Is the God of the Old Testament a Merciless Monster?

[mgt23]

thanks for the post Tim that was actually really interesting.

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for this most enlightening tour of the evidence surrounding the tetragrammaton and its cult worship, another judaized perversion of meaning not unlike the Star of Moloch.  It is good to refute the heresy of name-worship and all such magickal minded nonsense.  The detailed research by the Dr. G. Reckart, Pastor, is a wealth of research and scholarly effort.  I have realized with an uneasy feeling in my gut that the tetragrammaton is being used by many Christian believers as an exclusive representation of God, these days.  Knowing what I do about the occult, it worries me.  This confirms the fears, but that is not a good place to stop.  Well meaning as the good Pastor Reckart is, he alone does not possess the entire fulness of the Faith and so I would like to include this Orthodox Christian commentary from Vladmir Moss to round out the discussion.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/69_ON_THE_NAME_OF_GOD.pdf

"And holy is His name". The name of God is said to be holy, not because it contains in its syllables any special virtue, but because in whatsoever way we contemplate God, we see Him pure and holy.   - St. Basil the Great, On Psalm 32.

Whatever is called "God" in the full and proper sense is God and whatever He is in His nature is a true name for Him – granted that real truth is contained in realities, not in names.  - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29, 13.

Remember, the power is not in the word, not in the name, but in Christ Himself, Who is named.  - St. Barsanuphius of Optina.

Сontemplation, or the knowledge of good and evil, can safely be given only to those who have already reached spiritual maturity, that is, who have exercised their free will to choose good and reject evil in a steadfast, constant manner. The reward for such steadfastness in the practice of the good is the сontemplation of Goodness Itself and the ability to discern and trample on all the snares of the evil one. However, those who attempt to see God without having passed this test fall into spiritual deception and the pseudo-knowledge of God. Since their real motivation is not to know God for His own sake but to "be as gods" for their own sake – in other words, not love, but self-love, - they receive the due reward of their evil works, which is enslavement to the evil one. The archetypal evil works in this connection are the practice of magic, which uses incantations of verbal formulae and, in its Jewish, kabbalistic form, seeks to manipulate the "names of God" (as the magicians suppose) in order to control and manipulate God for antitheist ends, and heresies, which give a false, blasphemous understanding of God...

During the time of Enos, the grandson of Adam, we read (in the Hebrew text) that "men began to call on the name of the Lord God" (4.26). On which Metropolitan Philaret comments: "In the time of Enos, with the multiplication of the pious [Sethite] race, public and open Divine services were established, which had been formerly carried out by each family and private person without the agreement of others".  And we read in the hymnography of the Church: "The wondrous Enos trusted in the Spirit and with divine wisdom began to call upon the God and Master of all with mouth, tongue and heart."  

This interpretation is supported by Archimandrite Theophan (later Archbishop of Poltava) in his fundamental work on the Old Testament name of God, The Tetragram, and by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It opens up the fascinating hypothesis that the name of God in question, "Jehovah", was not revealed for the first time to Moses on Mount Horeb, but was known to the people of God much earlier – certainly in the time of Enos, and possibly even earlier, in Paradise. This thesis is defended in detail by Archimandrite Theophan, who concludes that since "Jehovah" was "the name of the living God Who reveals His life in revelation", it was "very probably contemporaneous to the existence of revelation and, consequently, has existed from the very beginning of human history. It probably arose, in our opinion, as early as the lives of the first people in Paradise.

Here, as we know, man gave names to the animals and, of course, to all the objects of the visible world.  It cannot be that the Being with Whom he was most of all in communion with, should remain without a name for him. And out of the possible Divine names that are known to us from revelation, the name 'He Who is' was as suitable as could be for this purpose. As being higher than every existence and human thought, and as excelling all in goodness, the Creator of the world created man according to His image and thereby instilled into the very bases of the spiritual nature of man the thought and knowledge of His own eternity. Through this He made him, according to the expression of St. Athanasius the Great, a contemplator and knower of Him Who is, so that man, in converse with God, lived a blessed and immortal life. From this contemplation of God by the radiant mind of the first-created man, undimmed by sinful impurity, there arose the present name.

But even after the fall, when the union of man with God was broken and the mental contemplation of God ceased, this name continued to retain for man its complete significance, although it changed in its religio-historical content in conformity with the course of the whole of soteriological revelation in general. It is self-evident that when to the name 'He Who is' is ascribed such profound antiquity, it is not the name's external wrapping in sounds that we have in mind, whose antiquity, of course, cannot extend beyond the antiquity of the language that created it, but the very idea of the living God, which found its incarnation in the tetragram at a definite historical moment.

