Not the Only God – god of Israel disproves his own claim.

[Light Travelling]

Working within the context of Judeo/Christian theology....... God is held as a the one and only god - a monotheistic god.

The god of the old testament though, seems far from that. He states he is a jealous god. Now if he is the only god and there are no others, what has he to be jealous of? It seems obvious that if a god is jealous he must have something to be jealous of i.e. another god.

Apart from this the god of the old testament, is continuingly trying to convince that he is the only god and there is no other. Now if he were the only god and there was no other why spend so much time telling everyone that there is no other. It is almost as though he is trying to convince himself.

Then there are the well known instances is Genesis where god (talking in the first person) say ‘we’ and ‘us’. The picture that the old testament paints of its god is more like a demi-god, one of many.

Now this does not discount the existence of an all encompassing pantheistic type god that sits above the lesser gods (as per other traditions), or even another higher god in the christian tradition (as taked of by Jesus) it just means that the god of the old testament is not it…


Here are some examples (from many) taken from bible;

Exodus 20:5
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,"

Exodus 34:14
"Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

(but jealous of what – another god?)

Deuteronomy 5:7
"You shall have no other gods before me."

(but is there are no others why say it ?)

Isaiah 45:5
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."

(he protesteth too much , me thinks !)

Judges 10:13
"But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you"

(well he actually says there are other gods here)

Jeremiah 16:13
"So I will throw you out of this land into a land neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you will serve other gods day and night.'"

(and here)

Genesis 1
"Then God said, "Let US make man in our image, in our likeness"

Genesis 3
"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat"

(so it us ‘us’ gods - more than one)



This is probably not new to many but, what do you think?

 

[Sarkus]

Hmmm - unfortunately it is too easy to explain those away:

At no point does he say that the other "gods" actually exist.
It could be claimed that the use of the "we" and "us" is as in the "Royal 'we'".

 

[Light Travelling]

Hmmm - unfortunately it is too easy to explain those away:

At no point does he say that the other "gods" actually exist.
.

Judges 10:13
"But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you"

Jeremiah 16:13
"So I will throw you out of this land into a land neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you will serve other gods day and night.'"

He does in these two excerpts.


but even if he does not specifically identify the other gods: by inference as well.... imagine an omnipotent god of which there is only one - the creator of all. Why go to such lengths to convince everyone of being the only (if it were true)? and how could jealousy possibly arise?


(within the context of Judeo/Christian theology)

 

[nova900]

Well, when you consider that Yahweh was invented as a tribal war god...a monopolist god to discredit the beliefs of peoples of neighbouring tribes this is to be expected.

All the contradictions that you mention, will (of course ) be explained away by believers as being taken "out of context",etc.
That's one of the reasons I left behind this ridiculous personality that has been assigned to God...an angry,jealous,cursing,vengefull being...I just don't believe these qualities can be attributed to what I believe God to be..therefore that's why I now follow another spiritual path without all this b/s.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I think there is some archaeological evidence out there in the nebulous world of academia that indicates that the Hebrews believed in the existence of other gods, and that yhwh is merely the god of the Hebrews. He is a national god, as it were. Of course, I don't have the patience to find any sources on this, so it could be a blind assertion.

 

[Raithere]

It could be claimed that the use of the "we" and "us" is as in the "Royal 'we'".

The royal "we" did not exist in ancient hebrew. It's use originated with Augustus, the first Roman Emporer.

~Raithere

 

[Light Travelling]

I left behind this ridiculous personality that has been assigned to God...an angry,jealous,cursing,vengefull being...I just don't believe these qualities can be attributed to what I believe God to be..therefore that's why I now follow another spiritual path without all this b/s.

You don’t have to ‘sign up’ to any one religion to follow a spiritual path, and you don’t have to discard all religion either.

 

[Light Travelling]

The royal "we" did not exist in ancient hebrew. It's use originated with Augustus, the first Roman Emporer.

~Raithere

Agree, Heres some more about why the use of the plural in these cases was not accidental;

"The first words of the Hebrew bible are significant of the gulf which separates Israel of the law from Israel before the law. “In the beginning” we are told “Elohim created the heavens and the earth”. The verb is singular, but its nominative has plural form. From the earliest days of bible study the fact has forced itself to the attention of the scholar, and various attempts have been made to explain the origin of such a use of the plural Elohim. It has been called a pluralis majestatis, and grammarians and theologians have untied in seeing it as an expression of the omnipotence of the Hebrew deity and his exaltation of all other gods.

