Posts by Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

Narkissos.....Of course, Gnosticism may encompass many things such as dualism, a theory of salvation based on realizing secret knowledge, a theory of the origin of evil and creation (based on dualism), docetism (again based on dualism for how could such perfection reside in such poverty?), and so forth. John certainly accepts dualism which runs throughout the gospel with contrasting themes of light and darkness, life and death, etc. Yet this dualism was not entirely foreign to the Synoptic Jesus, who adapts the Two Ways material (e.g. the narrow gate versus the broad and spacious path) otherwise known from Qumrun, the Didache, and Barnabas -- adopting a sort of moral dualism but not an entire existential theory of dualism. John even isn't entirely free of docetism; the pre-incarnate Word "made flesh" (Jn. 1:14) could be understood as "clothed in flesh" and the resurrection appearance to Thomas may have been a later addition to clarify Jesus' body as real.

What is most striking about John is its rejection of Gnostic soteriology. Jn. 3:16 sums up the divergence between the two: it is BELIEF in Jesus and not KNOWLEDGE of his words that saves. If you look at where the wording between John and Thomas at where John departs from the more original versions of the sayings in Thomas, it becomes clear that John is reformulating them to change this emphasis. For example, GThom 1 states: "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." John has changed this to: "Whoever keeps my words will not taste death in eternity" (Jn 8:52). For Thomas, not Jesus' words themselves but their interpretation gives life, that is, the finding of hidden truth. For John, salvation lies in following Jesus' commandments which is what "keeping my words" means (cf. Jn. 14:13, 21; 15:10). Thomas says: "Because you have drunk, you have been intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out. He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him" (GThom 13, 108). For Thomas, Jesus' words are a bubbling spring that impart divinity and secret knowledge to the initiates. For John, the "bubbling spring" is the "water of life" that Jesus offers to anyone who professes belief in him: "Whoever drinks from the water that I shall give him, will not thirst in eternity, but the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of bubbling water unto eternal life. If anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and let him drink who believes in me" (Jn 4:14, 7:37-38).

In Gnostic belief, it is crucial to know that one's origin lies before the beginning of earthly existence. We thus find the following beautitude in Thomas: "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being" (GThom 19). John consciously restricts this claim to divine origin to Jesus and avoids applying it as Thomas does to all believers (Jn. 8:58). There are a number of sayings that John and Thomas use that have closely similar terminology about coming from returning to the kingdom, the light, or the Father. In each instance, John restructs these statements to Jesus where Thomas brings them as general statements about the believer. For instance, Thomas says: "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return. If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?' say to them, "We came from the light, the place where the light came into being" (GThom 49, 50). For Thomas, all believers come from heaven, live incarnated on earth, and then return to the kingdom. John restricts heavenly origin to Jesus alone and even denies knowledge of heavenly origin to believers in striking contrast to Thomas: "I have come out from the Father and I have come into the world. I am again leaving the world and return to the Father....because I know whence I came and where I am going, but you do not know whence I came and where I am going" (Jn. 16:28, 8:14). When the disciples confess that "we believe (pisteuein) that you came from God" in Jn 16:30, they are expressing their faith where they have no real knowledge, a faith that was to be tested in Jesus' coming passion (Jn. 16:31-32).

Jesus expresses the same thought in John 3:6, 8: "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit....the wind/spirit [pneuma] blows where it wills, but you do not know whence it comes and where it goes." Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 115-117) has adapted an older form of this theological maxim, which ascribes knowledge of origin to the spirit: "If some want me to err according to the flesh, but the spirit does not err because it is from God, because it knows whence it comes and where it goes" (IgPhil 7:1). There is further evidence that John has adapted older Gnostic material in this respect. In John 3:11, Jesus oddly expresses his knowledge quite unexpectedly in the plural: "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak what we know and we give witness to what we have seen." The plural suggests that the saying originally applied to the community of believers, here applied to Jesus with the original phrasing left intact. This saying is otherwise attested in the Johannine community in 1 John 1:3: "What we have seen and what we have heard, we also proclaim to you."

