Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Then Shall They Be Gods:

Recommended Posts

Beowulf,

Sure they are. And I submit that I see little evidence for an eternal chain of gods in the OT. (I will not say NO evidence, because I think God's battle with Chaos at the very beginning of the creation implies that there was something before.)

That there was something before is different than saying what that something was. That is, other than chaos, which is a long way from worlds and gods without end.

Moreover, the idea that the Council includes premortal humans is not absent in the OT. The Book of Job implies that Job himself was one of those Stars that shouted for joy at the foundation of the world.

The question is rhetorical: where was Job when the eternal one created the earth and the

Share this post


Link to post
Good advice. For me, the Bible Code is one of the highest forms of mockery.

If I take the first two letters from your initial paragraph,

Share this post


Link to post

Like Baal Hadad, YHWH rides the divine war chariot, pulled by cherbim, through the

clouds -- making lightning, thunder, rain, and destruction of the enemy below.

Thanks Uncle Dale for the correction. I did a little more in-depth look at the subject and found that my original assessment was clouded by my personal feelings rather than the record.

In addition to what you put up, I found an interesting website that discusses the issue.

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Probably the original Ya was not a god of waters

I'm not so sure that Ya was a god of creation either --

I guess this depends a lot on what time period we are talking about. The deity that came to be known as Ya/YHWH was perhaps derived from the Semitic nomadic tribespeople known as the Shasu. In Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism , an Egyptian inscription found in the Temple of Amun at Karnak makes reference to the "Shasu of Yhw,". A few archaeologists believe that the Shasu were, in fact, proto-Israelites who were part of the exodus of migrants away from the Transjordan region into the Levant.

Earlier evidences of Ya as been found at Ebla (2,350 BCE) and as Yaw at Ugarit (1800-1200 BCE), where Yah was worshipped as one of the sons of Elohim. In Jean Bottero's Mesopotamia:Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, the suggestion is made that Ya and Ea are essentially the same and that the Western Semitic name of Ya was the Akkadian version of E(house) A(water) which is consistent with Enki who was creator of mankind and who warned Noah or Utnapishtim of the flood, hence the water connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Probably the original Ya was not a god of waters

I'm not so sure that Ya was a god of creation either --

I guess this depends a lot on what time period we are talking about. The deity that came to be known as Ya/YHWH was perhaps derived from the Semitic nomadic tribespeople known as the Shasu. In Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism , an Egyptian inscription found in the Temple of Amun at Karnak makes reference to the "Shasu of Yhw,". A few archaeologists believe that the Shasu were, in fact, proto-Israelites who were part of the exodus of migrants away from the Transjordan region into the Levant.

Earlier evidences of Ya as been found at Ebla (2,350 BCE) and as Yaw at Ugarit (1800-1200 BCE), where Yah was worshipped as one of the sons of Elohim. In Jean Bottero's Mesopotamia:Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, the suggestion is made that Ya and Ea are essentially the same and that the Western Semitic name of Ya was the Akkadian version of E(house) A(water) which is consistent with Enki who was creator of mankind and who warned Noah or Utnapishtim of the flood, hence the water connection.

Possibly this is correct -- or partly correct, anyway.

As we reach back to the very dawn of recorded events, the sources become so

few that we grab onto them like people reaching for floating debris in a shipwreck.

And the more centuries we try to go back, the less of that floating stuff there is for us

to grab onto. A single new archaic inscription, discovered next week, could alter our

conclusions terribly.

At any rate, somewhere in the past the extra-biblical evidence and the biblical record

begin to close the space between, and our perceptions begin to merge into what we

call the "Israelites" and their religious history.

I'd guess that by now we know at least a good 1% of that evolution. And God appears

content to let us struggle on with only that tiny fragment of knowledge. Perhaps there

is some reason for all of that -- a wisdom we do not fathom.

UD

Share this post


Link to post
Unk, in approaching a Messianic monotheism, we mustn't forget the role of the Angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Since we LDS, Mountain Variety, hold that all of the angels/gods in our angelology have power only by delegation and not of themselves (they being creatures of the Creator), I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

Change the word "power" to "power and personhood," and we shall be reading on

precisely the same page, Horatio.

Uncle "would you please get your elbow off that final paragraph of the murder mystery" Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Since we LDS, Mountain Variety, hold that all of the angels/gods in our angelology have power only by delegation and not of themselves (they being creatures of the Creator), I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

Change the word "power" to "power and personhood," and we shall be reading on precisely the same page, Horatio.

