Brent's general religion thread

[Az]

I seem to recall reading about how proscriptions on homosexuality had their origin in the institution of temple prostitutes in the Canaanite pagan religion....

*nods* yep. It all comes from the way ordinary canaanites carried themselves around: we're about a civilization where not only ritual orgies with both male and female "religious prostitutes" occured, but incest was way more accepted than now, infants were sacrificed... stuff that looks completely wicked now. IMHO, All these things happened in the worship of other pantheon gods, not El. Thus all of these things got banned in a most severe manner.

[Az]

Even in England, kings originally ruled fairly small groups of people.

Jerusalem wasn't posessed by the Israelites until David, I thought.

So the good book says. It's possible that the book is wrong.

So people don't even think there's any literal truth in the end of the OT? with the Babylonian captivity and all?

Actually, most chances are that most of it is half-true, or to various degrees distorted. Much less in the era of the monarchy, much more in the tribal era.

I believe the King James traslation is fairly correct. It is what my religion mainly uses, although we do have a more recent translation, by a prophet. A major belief of ours is that people (mainly in the Middle Ages, I think) intentionally changed things.

Where did they change things? This could happen to translations as well, btw.

And if you're really talking about the early Old Testament story, what about the garden, the flood, and the tower?

Fables, imho.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

And if you're really talking about the early Old Testament story, what about the garden, the flood, and the tower?

Fables, imho.

It's nice to think of Sri Lanka as being the Garden of Eden though- the Romans called it Serendip, and the Muslims place Eden there, don't they ?

[lord of the mark]

1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.

2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south

3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David.

4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...)


To Brent - the fact that i subscribe to the above scientific view, does not mean I cant read the Bible was an integral narrative, and derive spiritual lessons therefrom. While my views would have been seen as deeply heretical by past generations of Rabbis, there IS a tradition of viewing the text at different levels, all of which are held to be true simultaneously. There are truths to be learned from the story of Abraham and Isaac for example, and those truths are NOT lessened by acknowledging say, that the pattern of sacrificial locations associated with Abraham LOOKS like an attempt to associate a legendary ancestor with cult sites.

As for Adam, his story tells us that what humans have in common is more important than what sets us apart, that you have to make your own decision to follow G-d, even when your spouse tempts you, that actions have consequences, and MANY other TRUTHS, that are not contradicted by believing that man evolved from early primates in East Africa.

[Mercator]

Re: Brent's general religion thread

Originally posted by Brent
(...) it can focus mainly on monotheism in general.

There's something I've been wondering about lately. Where in the Bible does it actually say that God is the only god? From my vague recollections of the Bible, some made-for-TV Bible movies I saw ages ago and the 10 commandments, I don't think there's anywhere it says so specifically. In fact, I believe it's quite the contrary. It clearly says that God is the only one you should worship, but very much implies that there are apparently others you shouldn't worship. Yet I don't think any Christian now would dare to say there are more gods.

We live in vastly different times now, with a different culture and different ethics. If you take the Bible literally, to whatever degree, in how much does that affect your moral standard?

This page about the 10 commandments seemed to give a nice overview of their original meanings and their present day interpretations:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm

[Brent]

Can't be sure in every chase which changes were intentional, but some things that were intentionally removed at some point may have been clearer indications in the OT that Jesus was the fulfilment of messianic prophecy, clearer indications of the true nature of God (his having a body and such), that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings but one in purpose, and the book of Revelation may have been intentionally rearranged.

[Brent]

About Adam and Eve, I believe they didn't so much sin as transgress. They had to do what they did so they could multiply and fill the earth as commanded. It was all planned out beforehand.

I d on't think the other gods mentioned in the bible were meant to be taken as being actual beings, just manmade concepts and objects worshipped falsely. However, my religion, which considers itself Christian, does believe there are other gods out there, but we have no connection to them because they are not our creator. And they are all one in purpose. Actually, as I understand it, there are higher and higher Gods ruling over us, but we think of there being one God because they are one in purpose and really we have no need to concern ourselves with the matter in this life.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Brent's general religion thread

Originally posted by Mercator
It clearly says that God is the only one you should worship,

Actually, it doesn't even go that far. It says, hold no other gods before me. So you can worship other gods, but just remember who's your daddy.

[Wycoff]

Brent, you're Mormon, correct?

Since this is a general religion topic, I just wondered if you feel like explaining why you believe in Mormonism. To me it seems even more obviously made-up by man than the other major religions (and that's saying something) Why do you think Joseph Smith is special.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm simply curious.

[Brent]

I believe what I believe because it is logical to me. It is logical for God to be fair, and the scriptures and such seem to logically indicate that He is.

What is it that says to you that my religion is fabricated other than the fact that it was unknown before Joseph restored it?

I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet because his teachings are logical to me. None of the witnesses who saw the Golden Plates, whether the three by supernatural means nor the eight by natural means, ever denied their statements, and the fact that they left the church anyway but still didn't deny their statements actually is itself saying something. No refutement of the Book of Mormon is convincing to me.

And then of course there is that which cannot be transmitted by mere words. It just feels right.

[Wycoff]

Were you raised Mormon?

[Brent]

Yes, as were both of my parents. Some of my ancestors have been in it since the 1850s.

[Az]

It's nice to think of Sri Lanka as being the Garden of Eden though- the Romans called it Serendip, and the Muslims place Eden there, don't they ?