Similarly, there is the theme of seeking and finding, the traditional saying "seek and you shall find". In Gnostic literature, one seeks knowledge and one finds hidden wisdom. In John, one seeks Jesus and finds Jesus. Jesus asks: "What do you seek?" (John 1:38) Then Andrew comes to his brother Simon and says, "We have found the Messiah" (v. 41). When Judas arrives with soldiers to arrest Jesus, Jesus asks three times: "Who do you seek?" And after the discovery of the empty tomb, Jesus asks Mary Magdalene, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" (20:15). The person of Jesus is the key to salvation. In one of the "I am" statements, Jesus says: "In my Father's house there are many rooms....I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:2, 6) This sounds like a direct refutation of the statement in the Apocryphon of James: "No one will enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding" (2:34). In John 14, believers are fully dependent on Jesus in their quest to the kingdom. The Gnostic interest in visionary experiences is also rejected (Jn. 14:8-9). John 14 does not reject the vision in order to request the finding of true knowledge through self-recognition.....rather John points to Jesus as the living presence of the Father. Thus faith in Jesus is identical with finding eternal life.

Finally, any conception of the Creator as a personification of evil or of the creation as inherently evil (the latter theme is found in early Gnostic writings, such as inferiority and sinfulness of women as child-bearing "creators") is flatly rejected in Jn 1:3 where the pre-incarnate Word himself is made the creator.

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

So we cannot now say that we are misunderstood since this is precisely the point you are trying to make. This is not about ?only? as you state. It is about AND or two people, two Beings, two entities being discussed in the texts.

Again, I explained to you in clear terms why I brought up Jude 4 --- it was precisely because of the use of "only". I don't think I can go on much longer explaining the same thing to you. Jude 4c is not about "two Beings" unless you follow your KJV and the textus receptus.

As you know Master and Lord which I emphasized are separated by this AND. Who is to say that this version is not more precise in this case than some other that Trinitarians prefer? If you prefer to use something like the NASB then we find the AND in another part of the text but still designating two Beings or Entities like this

1) I already explained in my last post why the KJV text should not be preferred. The 2 Peter text, as well as Jude 1, clearly show that Master refers to Jesus Christ as does Lord. 2) The AND in "another part of the text" is irrelevant to the argument I was making about the use of "only" in Jude 4.

John is only concerned with the creation of the world of mankind. So to answer your question: And yet doesn't John 1:1 say that the Son was God "in the beginning," before his creation. No, John is not concerned about past events.

And what is your evidence? John 1:1 describes a relationship between the Word and God, with the Word being also God, that existed "in the beginning," already as such before the creation in v. 3. If John meant that the Word became God after his creation, why wasn?t this mentioned after v. 3 and not v.1? There?s nothing about ?man? in v.1 ? it?s all about the Word and God and their mutual relationship and Godship. As for v.1 describing the relationship between the Word and God before creation, I have only to refer you to Proverbs 8 and Philo?s reconception of it which all authorities agree was at the root of John?s Logos theology here, and both clearly describe a situation BEFORE creation (cf. ?before the oldest of [Yahweh?s] works, from everlasting ? from the beginning, before the earth came into being,? Prov. 8:22-23).

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

Actually, I thought the Trinity was already the Father, the Son, and the Spirit-directed Organization. No?

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

Nakissos...I think we are agreeing. The priority of John (protoJohn) model attempts to account for the Gnostic Christology. It also fits well with the earliest reference to a GJohn(in some early form) having come from the Gnostic community.

