When did Hebrews tossed away polytheism in favor of monotheism?
>>1400737
At first I thought that pic was Ahura Mazda
YHWH only appears outside of Hebrew writings in an Egyptian reference to the Shasu, there are no depictions of him.
>>1400737
King Josiah's reforms
>>1400770
That's a quarter shekel used in Judah during the Persian period.
>>1400737
After they were introduced to Zoroastrianism when freed from Babylonian captivity
>>1400823
And the picture is of Elijah.
>>1400829
>implying Zoroastrians were monotheistic circa 600 B.C.
>>1400834
Sitting on a winged throne with Ezekiel's wheels? No.
>>1400848
It's a flying chariot.
>>1400737
Polytheism wasnt good enough to make jews feel important. Their entire religion is about how jews are superior to every other human on earth.
>>1400850
Not sure if trolling or stupid.
>>1400853
It's a standard Near Eastern and mediterranean "deity sitting on a winged throne".
>>1400891
>>1400737
cheaper to worship one god than several gods
>>1400894
The eagle and the throne symbolize royalty.
>>1400899
Assyrian.
>>1400914
Zeus.
>>1400891
I'm sure it was a stock motif depiction common to many cultures of the time, but it in this instance it's being used to depict Elijah's ascension, you can even see *Elisha's* face in the bottom right corner.
>>1400899
Contemporary icon for comparison, Elisha is the one holding on to him.
Finally the coin itself says IAW = YHWH so there's no point in arguing.
>Yahu coin from Gaza, 4th century BCE, which shows him seated on a winged throne chariot, holding a bird. What is interesting about this imagery, is that it was used in Greece, well before and during this application in Gaza and attributing it to Yahu. Yahu / IAW is written in Pale-Hebrew around the figures head.
>IAW
You have been educated. You're welcome.
>>1400933
>>1400933
>stubborn and stupid
>orthodox icon
How are you doing Constantine?
>>1400989
>>1401001
>Yeho or "Yehō-" is the prefix form of "YHWH" used in Hebrew theophoric names
>Recently, as "Yahweh" is likely an imperfective verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding preterite or jussive short form
>The second argument is supported on grammatical grounds because shortening to "Yahw" would end up as "Yahu" or something similar, and forms like Yo (יוֹ) contracted from Yeho (יְהוֹ) and the suffix "-yah",[13] as well as "Yeho-" or "Yo"[36]
>Short form Jah occurs 50 times:[48] 43 times in the Psalms, one in Exodus 15:2; 17:16; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4, and twice in Isaiah 38:11. In the Song of Songs 8:6 as a component expressions šalehebeteja, "the flame of Jah".[49] Jah appears in the abbreviated form Yah in the Greek word Ἀλληλουϊά (hallelujah) in Revelation 19:1–6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
And I'm done here.
>>1401009
thanks anon. I was always curious why YHVH names were spelled out with -yahu instead of yahweh
Zoroastrianism <<< this triggers Constantine.
Here's the best article I've read on the subject:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Robert_Wolfe/From_Habiru_to_Hebrews%3A_The_Roots_of_the_Jewish_Tradition/
>>1401064
>habiru
habiru =/= hebrew. it's a false cognate
>>1400737
Because God Himself intervened and told them it's time to let go - and gave them Divine experiences, and manifested in the midst of them.
>>1400944
That says "Yehud"
>>1400958
I really hate orthodox fags that do such things ( I am orthodox but.. )
I don't get it, why use music, icons to back-up your arguments - Icons were used and are still used today to educate not so bright people about biblical events. They're not meant to be scanned and used on image boards for arguments and such - they're meant to stay on Church walls. Same goes for the chants - they're meant to explain you biblical events or lives of saints - not to be used online to impress people, or listen them as home a some form of chill music.
>>1400737
Why does it seem that Christians are in denial about the well established fact?
>>1401079
Both word are "hvr".
>>1401118
i doubt that. according to scholars they aren't even pronounced similar. Apiru is more correct than habiru
>>1401115
I don't they're in denial that Hebrews were polytheistic at many times, the Bible says this overtly many times.It's a matter of saying Hebrew monotheism "evolved" from polytheism, which, frankly, there is zero evidence for.