So, lemme get this straight. Has my Unk determined that the creature's ego expires and is reabsorbed by the Creator, or has his cleverness found a way past or through that minefield created by such delightful proximity to those who take no position on Olam haEmmet?

For if this creature's ego expires and/or is reabsorbed, those other creatures may well not maintain any personhood either.

Me? Just call me Kether Malkuth.

If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor... but if she has been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain and despair... until the days of her purification.

USU "Who stole the Sears Catalogue from the Necessary?" 78

Share this post


Link to post
Since we LDS, Mountain Variety, hold that all of the angels/gods in our angelology have power only by delegation and not of themselves (they being creatures of the Creator), I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

Change the word "power" to "power and personhood," and we shall be reading on precisely the same page, Horatio.

So, lemme get this straight. Has my Unk determined that the creature's ego expires and is reabsorbed by the Creator, or has his cleverness found a way past or through that minefield created by such delightful proximity to those who take no position on Olam haEmmet?

For if this creature's ego expires and/or is reabsorbed, those other creatures may well not maintain any personhood either.

Me? Just call me Kether Malkuth.

If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor... but if she has been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain and despair... until the days of her purification.

USU "Who stole the Sears Catalogue from the Necessary?" 78

When I cruised the northern coasts of Alaska, in my jack tar days, we saw two sorts

of solid white stuff floating midst the waves -- icebergs and chunks of pack ice.

Pack ice was but Old Ocean meeting our senses in a form we could easily grasp (literally).

The icebergs were a different sort of critter, but they too melted back into Neptune's

bosom, once their individualistic purposes were fulfilled.

So -- back to the angels of the Lord.

Are they more like icebergs, or more like pack ice?

Uncle "and while you are at it -- how is a raven like a writing desk?" Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Pack ice was but Old Ocean meeting our senses in a form we could easily grasp (literally).  The icebergs were a different sort of critter, but they too melted back into Neptune's bosom, once their individualistic purposes were fulfilled.

So -- back to the angels of the Lord.  Are they more like icebergs, or more like pack ice?

Pelinore:

Share this post


Link to post
Good advice. For me, the Bible Code is one of the highest forms of mockery.

If I take the first two letters from your initial paragraph,

Share this post


Link to post
But if the Creator creates another like Himself with whom He can converse, whom He can love, must we assume that the creature must remain entirely other? Can the Creator's grace not convey a selfhood upon the creature that is not even conditional? Can the Creator not create an unconditional and free creation?

USU "I hear John Calvin comin'. He's comin' 'round the bend" 78

Those were the questions YHWH created you to ask.

And when you are one with the Lord, they will need no answers.

There's no place like home -- There's no place like home -- There's no place like home...

Uncle "at the end of all the yugas and kalpas, what do we learn? -- that they never existed at all" Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Those were the questions YHWH created you to ask. And when you are one with the Lord, they will need no answers.

There's no place like home -- There's no place like home -- There's no place like home...

Uncle "at the end of all the yugas and kalpas, what do we learn? -- that they never existed at all" Dale

Indian astronomy has been possessed by these non-real time computation of Mahayuga and Kalpa and their influence still remains. It has become almost impossible to view the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata in an objective manner due to this. The correct measure that can be seen in the light of the mathematical contents of Surya Siddhanta for Kaliyuga, Mahayuga and Kalpa, have been given here. This may perhaps help in exorcising the influence of imaginary numbers which have  afflicted the thinking in India for several centuries.

Hmmmmmmm.

I'm not enamored of the idea of life, even eternal life, without struggle -- struggle to learn, struggle to become. Having echad-ness with the Creator, however acquired, needn't extinguish boundaries of self. Indeed, it may well cheapen the Creator's love . . . since it doesn't take a particularly moral or loving G-d to love that which is ultimately Himself. I'm with Blake on this one, although I know you don't like the Johannine stuff much and will not agree.

Not that I reject the Hindu line of enquiry entire. I find much that touches me, though I remain a tadpole on the subject and defer, as ever, to Rabbi Dale's broader insights.

USU "Thou art G-d" 78

Share this post


Link to post
But if the Creator creates... I'm with Blake on this one.

The Vedanta and I

You can't have a bullseye without a target.

You can't have a cloud without a sky.

So -- What do you you do

When you realize you're God?

Splinter yourself back into pieces.

Cosmic egg collapses in this cosmos,

Only to big-bang out into amother.

Existing as infinite love gets dull after all.

Without creation -- God is very slightly

Incomplete....

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/dalestuf.htm#vedanta

Yer everlovin' Unk

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...