Koester makes a very convincing case that the Johannine community drew on a body of gnostic Jesus sayings, much like the ones found in the Gospel of Thomas, but reinterpreted them to refute their Gnostic soteriology. Specifically, the "I am" formula is an anti-Gnostic device aimed to attribute solely to Jesus divine traits that the Gnostics claim that all his followers should develop. So, for instance, the original Gnostic sayings claim that the light of knowledge discerned in Jesus' words can bring them eternal life and open the door of the kingdom of heaven to them (the original home of true believers before coming into the world). The Johannine community restrict the application of these sayings to Jesus alone through the "I am" sayings, making Jesus himself the "door," the "light of the world" and so forth, and the long discourses so typical of the Gospel of John constitute further interpretation and explanation of these reformulated sayings. For John it is only in Jesus himself where salvation from death is to be found. Since the general claim to divinity was original to the Gnostic source material used by the Johannine authors, it appears that the attempt to restrict claims of divinity to Jesus alone was a significant factor in the development of the belief of Jesus as God himself.

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

This discussion reminds me a bit of a 1990 WT article (15 July 1990, I believe it was) on Irenaeus, the second-century apologist. The article claimed that Irenaeus did not believe Jesus was God and it quoted a passage from Adversus Haereses which seemed to plainly rule out Jesus was being God. It expressed faith in "one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation." Seems, pretty open and shut, huh? Irenaeus is plainly saying that the Father Almighty is the "one God" while Christ Jesus is his "Son."

Wrong. The sneaky Watchtower quoted Irenaeus out of context. This is the complete passage (the part the WT cites are in italics):

"Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the dispensations of God--the comings, the birth of a virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily reception into the heavens of the beloved, Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise up all flesh, that is, the whole human race, so that every knee may bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Savior and King, according to the pleasure of the invisible Father, and every tongue may confess him, and that he may execute righteous judgment on all." (Adversus Haereses, 1.10.1)

As it turns out, the WT was quoting a fragment of a trinitarian formula, and a few sentences later Irenaeus goes on to call Jesus his "God and Savior and King". This is not an isolated instance. Like all the other early church fathers (including Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Athenagorus, Tatian, Tertullian, and many others), Irenaeus had no hestitation in calling Jesus God and did it over and over. In Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 96, for instance he says: "No other name of the Lord has been given under heaven, whereby men are saved, but that of God who is Jesus Christ the Son of God, whom even the devils obey, and the evil spirits, and all rebel powers." In Proof 47, he also expresses himself quite clearly:

"Therefore the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for He who is born from God is God. And thus God is shown to be one according to the essence of His being and power; but at the same time, as the administrator of the economy of our redemption, He is both Father and Son: since the Father of all is invisible and inaccessible to creatures, it is through the Son that those who are to approach God must have access to the Father."

That WT article is one example of dishonesty that upset me greatly at the time.

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

Joseph,

You appear to misunderstand quite a few things that I said. I did not say that Jude 4 states that "Jesus and Jehovah are the same Being." I cited that as an example of why you cannot simply treat "only" as an exclusionary term pure and simple, since a strict literal reading of Jude 4 would seem to exclude the Jehovah (if he is not Jesus) as being our Lord and Master.

What is more, you are basing your reading of Jude 4 (where you try to distinguish between kurios "lord" and despotes "master" as referring to two different people) on the corrupt textus receptus and the KJV that is based on it. The Westcott & Hort text and nearly all modern translations based on it reads kai ton monon despoten kai kurion hemon Iesoun Christon argoumenoi "and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." That is, only one person is meant and both titles are applied to him. This is confirmed by the parallel text in 2 Peter 2:1 which is the earliest witness to the Jude text (the second chapter of 2 Peter is largely derived from Jude) where we read agorasanta autous despoten argoumenoi "denying the Master who bought us," the use of agorasanta "bought" in this text clearly shows that the author of 2 Peter understood that Jesus Christ is the "Master" Jude 4 refers to. But if that isn't enough, Jude himself indicates Jesus as the "Master" in Jude 1, where he calls himself a doulos "slave" of Jesus Christ. If he is the doulos, Jesus Christ is the despotes "Master". Yet that is not all. If we go back to v. 4, we see again that Jude calls Jesus Christ "our only Master and Lord," or in Greek ton monon despoten kai kurion hemon Iesoun Christon. Why is this significant? Well, Jude 4 is an allusion to Jeremiah 3:14 which says "It is Yahweh who speaks for I alone am your Master." In Jeremiah 4:10, reference is made to the wicked punished by Yahweh who say: "Ah, Master Yahweh how utterly you have deceived us." In the original LXX Greek, this reads as despota kurie "Master Lord," the two titles Jude uses in v. 4 (and in the same order). Despota again occurs in reference to Yahweh in Jeremiah 15:11. So Jude applies to Jesus two titles which belong to Yahweh in the OT. And interestingly, the WTS arbitrarily lets kurie refer to Jesus Christ in v. 4 (despite the OT allusion to "Jehovah") yet renders kurie as "Jehovah" in v. 9 and 14.