>>1401115
Because if true it would more or less discredit the Christian (and modern Jewish, and Islamic) interpretation of God.
>>1401138
that it "evolved" is proved to an extent by the documentary hypothesis, which shows that the scriptures were written and edited over time, at times varying from polytheism, monolatrism and monotheism. what is the alternative? that it was divinely revealed? if it was divinely revealed then there wouldn't be a need to change non-revealed scripture to the new, true narrative
>>1401145
>Implying Christians care about the truth
>Implying all they care about isn't muh cozy feelings and muh family and social club
>>1401138
It's rather obvious that at least, the early conception of Yahweh was very different than the all-powerful all-knowing god who appears later in the Tanakh and in the New Testament.
>>1401169
They didn't really vary. They were several accounts weaved together, yeah, but YHWH is always one being.
>>1401169
Give up man you're talking to a wall. They have other reasons to "believe". It's not a disinterested search for truth. If only Christians applied to the bible 5% of the skepticism they apply to other religions... Have you seen them debating Muslims? They are capable of critical thought, they're just biased and dishonest as fuck.
>>1401187
Not really. Job 28:24
>>1401200
Funny that the Koran actually has infinitely fewer text variations than the Bible and yet Christians will use the fact that they do have some to discredit the Koran, while not applying the same standards to the Bible. Wew.
>>1401138
>It's a matter of saying Hebrew monotheism "evolved" from polytheism, which, frankly, there is zero evidence for.
How about the fact that the early Jews were not monotheistic, but henotheistic? Or the significat parralels in the bible with other Semitic mytholoigies, which was likely inherited from the Proto-Semitic religion?
>>1401213 (me)
Not a Muslims btw. Just pointing out that you're hypocrites and have ulterior motives to "believe" (in quotes because deep down you know you're full of it, if you have one honest bone in your body).
>>1401200
>what is el/elohim
good thread. i like how evidence was used to BTFO the cunts making bullshit claims they couldnt back up
>>1401241
Every side thinks it's won so which one you're talking about?
>>1401211
Not every book in the Bible was written in the time period it depicts (Job was probably written a lot later than Pentateuch for example), and a lot of it is probably stories told orally for generations before being penned.
You can see older conceptions of Yahweh in stories like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah where he has to 'go down to the city' to see for himself if they are really as wicked as is told. He's also liable to have his mind changed by humans, like when Moses convinces him not to destroy the Hebrews at Sinai, almost appealing to a sense of pride ("Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’?").
>>1401263
>Job was probably written a lot later than Pentateuch for example
Why do you think this?
>>1401263
Asking God for mercy and being saved from his wrath that way is hardly anything that changed, it continues to be integral even in Christianity.
>>1401268
Honestly, I'll take that back. That's what I've always heard, so I just kinda took it for granted. Maybe it isn't.
>>1401264
Ha. Don't you ever get tired of playing pretend? I mean, in the middle of the night, before you go to sleep don't you rest relieved that at last you can finally stop pretending to believe in this BULLSHIT for just a second?
Look. I would be perfectly fine with you guys believing in Jewish fairy tales if you did so in private and didn't insist on meddling with politics all the time, but for as long as you insist in doing pic related and shilling for globalisms and marxism, and these beliefs will make people liable to your noxious political agendas then we're gonna have a problem.
>>1401264
>That's true, and in Genesis 18 God appears as a Trinity,
How many times have you claimed this Constantine? And how many times have you been BTFO? אֲדֹנָי does not solely refer to God, it's even used to refer to Abraham himself. And the previous sentence is pretty explicit. Abraham looks up, he sees three "men", he runs over to them, bows, and then starts talking, thus, he's addressing them, and not God.
>>1401289
Given its lack of references to Moses and the covenant thereof, it's actually probably one of the oldest, either it or Genesis were probably composed first.