Talk about disappointment... 4 out of 5 tsunami victims agree.

1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.

Phoenician city states date before 1200BC.

2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south

Umm, no, while different tribes did have different legendary progenitors, they were brothers ( and also one of the brother's sons ), and lived in the same household. Plus, the history should've been rewritten earlier for that, during the times of the united kingdom.

3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David.

What evidence exactly do you want, if the complete notion of the Israelites wasn't even formed before those times ( while it does say otherwise in the bible).

4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...)

Don't get me started on the Apiru!

How do they connect with the sea people? Which one captured egypt?

These are all questions I still have no answers for.


Summary:

The whole "Hill country shepherds vs. Plain farmers" argument doesn't hold water for many reasons:
-first, the hill country is also sedentary mostly.
-Second, the hill country was the place where all the action in the bible is, except the clashes with the philistines.
-egalitarian society, and tribal structure was present with the agriculutral canaanites.
-The Apiru have attacked not only here, and in egypt, but in mesapotamia as well, IIRC.

So maybe, when they say" Avraham ha Ivri" in the bible, they mean "Abraham of the Apiru", as a legendary forefather of the nation. But then, why does he come from Ur?

[lord of the mark]

1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.

Phoenician city states date before 1200BC.

I think we agree here. What i meant was that Canaanites live on the coast - in the south theyre displaced by Philistines and Israelites and disappear, in the north theyre simply renamed.

2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south

Umm, no, while different tribes did have different legendary progenitors, they were brothers ( and also one of the brother's sons )

Yes, but IIRC there are also associations with the Patriarchs/avot.

, and lived in the same household. Plus, the history should've been rewritten earlier for that, during the times of the united kingdom.

Thats IF the united monarchy (to avoid confusion with Great Britain) actually existed, which has been doubted by many, IIUC. Alternatively it may have existed LATER - theres a suggestive matching of names of one of the later kings between the Judean and Israelite king lists - tanaach doesnt acknowledge it, but then Taanach doesnt give muchg legitimacy to the post-split northern kingdom - Taanach takes a Davidic line POV, and probably magnifies the achievements of the southern line, and minimizes those of the northern kings.

3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David.

What evidence exactly do you want, if the complete notion of the Israelites wasn't even formed before those times ( while it does say otherwise in the bible).

IIRC the surge in settlement in the hill country is archeologically visible BEFORE 1000 BCE, and thats the movement Im associating with "exodus" and the formation of the Israelite people. I would expect some evidence from the City of David excavations of a transition before 1000 BCE, or continuity across that line. I dont recall what the C of D excavations found wrt to that - do you?

4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...)

Don't get me started on the Apiru!

How do they connect with the sea people? Which one captured egypt?

For sea peoples - see Drews "The End of the Bronze Age".

Summary:

The whole "Hill country shepherds vs. Plain farmers" argument doesn't hold water for many reasons:
-first, the hill country is also sedentary mostly.
-Second, the hill country was the place where all the action in the bible is, except the clashes with the philistines.
-egalitarian society, and tribal structure was present with the agriculutral canaanites.

Im having trouble making myself clear. IIUC there is little settlement in the hill country in the period BEFORE 1200 BCE or so. (until you go way back to like early Bronze) So circa 1500 BCE youve got sedentary farmers in the plains, and seminomad types, perhaps moving between the hills west of Jordan and the steppes east of Jordan (like historical era Beduin, IIUC) Sometime around 1200 BCE you get a major increase in sedentary farming settlements in the hill country - some late bronze age chalutzim are settling the hills. My supposition (actually somebody elses, but i cant remember the source) is that the settlers refugees from the lowlands, possibly joined by seminomads (ethnically related, also western semites). THIS is the birth of Israel. The NEW society, post 1200 BCE, IS sedentary farmers - the distinction from the lowlands is that while the lowlands have plantation agriculture, perhaps irrigated, and cities living on the surplus, the hills have subsistence agriculture based on family farms - (and its gonna stay that way, thanks to the jubilee year, which prevents the accumulation of land) The social conflicts of the Israelite kingdoms arise when the kings, (David, per Taanach - but it could be someone else) conquer the low country, and grow wealthy from its resources, and are tempted to a way of life far removed from Israelite hill country austerity.

-The Apiru have attacked not only here, and in egypt, but in mesapotamia as well, IIRC.

Apiru in origin may not be an ethnic name, but may be generic for nomadic bandits.

So maybe, when they say" Avraham ha Ivri" in the bible, they mean "Abraham of the Apiru", as a legendary forefather of the nation. But then, why does he come from Ur?

Cause Ur has tremendus cultural prestige to the western semites, whose initial script at Ugarit was cuneiform, who have often been conquered by Mesopotamia, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Only sketchily. I know about the 12 sons of Israel (am I right when I remember the guy is Jacob?), and that they were somehow sent in Egypt, and that they became somehow a populous slave-population in one generation

one son is sold into slavery in egypt, but becomes pharoahs chief minister. the other 11 sons come to him when there is famine in israel. "there arose a king who knew not Joseph" implies one generation, but the geneologis imply several, though still not enough time to account for the population growth (though it was 70 who went down into egypt, what with big households, ya know) And by signs and wonders ther were freed, and the law was given, and they went went to a new/old land. And so we retell the story every year and refrain from eating leavened bread.

and whose bright idea was it to bring home all the leftover food from POTMs Bat Mitzvah kiddush a few weeks before Passover?