Re what I wrote on John 1:1 you say:

Is this Word identified as the same as the God such Word was with? No! .... Is John teaching that this Word was God to the God he was with? No!

This completely misses the point of what I said. Your questions imply a Sabellian confusion which neither I nor the trinitarians endorse. John clearly distinguishes the Son and the Father with the preposition pros. These are two separate personalities existing in a mutual relationship with each other. Yet John wants to call both of them God! Not only in v. 1 but also in v. 18. That is why there is a subtle difference in article usage in John 1:1 so John can call both God yet distinguish them. The lack of an article does not by itself imply inferiority, since the Father does not get an article in v. 18 as well (theon oudeis eoraken popote, where theos is preverbal as well). It's just a device to distinguish the two. The Son is similarly distinguished in v. 18 where no one has seen God (unqualified) but people have seen the begotten God (qualified). And when Jesus is mentioned by himself, there is no qualification at all -- he is God (ho theos; John 20:28). It is hard to escape the fact that John sees Jesus as God! But for some reason, you say that Jesus was only "God to the human race created by him". Yes, John does present Jesus as the creator. But if humans have Jesus as their God, and if Jesus and the Father are "truly separate" as you claim, where does that leave the Father? And yet doesn't John 1:1 say that the Son was God "in the beginning," before his creation (v. 3)?

Re 1 John 5:20, it is a difficult verse, and not all agree in its interpretation. But just saying that my interpretation is "totally false" does not address the evidence I presented. The issue is who does houtos "this one" refer to in the preceding verse. Your view that it refers only to the Father is plausible since the Father is described as "one who is true" in the v. 19. But it is also grammatically plausible (and more natural) that houtos refers to the antecedent "Jesus Christ" in the preceding clause. The main problem with your interpretation is the second noun phrase that is equated (or predicated) with houtos in 5:30: zon aionios "eternal life". The kai "and" indicates that one who is "eternal life" is also "the true God." Now what is striking is that in the Johannine writings, while the Father possesses "life" (John 5:26; 6:57) as the Son does (John 1:4, 6:57; 1 John 5:11), only the Son is equated predicatively with life. We find this first in John 11:25: "Jesus said to her: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies." The same formula occurs again in John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." What is significant about this verse is that, like 1 John 5:20, it equates the Son with both truth and life.

There is another illustrative parallel between the wording of 1 John and Jesus' "I am" statements in the Gospel. In 1 John 1:5, John writes: "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce it to you, that God is light [ho theos phos estin], and in him there is no darkness [skotia]." John attributes this statement as something Jesus said, and it finds its antecedent in John 8:12: "I am the light [ego eimi to phos] of the world; he who follows me shall not walk in darkness [skotia]." The similarity is even closer in the version of the same saying in POxy 655. In the prologue in John 1 the saying is again alluded to when John describes the Word as "the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man .... the light shines in the darkness, the darkness did not comprehend him" (1:5, 9). A statement that Jesus applied to himself is without impunity applied to God.

And as to who is referred to as "eternal life" within the context of 1 John, again the author clearly identifies zon aionios with Jesus Christ in the prologue: "The life [zon] was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life [zoen ten aionion], which was with the Father [en pros ton patera, cf. John 1:1, en pros ton theon "was with God"] and was manifested to us." (1 John 1:2) In light of this, the reference to "the only true God" in 5:20 probably refers either to Christ or both the Son and the Father (both mentioned in the preceding verse).

Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

I think the point is that the Son and the Father are both "the only true God" (cf. John 1:1). Hence the Father being in the Son as the Son is in the Father. Hence Christians being in the Father if they are in the Son. The Son referring to the Father as "the only true God" does not logically deny his own deity, especially since John repeatedly makes it clear that Father and Son are both God though individuated from each other as Father and Son, yet also always united. That is the essence of John 1:1 -- both existing in a mutual relationship yet both being God. That isn't the Trinity doctrine per se, it was up to later theologians to work out precisely how this relationship can be analyzed. John doesn't use concepts such as "essence," "substance," and "person". Yet what he does say provides the conceptual core of the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine probably wouldn't have developed the way it did if it hadn't been for John's gospel. But to claim that John doesn't present Jesus as God because He speaks of his Father as "the only true God" is to miss the overall point of his gospel. --Leolaia

63

A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert in

for everyone's convenience, i've summarized my synthesis into a short number of postulates.

please tell me which of my propositions are provably false and therefore biblically inadmissible.. the godhead is a heavenly trio of three living persons: the father, the son, and the holy spirit (matthew 28:19, 3:13-17, 2 corinthians 13:14, ephesians 4:4-6, 1 peter 1:2 and revelation 1:4,5).the father is all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.the son is all the fullness of the godhead manifested (colossians 2:9 cf.

john 1:1).

Leolaia

Jesus himself refutes any notion of any sort of trinity when at John 17:3, he refers to another as "the only true God." No translation I have seen has him saying anything other than that.
All the slick translating, smoke and mirrors and intellectualizing any wish to do can change Jesus' own words at John 17:3. If he is God, equal to God or any part of any godhead, he cannot say another is "the only true God." Since he did, he clearly shows his own thoughts on the matter.

It seems to be intellecutalizing on the WTS' part that turns Jesus' affirmation of the trueness of God into a denial of his own divinity. Jude 4 refers to Jesus Christ as "our only Master and Lord" -- does that prove then that Jehovah is not our Master and Lord? Of course not.

John understands that the Son and Father have a mystical unity amid distinction of each other, so that both the Father and Son could be described as theos (God) existing with each other in John 1:1. In 17:21, Jesus says that his Father is in him just as he is in the Father, and he prays for his followers to be united "so that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me" (v. 22-23). Even in the form as a "servant", the Son is still united with the Father. Jesus' statement in v. 22-23 is very significant because it is alluded to in 1 John 5:20, written by the same author or school and note what is says on who is "the true God":

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true [the Father, whom the Son had revealed], and we are in Him who is true [the Father], even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

Yes, John here is calling Jesus the "true God"....he is also called "eternal life" in the same verse, and 1 John 1:2 confirms that Jesus is "eternal life" within this context: "We proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." Then, within chapter 5, John repeats the same point: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:11). This whole passage is closely related to Jesus' words in John 17.

Leolaia

28

The evolution of YHWH

by Faraon in

i found this interesting article about the evolution of yaweh in the site www.pantheon.org .

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html.

the more i read, the more i am convinced that i must learn more and not fall trapped again by religious organizations..

Leolaia

In Ugarit literature, El begat seventy sons with the goddess Asherah in heaven. These "sons of El" made up his divine council, the "council of El". In these Canaanite poems, the "sons of El" (bn 'lm/bn 'l) were described as "the assembly of the stars". In another poem, they are also called "holy ones": "Now the gods were seating to eat, the holy ones to dine, Baal attending upon El, the gods drop their heads upon their knees".