>>1401289
I'm by no means an expert, but I've heard Job has a lot of obscure, hard to translate hebrew in it that makes people think the story is quite old
>>1401308
>Such an important aspect of modern life like mass migration is not left unattended. Unlike the Catholic approach that unduly favors migrants, particularly in Europe, the Orthodox notices the negative nature of the process, as well as the fact that it leads to confrontation of different identities and value systems. In addition, the Orthodox Church propose to look at the roots of this phenomenon. The reason for the migration is the liberal, hedonistic ideology bleeding the peoples of Europe and the interests of the capitalist elite, who need a cheap and disenfranchised workforce:
>Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are futile, because they come in conflict with greed of their own elites who are interested in the low-wage workforce.
>>1401325
That's not how Hebraic parataxis works.
>>1401351
It is in fact exactly how Hebrew grammar works. Verbs are, in absence of something to argue contrary, directed at the closest subject noun. And even if they somehow weren't, the text of the conversation is not something you'd address to a bodiless deity. Or did you forget the part after "please don't leave" where he offers food and water?
>>1401213
>Funny that the Koran actually has infinitely fewer text variations than the Bible and yet Christians will use the fact that they do have some to discredit the Koran, while not applying the same standards to the Bible. Wew.
It's actually kind of the reverse. The reason why Christians point out textual variants in the Qur'an is because one of the primary arguments of Muslim apologists is to point out the textual variants in the Bible. Meanwhile, Islam doesn't even allow textual criticism, so the extent to which their claims about the Qur'an are true is debatable. I am reasonably sure that the modern Qur'an is faithful to Uthman's compilation. But how faithfully does Uthman's Qur'an preserve Mohammad's? We aren't allowed to ask, and may never know.
>>1401525
I'm talking about the style, not the grammatical rules. The idea that the three men are conversed with alongside God, and bear no relevance, flies completely in the face of Hebraic prose style throughout the Bible.
I mean, c'mon, do you think Genesis 1810, "I will return", and Genesis 18:14, "I will return", are completely unrelated?
>>1401567
>I'm talking about the style, not the grammatical rules. The idea that the three men are conversed with alongside God, and bear no relevance, flies completely in the face of Hebraic prose style throughout the Bible.
No, it quite honestly doesn't. In fact, if you bothered to actualyl read the text, you'd know that 'conversations with God' are something in the abstract unless you're Moses.
There is also the not insignificant problem that offering food and drink to God makes no sense.
>I mean, c'mon, do you think Genesis 1810, "I will return", and Genesis 18:14, "I will return", are completely unrelated?
Not at all, but look at the "style". The angels eat, make their prediction, Sarah laughs it off, God has another visitation, which starts its own verse, rebuking her (Through Abraham) over her incredulity. And when it switches back to the "men" it again introduces them as a noun.
At every switch-off, you have the appearance of a new speaker, clearly laid out.
>>1401603
So just to be clear, you don't think 18:10 is referring to God's return?
>>1401567
What are you trying to say, that the three men of Genesis 18 are the holy trinity?
>>1401626
Andrei Rublev's most famous work is of Genesis 18
>When did Hebrews tossed away polytheism in favor of monotheism?
It's better to try to understand the why rather than the when.
Ancient Israel/Judea has always been at the crossroads of two or three great civilizations. In the west you have Egypt, and in the east you have Babylon/Assyria. Eventually Greece/Rome would come along as well. Because of this, they experienced a greater degree of cultural exchange and diversity of ideas than both civilizations individually, they also acted as middle-men, engaging in trade and benefiting from the exchange of goods, but also being the victims of a great many wars. Armageddon was the name of an ancient city that was the site of many bloody battles and sat along a common trade route.
Anyway, after seeing the many religious beliefs of the world and not being able to comfortably reconcile the existence of multiple deities of other regions, in addition to their own, the logical conclusion is to believe in a single, all powerful God.
Aside from divine intervention which some believe in, I feel like monotheism is the most logical end result of millennia of religious belief. It's the next stage in evolution of a historical civilization that comes into greater contact with other humans. As the global cultural community expands it must become more universal, and it just makes sense to have one ultimate God than many that are only practiced in specific regions.
>>1400737
When they were invaded and replaced by the nordic descendants of Adam and Eve, who lived on the north pole before it froze over.
>>1401641
You realize how preposterous it sounds to say that the holy trinity came down from heaven and sat a table to eat and drink, and then went on foot to Sodom check out if what they heard was going on there was true?