From such a point of view, the idea of God as 'He Who is' is bound in the very closest way with the whole of the Old Testament revelation and reflects in itself all the destinies of this revelation..."  "And Moses said to God: Behold, I shall go to the sons of Israel and shall say to them: 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you'. And they will say to me: 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them? God said to Moses: 'I am the Existing One' And He said: 'Say this to the sons of Israel: "The Existing One has sent me to you"' And against God said to Moses: say this to the sons of Israel: the Lord, the God of our fathers, of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you. This is My name for ever, a memorial of Me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3.13-15).

When I went to see the Elder Pavlos, abbot of the world's oldest Christian monastery, St, Catherine's of Sinai, which houses the Burning Bush and sits at the base of Mt. Horeb, I was already contemplating the issues you have brought up regarding this subject.  So, at the very end of the Q + A period of the talk, I asked him, (through his translator, as he only speaks Greek) whether "Yahweh" or "I am that I am" is the definitive name used in the Sinai Codex, one of the two oldest complete manuscripts of the Bible, dating to the early fourth century A.D.  The translator seemed to know what I was getting at, but was worried about how it would translate.  As it turned out, he didn't quite seem to get the gist of what I meant, but he did answer that the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament translated in the time of Ptolemy in Alexandris ~ 300 B.C.) uses only "Kyrion" (Lord).  But he said that both forms of the name are in the Hebrew scriptures.  I felt a little like I had wasted my time, but in reflection and upon reading your material, I find it significant that I heard him pronounce YWHW, and he said it distinctly as "hawa."

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Nice post, MK. Interesting to see the Orthodox take on things.

My spiritual discernment told me from day one that there was something off about the tetragrammaton. The fact that the Lord used the Greek language to spread the greater message of His truth is revealing.

[Yo Mama]

Obsession over names as if they have some kind of magical, mystical power is very Jewish and very cabalistic.

[Yo Mama]

what about Asherah?

Asherah was the wife/consort of El, the supreme deity.  El and Asherah had seventy sons, one of whom was named Yahweh.

This is basic Hebrew/Canaanite mythology.

[Yo Mama]

answer my question is yahweh once a member of a pantheon of gods?

Yes.  Yahweh was originally a member of a pantheon of 70 gods in ancient Canaanite mythology.  Jews stole Yahweh from the Canaanite religion and claimed him as their own special patron god.

Jews are the ultimate plagiarizers.

[Yo Mama]

Ancient Judaism and Canaanite Religions

There are many names of God or Gods used in tanakh. Orthodox Jews maintain that every name refers to the same God, except those names which are clearly used to refer to idols of other religions. Some of the names, however, are strikingly similar to the names of gods from the polytheistic religions surrounding ancient Israel.

Ugarit was an ancient city in what is now northern Syria, which existed from before 6000 B.C.E. (or approximately 2000 years before the creation of the Universe, if you're a young-Earth creationist) to around 1200 B.C.E. It was rediscovered in 1928:

The excavations uncovered a royal palace of 90 rooms laid out around eight enclosed courtyards, many ambitious private dwellings, including two private libraries (one belonging to a diplomat named Rapanu) that contained diplomatic, legal, economic, administrative, scholastic, literary and religious texts. Crowning the hill where the city was built were two main temples: one to Baal the "king", son of El, and one to Dagon, the chthonic god of fertility and wheat.

On excavation of the site, several deposits of cuneiform clay tablets were found, constituting a palace library, a temple library and -- apparently unique in the world at the time -- two private libraries; all dating from the last phase of Ugarit, around 1200 BC

...

The discovery of the Ugaritic archives has been of great significance to biblical scholarship, as these archives for the first time provided a detailed description of Canaanite religious beliefs during the period directly preceding the Israelite settlement. These texts show significant parallels to Biblical Hebrew literature, particularly in the areas of divine imagery and poetic form. Ugaritic poetry has many elements later found in Hebrew poetry: parallelisms, meters, and rhythms. The discoveries at Ugarit have led to a new appraisal of the Old Testament as literature

...

Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, the "father of mankind", "the creator of the creation". The Court of El or Ilu was referred to as the 'lhm. The most important of the great gods was Hadad, the king of Heaven, Athirat or Asherah (familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (Sea, the god of the primordial chaos, tempests, and mass-destruction) and Mot (Death). Other gods worshipped at Ugarit were Dagon (Grain), Tirosch, Horon, Resheph (Healing), the craftsman Kothar-and-Khasis (Skilled and Clever), Shahar (Dawn), and Shalim (Dusk). Ugaritic texts have provided biblical scholars with a wealth of material on the religion of the Canaanites and its connections with that of the Israelites.

There are some obvious parallels here. The God of tanakh is often referred to as El, recalling the chief God of Canaanite religion. Furthermore, the term Elohim, which is now thought of as merely another name of God, was in Canaanite religion a term for the whole court of El. (Hebrew not having vowels, Elohim in Hebrew is basically the same as 'lhm.) Some of the other Gods mentioned in the Ugaritic texts are also mentioned in the Bible, not as synonymous with the Jewish God, but rather as "other gods," which are now (by Orthodox Jews) thought to mean "idols" or false gods. Asherah is mentioned in 2 Kings 18.8:

He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the grove, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Where's Asherah in that verse, you ask? Well, the hebrew word that's translated as "grove" is... Asherah. Which frankly makes a lot more sense when you notice that its parallel to "the high places," "the images," and "the brasen serpent," all sources of idolatry. Some English translations retain "Asherah," such as the New Living Translation. The New King James Version translates it as "sacred pillars."

Asherah is interesting because of her status in Canaanite religion. She is the "consort" of El, and the mother of his 70 sons.

Scholars believe that Asherah was worshipped by many in ancient Israel and Judah, referred to by Jeremiah as "the Queen of Heaven."

Jeremiah 7.18:

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Another interesting Canaanite God is Ba'al, who is mentioned in tanakh. Orthodox Jews understand Ba'al to be a false god -- or several false gods -- quite popular in Jeremiah's time.

Now in tanakh, YWHW is the same God as El. But YHWH may have started out in Canaanite religion as one of the 70 sons of El. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Deutoronomy 32.8-9, which agrees with the Septuagint, reads as follows:

When the Most High ('Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
    When He divided up the sons of man,
    He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
    According to the number of the sons of El
    But Yahweh's portion is his people,
    Jacob His own inheritance.

Now the Jewish version reads "sons of Israel" in place of "sons of El," but the first time we see that version is from a manuscript dating 700 years later than the above. "The older reading implicates an original polytheist context at the birth of Judaism. Within this framework, humanity was divided into seventy peoples, each with its own patron god. Yahweh takes Jacob as his, shedding additional light on the textual meaning of the "chosen people."

The argument for the original polytheistic context at Judaism's birth is bolstered by the name "Elohim."

"Elohim" has the shape of a plural noun, and indeed is often used that way in tanakh when it's used to refer to "other gods." However, it's often used as a singular noun, as in Genesis 1.1. Many scholars argue that the plural form of "Elohim"

reflects early Judaic polytheism. They argue it originally meant 'the gods', or the 'sons of El,' the supreme being. They claim the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods of the Judean pantheon with their own singular patron god YHWH alone.

...

The alternative polytheist theory would seem to explain why there are three words built on the same stem: El, Elohim, and eloah. El, the father god, has many divine sons, who are known by the plural of his name, Elohim, or Els. Eloah, might then be used to differentiate each of the lesser gods from El himself.

This theory makes the Elohim saying "Let US make Man in OUR image, in OUR likeness" make more sense, as well as YHWH's commandment to Israel, "worship no other gods [Hebrew:Elohim] before me."

[Michael K.]

Dear Yo Mama,

Brilliant research, but obviously not yours.  So where are your source references and attributions?  

Oh, I forgot, you just said, "Jews are the ultimate plagiarizers."

Is that the explanation?

[Yo Mama]

You're welcome for the knowledge, Michael K.  I'm glad that you found it informative, especially since it contradicts your cult belief system.

[Michael K.]

It's not "knowledge."  It offers no proof, except for citing Scripture.  It is well written, that's how I can tell you aren't the author.  And you are borderline plagiarizing it by not offering the source for independent criticism.  In short, you are engaged in propaganda, not scholarship.  Why don't you make it more interesting and actually play by the rules?

[Yo Mama]

The material in that post is just mainstream Biblical scholarship, something that you would know nothing about.

I'm sorry that the evidence and the facts conflict with your Christian fundamentalist view of Jewish history and the Bible.  But that's your own problem that you will have overcome by yourself.

[Michael K.]