But the student of linguistic science cannot be satisfied with this or any other explanation. He knows that language is not the cunningly devised invention of priests and philologists, and that words and forms of words do not enter into common usage because they express the ideas of scholars and theologians. People do not employ a plural form to express a singular idea unless that singular idea had once been plural. We may speak of “a means to and end” but when the word was first received into English speech, it represented more “means” than one. Words in fact are like fossils; they preserve for us older modes of thought and belief embedded within the skeleton of their outward form. Elohim would never have come to denote the singular “god” had it not denoted first the plural “gods”."


(which is from this site)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-6682(188910)1:2:1<25:PIPI>2.0.CO;2-P

 

[Light Travelling]

I think there is some archaeological evidence out there in the nebulous world of academia that indicates that the Hebrews believed in the existence of other gods, and that yhwh is merely the god of the Hebrews. He is a national god, as it were. Of course, I don't have the patience to find any sources on this, so it could be a blind assertion.

I think your assertion is correct, there is a fair bit around on the internet, an example of which is given below;

Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm



Also, In Jewish kaballah there are 12 names for god. Well maybe these are / were 12 different gods rather 12 different names for the same god.

Of course this can still be seen in a way that the lower gods are manifestations of the highest principle. Which would be in correlation with the hindu view that although there are many gods they are all manifestations of the one Brahman. The highest principle in kaballah being ‘ain soph’ the ultimate source.

All this would leave original judaism as a polytheistic religion much akin to Hinduism, the difference being that one of the gods Yahweh was taken as more powerful and worshipped above all the others to the extent that he became in the end the only god. But does this make it monotheism ?

 

[nova900]

You don’t have to ‘sign up’ to any one religion to follow a spiritual path, and you don’t have to discard all religion either.

You're right you don't.
I have not discarded all religion...just the ridiculous dogma that goes with a lot of it. I'll be the first to admit the Abrahamic faiths do have some redeeming qualities, but for me..the bad outweighed the good.
The part that always annoyed me the most is the "this is the only true way to God, all else will suffer"...as in like what you will see plenty of on sunday morning gospel hour.

As far as religion..I follow Neterianism now..the belief system of the ancient Egyptians.

 

[S.A.M.]

Working within the context of Judeo/Christian theology....... God is held as a the one and only god - a monotheistic god.

The god of the old testament though, seems far from that. He states he is a jealous god. Now if he is the only god and there are no others, what has he to be jealous of? It seems obvious that if a god is jealous he must have something to be jealous of i.e. another god.

Apart from this the god of the old testament, is continuingly trying to convince that he is the only god and there is no other. Now if he were the only god and there was no other why spend so much time telling everyone that there is no other. It is almost as though he is trying to convince himself.

This is probably not new to many but, what do you think?

Depends on how you define god.

If god is an object of worship, then wealth, power, corruption, ego, excessive hedonism are all gods.

And religion aims to direct the spiritual growth of man such that he does not diminish his humanity in the midst of materialistic pleasures or sensual pursuits.

 

[Light Travelling]

The part that always annoyed me the most is the "this is the only true way to God, all else will suffer"....

As a general rule, anyone who claims to have only and exclusive access to the truth..................almost certainly doesn't.

 

[Light Travelling]

If god is an object of worship, then wealth, power, corruption, ego, excessive hedonism are all gods.
.

I would say these are idols.. worship of such things is worshipping idols.

worshipping lesser gods is different. If it is realised that they are aspects of the one god, it does not count as idol worship.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would say these are idols.. worship of such things is worshipping idols.

worshipping lesser gods is different. If it is realised that they are aspects of the one god, it does not count as idol worship.

Idol worship is also worship.

 

[Light Travelling]

Idol worship is also worship.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but it seems you are asking my opinion on the nature and purpose of worship, so I will respond to that;

Firstly to back track a little, earlier you said;

Depends on how you define god .

Well I usually try not to, but if pushed I would say the unconditioned ontological principle (when realised correctly).

I would not say the purpose of god is worship, but the purpose of worship is the lessening of personal self in favor of a higher sublime principle.

Worship in its most perfect sense will lead to the merging of the devotee with the object of worship. Knower and known, subject and object, diety and devotee – all become one. Advaita


Conversely, if the object of worship is an object of a grosser nature;

wealth, power, corruption, ego, excessive hedonism.

Then the devotee identifies with that, achieving lower levels of existence.

The Koran says;
“The one who glorifies the Lord through regular acts of adoration will hardly fall into the pitfall of sins and indecencies.”
( Spider vs 45 )

Worship is not for worships sake , it has a purpose to achieve a goal, which is selflessness.