I'll remember that every time an Aquinas fag says hurr God is the unmoved mover.
>>1400858
Not really the case. Jewry was in diaspora from the very start. It was literally a merchants' religion, and they needed a god who would be omnipresent the same way they were in the Ancient Near East. Gods were locational, so you would have an extended merchant/banking/intelligence network family stretched across many cities worshipping many gods. Judaism fixed this, as the god simply followed them wherever they went and was based on the already extremely Semitic concept of lineage rather than residence.
The real fudge was when they needed numbers in the early days and simply went around recruiting from the Mediterranean Basin. Heirarchy was always extremely important in Judaism like that, though, and it wasn't until rabbinical Judaism, based on the Talmud, that modern Jewry came to be (which is as of recently not so modern, as atheistic Jewry based on decent alone has taken over).
>>1401145
>implying the bible does not affirm many times the wickedness of the jews
>>1402436
Wickedness, when referenced in the Bible, had more to do with not obeying G-d's every whim than a static system of morality, like the one many Christians use today. "Wickedness" was insolence, something that continued as Talmudic Judaism took over.
>>1401351
Not that guy, but there's a whole shitload of people who have spent their whole lives learning Hebrew that disagree with that interpretation. Surely if it were that obvious, they'd agree with you.
>>1402451
Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Psalm 34:13-14
Fearing the Lord was equated with justice and wisdom, not blind adherence to rules.
>>1400737
I like the theory that as tines got tougher for the Jewish people, they clung to the vengeful war god who could best protect them. The timing works out well enough for Akhenaten's monotheistic theology to have bled through to the provinces, although I'm not sure if Egyptian subjects so far from Amara would have any knowledge of what was essentially court politics.
But this is /his/, so I'm going entirely off memes, Wikipedia, and YouTube rather than any actual research.
>>1401688
God has no form, yet the Lord appeared in human form, which without the trinity seems a contradiction. Now we understand that Abraham met the Son, who is fully man and fully God. We know the Son is able to eat because when he appeared in way century AD he ate and drank with his followers.
>>1402522
The Akhenaten as a precursor to Jewish monotheism thing is a meme.
>I like the theory that as tines got tougher for the Jewish people, they clung to the vengeful war god who could best protect them.
You could argue that the Bible itself supports that. Whenever things start going good for the Israelites and there's no one to defend against or genocide, they forget Yahweh and start worshipping fertility gods like Baal Hadad and Asherah.
Then of course Yahweh always pulls them back into the fold with a fancy display of supernatural power if the Hebrews are lucky, or with horrific slaughter and death if they're not.
>>1402527
Christ wasn't even born yet ya dingus. He wasn't man until his human conception.
You must be Protestant
>>1402527
Not that guy, but is it really all that ridiculous to believe that God could take human form?
>>1402539
Depends on what you mean by that. Genesis 18 has God projecting earthly apparitions, which can certainly be solid and more "real" so to speak than even the rest of matter. But God has *incarnate*, in Christianity, is unique to Christ.
>>1402553
I'm neither Jew nor Christian, but it seems to me that if an omnipotent being wanted to take human form, he could take human form without requiring some form of separate yet somehow linked, yet somehow not just a part, yet not the entirety of essence to do so.
>>1402561
He can, it's just a question of whether he also has a human nature, which is stuff like having a brain that can only contain so much data.
>>1402539
>>1402553
>>1402561
>>1402575
The OT says that God has no form, and that anyone who looks on God shall die because of his holiness. This is true of the Father only, whom revealed himself to the Jews most prominently. However, the Son had always existed with the Father, and since he is human we are able to look on him with no problems. So yes; God is able to do all things, since his nature is triune.
>>1402593
Ok, but he's fucking omnipotent. Why is a trinity required to not be kill people that look at him?
>>1402598
It would be inconsistent otherwise. If God says 'I have no form' and 'look on me and die', yet is able to appear in human form then there's a problem. The revelation of the Trinity clears this up, as I have shown.
>>1402598
He's a Protestant, dude, take what he says with a grain of salt.
A Trinitarian manifestation isn't required, God talked in the Garden of Eden, after all, when called Adam by his name. It's just a Trinitarian manifestation was used in Genesis 18.
