Popular Gods are Sky Gods
There were, of course, famous gods who never bothered to come down to earth. Both the Greeks and the Romans had a list of sky gods as long as your arm.
Rulers who decided they were gods were not in the sky until after they died. While on earth, however, one could argue they were not exactly common folk who roamed around the masses on market day. It is my impression they were quite aloof from the public and lived in splendor. In that sense they were more sky god than ordinary common folk gods.
The antidote to the aloof sky god was to be Jesus. Story tellers made sure he was not the son of a banker, trader or politician. He was a carpenter. But his path to being a popular god was not by working with his hands.
I've not seen anyone take on Bart Ehrman's evidence that Jesus was not regarded as an important god until the story spread that he was dead and then came back alive. Ehrman saw Jesus as a local god among many in part of the small region where he operated.
Jesus' cult following formed after the to back-to-life story. The big expansion came 300 years later with a Roman dictator. Thus, Jesus was important only as an invisible sky god. In this way he is similar to all the other Greek and Roman sky gods.
There is a reason a god needs to be invisible and only in the sky to be popular. It is because a mortal human would not measure up to the many different ideals people carry in their heads. When each person can make up what the god is or what the god approves it will be a popular god.
good try. but as usual you leave a little to be desired. "all were sky gods"? what about Neptune, god of the sea, Pluto god of the underworld? Ceres. god of plants, grains in particular (thus cereal).Zeus/Jupiter were, of course, sky gods. And at the top of the heap, as it were. And needless to say, you are mixed up on the Council of Nicea. it is true that that council dealt with divinity of Jesus but it was far from the first to address the matter. in fact, I think that it is accurate to say that Christianity assumed the divinity of Jesus from the get go. Arianism came along later.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there were gods in other places besides the sky. I didn't have space to go into those. They seems the same to me--located somewhere that no one can reach and always invisible. As to Jesus being an important god from day one, so far as I know the only place this is claimed is the Bible. Some writing of the period did survive and there is nothing from independent sources about Jesus.
DeleteSo far as I know you are correct when you say that there is little so-called "independent" evidence supporting the life of Jesus. As I recall, Josephus has something to say about it. apart from that, little else. remember tho' that many records from that period have been lost. we do, however, have some archeological evidence "proving" the existence of some of the people (e.g. Pilate) who appear in the passion story. that aside, you can't overlook the record of Christianity that emerged when the faith became public in the second century or thereabouts, as far as I know, it was largely ignored when it was, in essence, little more than a small Jewish sect.
DeleteUnknown "that aside, you can't overlook the record of Christianity that emerged when the faith became popular in the second century or thereabouts..." Certainly it did emerge as powerful and popular during the reign of a dictator convert--yes, it could have happened without him, we will never know. But if we use that argument it could turn against the faith. If numbers continue to fall in the U.S. the way they are falling in Europe the argument would be that faith is invalid.
DeleteI assume that your "dictator convert" is Constantine, who I would remind you, came along in the 4th century about 200 years later than the 2nd century. as best my memory serves me, Christianity became a public issue in the 2nd century (M. Aurelius who died in 180CE persecuted Christians). by the 4th century Christianity was nigh on becoming a majority religion but was embroiled in the Arian controversy. Constantine saw a "winner" but at the same time, was concerned about the Arian Thing.
DeleteI sense a disconnect in Jon of the historical growth of the understanding of God. starting in the Hebrew Bible, (The OT), by way of most of the Pharasees, continuing through the New testament. while I disagree with a couple thoughts in James Michner's book "The Source", the gradual revelation of "El" to The Christ is continuity. Jon seems to present Jesus as a "sky God", while ignoring BOTH the human nature, and the Divine nature of Jesus, as exhibited by the Jehovah's Witnesses / LDS, etc. This has been, and continues to be a stumbling block to those who either reject Christianity outright, or stumble along side it, not truly understanding, OR caring for what Christianity truly is, while claiming to be Christian. Even though many of the ancient primitive "gods' (small g) predate the New Testament, they certainly do not pre-date the earliest understanding of "El", later known as Elohim, and variations of the root. Nor do they have the continuity one would attribute to God.
ReplyDeleteLittle helper--Thank you for an excellent post. Exchanging thoughtful ideas is not something we see here regularly. I read the Wikipedia essay on the word "Elohim". We all would agree Wikipedia essays are often incomplete but they offer an entry to topics. I would offer these two observations to your post. That the "Divine nature of Jesus" certainly is a "stumbling block to those who reject Christianity outright..." It is a stumbling block because there is not objective way to establish that Jesus was "Divine" other than an emotional identification with the faith. Second, "Nor do they (other gods) have the continuity one would attribute to God." That continuity comes from the ability to read and write language as well as the later printing press. When the notions of gods was passed down orally it would have morphed more than the god of the written word, and that god has morphed a lot anyway. Ironically, more technology, the computer, is morphing gods faster than that of ancient times. Groups looking for something different find it on the net and leave the old printed Bible behind. (At least that is how I interpret current times.)
ReplyDeleteWhile Michner's "The Source" is not the Bible, he does capture the concept of continuity. He, however seems to present it as an evolution rather than subsequent revelations, ending with the New Testament, and The Christ. As we well know, later so called personal "revelations" have ended in disasters, as indicated by heresies mentioned earlier, Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's gate, and mostly apocalyptic suppositions, and "no gods". There are examples of your "morphing gods". They will continue to pop up as time and the computer go forward. Your "emotional identification with the faith" is a false claim. It is an objective reading of the totality of Scripture, augmented with non-biblical support. It is a different world view than yours, but yours is a different world view than mine. That's fine. Live with your emotions.
