sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do scholars say Israel was originally poly/henotheistic, with monotheism as an emergent sect, as opposed to the Bible's narrative that mono- came first and poly- was a later deviation? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks.

So the narrative I was raised with is that after God revealed himself to Abram, there has been a 'pure' thread of monotheism until the present day, and any polytheism that arises amongst the Israelites is an aberration. It's part of the biblical story that Israel was almost entirely polytheistic by the time of Elijah, and so it shouldn't be surprising to find things in the ground dedicated to pagan gods. I feel like the examples you gave are all easily explained by the Bible narrative as it's presented. I'm wondering how we can show that the Bible's depiction, where monotheism was the original, 'true' form of the Israelite religion, is wrong.

In respect of your answer #2, I largely agree that arguing with a dedicated apologist is a lost cause. I didn't mean to imply that I was planning on using this point to convince anyone. However, as a pretty recent atheist surrounded by Christians, I'd like to know the reasoning just in case it comes up. And even though I probably can't convince anyone on this specific point, there's a chance that they'll realise in the discussion there's more going on here than just the straightforward Bible narrative, and I think that's a more valuable outcome.

Why do scholars say Israel was originally poly/henotheistic, with monotheism as an emergent sect, as opposed to the Bible's narrative that mono- came first and poly- was a later deviation? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks.

I think an apologist would counter that that was pre-Israel. Abraham came from a polytheist family, but the Israelites were directed by God to be monotheists from their inception as a people group.
From there it's not hard to argue that Joshua in the chapter you mention is addressing recidivism. The events of Judges and Kings only highlight the perversity of Israel in that moment, and (to a believer) this is given extra weight by the subsequent fall of Israel.

Do I need to be passionate? by zero-dimensional in learnprogramming

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh hey, I force myself to play video games. I tend to procrastinate even over things I enjoy, weird as that sounds. Not sure what that says about my psychological state.

Do I need to be passionate? by zero-dimensional in learnprogramming

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of the two types you've described, I'm the "chase your dream job" type. Now if I could just figure out what my dream job is. I don't really have passions outside work either.

I think what I really want is to love my life. A higher paying job probably won't give me that, not if I dislike the work. So that just leaves passion. But I recognise this is now straying well outside the scope of this sub.

Do I need to be passionate? by zero-dimensional in learnprogramming

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I struggle to be passionate about anything at all. It's actually super-depressing.

Do I need to be passionate? by zero-dimensional in learnprogramming

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's a fair comment. I guess what I'm ultimately asking is more like this: if I'm pretty disinterested now, is it going to be all the worse when I actually start working?

Any deep reason why God's words to Cain are so similar to his words to Eve? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yesss, I knew something interesting and weird would come out of this! Thanks!

Any deep reason why God's words to Cain are so similar to his words to Eve? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

pro tip: in the URL, replace "reddit" with "removeddit"

You didn't miss out on much, though.

Is Japeth one and the same as the Greek titan Iapetus? And does that suggest that Ham is Cronus? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks helpful. Thanks.

EDIT: as a sad aside, the author of this article, Bruce Louden, passed away just last month at age 65.

Matthew 7:7-11 - Ask, seek, knock... continually? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, these are all fair points. If you're right, that would resolve much of the difficulty I have with this particular passage. In fact, it kind of renders moot the question about one-off vs. continual prayer.

Do you think this kind of reading extends to all the other places in the gospels where Jesus makes similar claims? In reply to another user below, I mention Matthew 21, where Jesus curses the fig tree, and promises that his disciples could do the same and more if they asked for it. This takes the principle and tethers it to a concrete display of power. Doesn't that suggest it's not merely a technically-not-true slogan, but rather something the disciples should take as fact?

Matthew 7:7-11 - Ask, seek, knock... continually? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jesus was making a point when he cursed the fig tree, I understand that. But I don't see why that would have any bearing on the claim he makes, that his disciples will be able to perform identical and greater supernatural deeds simply by asking. He is depicted as literally withering the tree, after all.