>>1402614
*walked in the Garden
>>1402610
God's manifestations in the OT are more *icons* of him, than his form.
>>1402614
How does God walk in the garden if he has no form? It had to be the preexistant Son, who's image we are made in.
>>1402610
>If God says 'I have no form' and 'look on me and die', yet is able to appear in human form then there's a problem.
Actually, it would be vastly more inconsistent to assume that an omnipotent creator deity couldn't assume human form. The explanation for him not doing so at other times, considering his actions through Genesis and Exodus, would be as simple as "he either didn't feel it necessary to do so, preferring other ways to obscure his true form, or didn't wish to."
The trinity actually makes the story make less sense, by saying that an omnipotent being has to be bound to three specific forms.
>>1400737
They kind of didn't. Ancient judaism was monolatrist, meaning they only worshiped one god, but they accepted the existence of other gods. Monotheism, the idea that there is only one god, is a Greek invention, and found its way into judaism via the Greek mystery cults, including early (Paulican) Christianity.
>>1402638
Im not saying he couldn't. The Son and the Father are both fully God. I'm saying that since the Father says he by nature has no form, whenever God appears in human form it must be the Son.
>>1402647
>God says he has no form
>Jesus had a form
>therefore he must be god!!11!
>>1402638
I'm the person who posted the thing about the Trinity initially here, please don't listen to the Protestant, he doesn't know what he's talking about
>>1402636
>Let us make man in OUR image
The son did not have an eternal human for before all ages
What denomination are you? This sounds as weird as Mormonism
>>1402647
God can appear as anything he wants anytime.
If you're talking about Christ's human incarnation, that didn't happen until he was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, he wasn't conceived util long after the events of the OT
>>1402675
eternal human *form
>>1402675
Actually, there's good reason to believe that the OT theophanies are the Son, but not for the wonky-ass reasons that guy is saying.
>>1402430
Your interpretation doesn't make sense: explain why then the Phoenicians were polytheistic if they were more diaspor-y and merchant than the jews
>>1400829
>Zoroastrianism
>Babylon
>Implying Zoroastrianism existed in Mesopatamia
>Implying Avestan isn't an eastern iranic dialect (Afghanistan)
>Implying the Avesta whose oldest text(K1) goes back the 14th century AD influenced the Bible whose oldest text goes back to the 7th century BC(Ketef Hinnom)
>Implying Zoroastrianism is monotheist instead of dualist
>Implying the Bible show zoroastrian influence
>>1404800
Wow. You're profoundly ignorant.
>>1404862
>t. dimwit
Nice ad hominem
>>1401646
Doesn't interpretatio romana break this theory? The romans interacted with all kinds of other polytheists (Gauls, Britons, Phoenicians, Greeks, Egyptians, etc.) and the existence of other gods never phased them. I think the reason why the Hebrews became monotheistic must be very peculiar.
>>1405178
The difference is the Romans weren't getting their asses kicked by all of the aforementioned groups on the regular.
Anyway, another theory is that after the break of the United Kingdom of Israel and the conquest by Assyria and Babylon, the Jews couldn't understand why Yahweh had not protected them against these foreign gods and their people.
So the priests rationalized that it wasn't that foreign deities were more powerful than the Hebrew god, but that the foreign deities didn't even exist, and the foreign conquest and captivity were in fact Yahweh's wrath.
>>1402884
Many of the Phoenicians became Jews; they were prime converts due to their intelligence and understanding of trade. Monotheism was a pragmatic implementation, just like every other invention out of the Near East.
>>1405422
>pragmatic
>were persecuted by almost every empire that conquered them
>>1405564
Merchants/bankers were persecuted anyhow. Hammurabi's law codes explicitly dealt with usury, long before official Jewry was alive, which was always one of the main talking points when problems with the Jews arose. Religious persecution isn't very accurate, in my opinion; it was more of a power struggle than anything.
>>1405564
>implying Jews were "persecuted" for Judaism per se and not for their high-level Jewing
>>1400759
>hebrew god
pretty much is senpai
>>1405972
Other way around
>>1400737
Because they could get the power and live of an infinite number of gods for the price of 1.
