned above in 2 Chron 18 where God sends an angel to deceive Ahab.