The psalms incorporate traditional material from Canaanite mythology, replacing references to Baal with Yahweh or Elohim (God), leaving references to El and his divine council ocassionally intact. Ps. 82:1, a psalm on justice, begins: "God [Heb. 'lwhm] stands in the assembly of El [Heb. 'dw 'l], among the gods ['lwhm] he dispenses justice." Although the two are identified, it is still possible to detect that El and Elohim were two distinct figures. The "assembly of El" is also equated with the "gods". The likely original of this may have been: "Baal stands in the assembly of El, among the gods he dispenses justice." Verse 6 continues: "You too are gods, sons of Elyon, all of you." In Canaanite mythology, Elyon was an epithet of El (El-Elyon). Another example utilizing traditional material is Ps. 89:5-10:

Yahweh, the assembly of holy ones in heaven applaud the marvel of your faithfulness. Who in the skies can compare with Yahweh? Which of the sons of El (Heb. bn 'l) can rival him? El (Heb. 'l), dreaded in the assembly of holy ones, great and terrible to all around him, Yahweh, God of Sabaoth, who is like you? Mighty Yahweh, clothed in your faithfulness! You control the pride of the Sea [Heb. ym], when its waves ride high, you calm them; you split Rahab in two like a carcase and scattered your enemies with your mighty arm." (Ps. 89:5-10)

In the first half of this passage, Yahweh is presented as the one whom the other sons of El fail to rival, implicitly the foremost of the gods in heaven, and distingushed from El. In the second half, the distinction between El and Yahweh is blurred, but references to Yahweh's control over the Sea (Heb. ym) and the mythological splitting of Rahab into two like a carcase, reveals clearly that Yahweh takes the place of Baal, who in Canaanite myth, fights the Sea monster Yamm (also known as Lotan=Leviathan, and apparently in Israel as Rahab), and splits Yamm's body in half (cf. the Enuma Elish battle with Tiamat).

As for the "assembly of God" being described as "stars" as in the Ugaritic text, witness Job 38:7 which also employs Ugaritic-style parallelism: "when all the morning stars were singing with joy, and the sons of God in chorus were chanting praise." The most striking psalm that bears the most affinities to Ugaritic poems on Baal is Psalm 29:

Pay tribute to Yahweh, you sons of El [Heb. bn 'lm]
Tribute to Yahweh of glory and power,
tribute to Yahweh of the glory of his name,
worship Yahweh in his sacred court.
The voice of Yahweh over the waters!
Yahweh over multitudimous waters
The voice of Yahweh in power!
The voice of Yahweh in splendor!
The voice of Yahweh shatters the ceders,
Yahweh shatters the ceders of Lebanon,
making Lebanon leap like a calf,
Sirion like a wild bull.
The voice of Yahweh sharpens lightning shafts!
The voice of Yahweh sets the wilderness shaking.
Yahweh shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.
The voice of Yahweh sets the terebinths shuddering,
stripping the forests bare.
The El of glory thunders.
In his palace everything cries, "Glory!"
Yahweh sits enthroned over the Flood
Yahweh sits enthroned as king for ever.
Yahweh gives strength to his people
Yahweh blesses his people with peace

The content of the poem directly derivative of Canaanite Baal hymnology as attested in Ugarit texts; like Baal, Yahweh has control over the waters, a voice of thunder, he "sharpens lightning shafts," resides in a palace built on the defeat of the Flood of chaos. The "young wild bull" in v. 6 recalls Baal's bull-calf iconography. The geographical details (Lebanon, the local Phoenician toponym Sirion, Kadesh which was located north of Damascus, the reference to forests of ceders) point to an original provenance of the hymn in Syria or Phoenicia. Finally, the style of the poem, especially the strict parallelism, is characteristic of the poetry of Ugarit. Most scholars agree that Psalm 29 was originally an ode to Baal later adapted to Yahweh.

Leolaia

16

Bethel is Cannanite god

by peacefulpete in

the choice to name the headquarters "bethel" is a reflection of the shallow scholarship that plagues the religion as a whole.

while insisting the name choice is because of the story of jacob resting his head on a sacred stone and having visions of a "ladder" (ziggurat) and thereafter piling stones for el (cannanite chief deity) to reside in, hence the name "bet-el", it seemed they were unaware that the same word "bethel" is the name of a deity possibly equated with chemosh.

of all the names to call the wt headquarters they chose a pagan deity's name.

Leolaia

Yes, I notice that too. How can I get more than one page of search results? Leolaia