DeleteOthers have been "exchanging thoughtful ideas here quite regularly, but you reject them without thought, as brushing crumbs off the table. Your concept of " exchanging ideas" is total agreement with you. Clearly not as open or objective as you would like to project.
Deletewell said.
Deletelittle helper wrote, “Even though many of the ancient primitive "gods' (small g) predate the New Testament, they certainly do not pre-date the earliest understanding of "El”, ...”. Apparently “El” was a generic term referring to any one of the many primitive ancient gods (small g) whereas the later “Ēl” referred to the one supreme God (big G). It’s plausible some multi-theistic “El’s” predated the monotheistic “Ēl”. Jon, maybe in a future post you, little helper, and unknown, all more studied than I, could discuss which came first polytheism or monotheism? Did monotheism evolve from polytheism? A Jehovah Witness “... will testify to the truth that before Jehovah there were no gods and after him there are no real gods, only the imaginary ones of polytheism.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957043#h=4
DeleteIn the Protoevangelium in Gen. 1 there is no indication of other gods. "Plausible"; Is speculative. Many primitive gods were along the line of pantheism, or animism. Consider "household gods" at the time of Abraham.. There is evidence all three were present at the same time as monotheism, which is understandable if they had not come in contact with monotheism. re. "testify"; a term used by the LDS that supposedly bears some weight, but only remains a repeated opinion. Re. The Witnesses and the name "Jehovah", Jason BeDuhn, an often quoted author by the Witnesses, as to the veracity of the NWT, in his book "Truth in Translation", and in the appendix; "The Use of "JEHOVAH" IN THE NW; Page 177; "The zeal of the NW editors to restore and preserve the name of God against an obvious trend towards expunging it in modern translations of the Bible, while commendable in itself, has carried them too far and into a harmonizing practice of their own. I personally do not agree with that practice and think the identification of "Lord" with "Jehovah" should be placed in footnotes. At the very least, use of "Jehovah" should be confined in the NW NT to the 78 occasions where an OT passage containing "Jehovah is being quoted. I leave it to the NW editors to resolve the problem where their principle of "emendation does not seem to work." "We must adhere to the standards of accurate translations, and we must apply those standards equally to all. If by those standards we say the NW should not substitute "YHWH" for the Lord" in the NT. or Lord in the Old." It should be noted;; "YHWH" was so sacred it could not be pronounced, so vowels were added to circumvent the hazard of blasphemy.
DeleteI see little difference between "other gods" and knocking on wood, or throwing salt over the shoulder. None of the other gods, or knocking on wood (beyond good luck), in providing redemption. (being bought back, (redeemed).
DeleteThanks little helper for your reply. Most of it went over my head. I take it as an opportunity to at least learn some new terms e.g. protoevangelium referring to God (“Ēl”) telling a garden snake how a women’s seed will crush it’s head. That’s meant to be bad news for the serpent but a wee hint of the coming good news for mankind. To me a conversation between a god and a snake is not plausible. It’s an instance of knocking on wood. In this case the trunk of some mysterious tree of knowledge from which a fateful apple fell. I guess it’s sister, the mysterious tree of life was spared a tap because
Deletethe knowledge of good and evil plus immortality (without need for redemption) would make mankind Godlike. But there can only be one big G. Enter the only Son (big S) of God, a portal to life everlasting. Redemption is at hand. May those in need redemption have the good fortune to find it.
Ardy; re. "which came first, polytheism or monotheism". First of all, it's my understanding and conviction the Monotheism of Christianity came from an external source. In the garden, (metaphor or not).(that protoevangelium thingie.) None of the others did. The Greek Nordic and Romans had virtually identical equivelants , which served the same purposes created by humans to explain natural phenomenon, with stories to support the speculation. Re. pantheism and animism; The similarities are remarkable, depending on the culture. Both satisfy internal superstition. (knocking on wood, salt over shoulder, different colored socks at a casino, black cats, etc. I can appreciate all of these from experience. I hunted out west. There is nothing more spooky than sitting in a stand of evergreens on a ridge, with the wind blowing, night coming and too far from camp, no flashlight. The whine of the wind, and an occasional falling branch, with the mountain lions in the area are enough to make the hair stand up on your neck. Yes, I can understand superstition in one word;- - - fear. Re. the many Eastern religions; (I'm not an expert in this area), but all seem to emphasize inner tranquility and improvement through systems of activity. or acceptance of the position one is in. So the question is; internal or external. Which came first is really a non-question. I would use the "garden" metaphor. but that's just me.
DeletePs. to the item of fear. I meant to add desire.
DeleteArdy; re. The garden, snake, crush, Some say actual, others say metaphor. Either way, I'd say external. Knocking on wood is internal. Most say your "apple" is metaphor also. To be god like is not to be God, but it does fall in the area of envy. (internal)
re. "good fortune to find it" (decision theology, again internal) as opposed to "He found me"(external).
I have little to offer to this discussion. For what's it's worth (probably not much), I have assumed that "el" was a generic name for a god, any god/divinity (or as Elohim in the plural). as you know, "el" shows up in many common names (Michelle,Joel, etc) usually meaning blessed of God or something similar. and in Islam" Ellah" (Allah).As to snakes: lots of meaning there in world mythology. the Genesis story not to be dismissed as a mere afternoon chat between God and a common garden snake. And did monotheism or polytheism come first; I simply don't know. Though some have argued that monotheism was first and that it persisted in polytheism (as in the unknown God of the Greeks and in the various skygods of the ancients). And as Bugs Bunny used to say, that's all folks.
DeleteI should also say; I had two witnesses in my office, when they so proudly produced BeDuhn. I dug out my copy of his book and showed, and read exerpts of his appendix. They picked up their books and left, never to return, even after several attempts on my part to re-invite them for discussion. Oh well.
ReplyDelete