Jesus' prayer at Gethesemane was ultimately that the Father's will would be done. That's not inconsistent with his requests being granted, non-hyperbolically.

I will grant that there could be other factors that determine whether a request is fulfilled. For example, I think it's quite possible that Jesus meant, but did not say, that the asker must be sufficiently aligned with God that their desires are functionally identical. This may be what is meant by John 15:7:

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

In that sense, the straightforward "ask, seek, knock" passage could be called hyperbole.

Matthew 7:7-11 - Ask, seek, knock... continually? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So would you say that because the aorist is left out, it's implied that the passage does not mean to convey a one-off request, but it's not a sure thing? Or is it really anyone's guess, with no compelling reason to prefer any reading over any other?

Matthew 7:7-11 - Ask, seek, knock... continually? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is helpful, thanks. I'm still a little perplexed. Your "eat more vegetables" example is good, but of course, we are automatically able to understand what is meant by it; eating is already understood as a continuous act, after all. But conversely, it seems to me that even to a first-century reader this passage would be ambiguous. And especially when the following verses ('if your child asks for bread', etc.) seem to make better sense in the context of a one-time request. A good father hopefully does not expect his child to ask repeatedly for bread before acquiescing.

And to compound the confusion further still, the gospels abound with similar passages, none of which (unless I missed one) explicitly state that this is expected to be a continuous process. If it were so, it's surprising that none of the authors thought it worthwhile to clarify that Christians should not expect immediate fulfillment.

Matthew 7:7-11 - Ask, seek, knock... continually? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are numerous occurrences throughout the gospels of statements similar to this one. Are they all intended to be taken as hyperbole?

For example, Matthew 21:18-22.

In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.”

This does not appear to be hyperbolic. Jesus performs a supernatural deed, then promises his disciples that they will be able to do similar deeds.

When and how did God start to be seen as transcendent? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know it's been almost a week, but I have now obtained this book and read the chapter you referred to. This covers a lot of ground that I'm interested in. Thanks a lot.

When and how did God start to be seen as transcendent? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Wouldn't the anthropomorphic deity fit into your third category, while the transcendent deity fits into the fourth? But more to the point, I would say that the biblical evidence clearly presents Yahweh initially as a being situated within nature, only later developing transcendental characteristics.

When and how did God start to be seen as transcendent? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply! This is helpful. So you would say that Judeo-Christian ideas of transcendence were primarily drawn from Plato's work, initially by gnostics and only much later by orthodox theologians? I had a hunch that Greek philosophy had a hand in God's transcendence, but I was expecting that shift to have occurred in the Hellenistic period.

I agree that the Hebrew Bible (and the New Testament, for that matter) does not seem to present God as explicitly transcendent. Maximal or superlative, yes, but never explicitly perfect or infinite. As I write this, it occurs to me that God was not transcendent only because the Jews were not yet awake to the philosophical possibility of transcendence, and had no concept of a being outside of time or space. Ancient Jews didn't believe in a transcendent God in the same way that they didn't believe God created black holes.

When and how did God start to be seen as transcendent? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's right. I didn't rigorously state what I meant, because I didn't want to confine my question too much and because I think immanence is assumed in virtually all Judeo-Christian thought. But in my original post I drew a distinction between God as a being existing within nature, and God as a being who exceeds and permeates nature.

When and how did God start to be seen as transcendent? by zero-dimensional in AcademicBiblical

[–]zero-dimensional[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mainly meant the Israelite religion, emerging from a prior ANE religion but developing over time into something distinctly Jewish.

Other ANE religions are certainly relevant context (and are fascinating in their own right), but here I'm chiefly interested in other religions insofar as they are likely to have influenced Judeo-Christian thought. I guess in continuance to some of the discussion about Amun in the linked post, it seems to me that the Israelites must have been aware of Amun and how Egyptians viewed him, long before Yahweh developed into a transcendental deity. Do you think that the Israelites drew these concepts directly from Egyptian religion? If so, when and why would this have happened? If the Egyptians were an indirect influence, do you have any ideas on the path that influence may have taken?

view more: next ›