Just post your sources, otherwise I can only maintain that you are neither a scholar nor a journalist, but a propagandist.  What you are saying, in essence, is that your opinion is the unqualified truth and needs no proof, which is to say that you are fundamentally solipsistic and narcissistic.  Whatever you may think of my opinion, at least I do you and every other reader the honor of listing my sources so that you can know when I am using my own words and when I am using those of another in a quote.

What about, "mainstream Biblical scholarship?"  When it is studied by you it is a virtue, but when I express mainstream Biblical beliefs (like that there is one God) you say I am bad and foolish.  So, this is a classic case of "black-white," as Orwell called it, perhaps with, "duckspeak," because of your innately double-minded view on the actual merit of "mainstream Bible scholarship."  

Of course, it occurs to me that the reason you don't want to reveal your source is because it is JEWISH, you learned it in YESHIVA SCHOOL.  This is the truth, that you hate my, "Christian fundamentalist view of Jewish history and the Bible," because it conflicts with your modern Jewish atheist cult views.  You are 90% likely to be a Jew in the IDF, sitting at a desk in Israel in the middle of the night doing your well paid work of subversion, and attempting to discredit the ideas and individuals of this forum by bringing in the vitriol.

Tell me what you think about John Sack's book, An Eye For An Eye, or is that verboten?  

[Yo Mama]

Sure, whatever you say, "Michael K."  The detailed fantasy scenarios that you come up with are highly entertaining.  I'm sure most TIU readers would agree.  Whatever will you come up with next?

[Yo Mama]

Oh, Michael K., did you just try to discredit arguments and/or sources by pointing to the fact that they may be Jewish in origin?  Yes, you certainly did.

Well, Michael K., you know what that means, don't you?  It means that, using your own criteria, Christianity is instantly and totally debunked and discredited, because the Christian Bible was almost entirely written by Jews.

Thanks for making that so easy for me, Michael K.  I owe you one.

[GordZilla]

Yo Moma knows there is no creator.

Even though science itself  already proves that nothing begets nothing - always.  -Yo Moma still knows better.

Even though no other code known to man can write itself into existence naturally, Yo Moma is still sure one did, and again a code coming from nothing.

Sorry if it sounds like Pascal's wager to you Yo Moma, but my wager is still on there being a creator.  In fact, just knowing those two truths above would leave any reasonable person to conclude that only a fool would wager otherwise. See I can't lose; no creator - oh well I won't know better, I'll be dust.  a creator -oh well least I didn't spend my life foolishly disrespecting Him, I just might still have a chance.

This is why to me, Yo Moma, you are the biggest hypocrite on this forum, perhaps the only one really. As you have no way to know anything about the creator for sure, but you spend tireless amounts of time trying to piss and crap on anyone that just might believe there is one (in fact, on this anti-zionist/jew forum, that is what you personally put the most effort into -exactly as a Jew would)  When again; YOU CANT KNOW THERE'S NOT a creator. You sir are a fool and a hypocrite or perhaps just a troll but none of these personalities are very good ones to be, are they?

P.S. as far as the 'Jews' writing the new testament, have we not been down that road before, denial boy? Jews created Jesus, their biggest nemeses to date, lol. I suppose they created the Byzantine empire too? See that is exactly why they go after true Christians first and foremost, so no relapse of the Christian unity seen 109 times before can ever reoccur. This seems to be something you suspiciously have in common with them, your hatred of Christ and His followers knows no end -just like theirs. It's pretty obvious to most of us what you are all about, you couldn't make it any more clear.

[Yo Mama]

Right on cue, here comes a 5,000 word off-topic nonsensical post from GordZilla.

Thanks, GordZilla.  You never fail to disappoint.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

To add to that, Gordo, I guess Yo_Mama believes the Jews didn't kill 60-plus-million Russians (many Christians) in the Soviet Union because they were the co-conspirators. Re-writing history, are we Yo_Mama?

[Yo Mama]

And, right on schedule, here comes Talmud Timmy to change the subject with an off-topic post of his own, just like GordZilla.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

And, right on schedule, here comes Talmud Timmy to change the subject with an off-topic post of his own, just like GordZilla.

Your whole life is off topic.

[Yo Mama]

Your whole life is off topic.

Hmm, that sounds like an ad hominem attack.  You know, CSR banned me for 4 weeks for making "ad hominems".  I wonder if he'll ban you for doing the same thing?  Somehow I doubt it.   :roll:

[GordZilla]

Right on cue, here comes a 5,000 word off-topic nonsensical post from GordZilla.

Thanks, GordZilla.  You never fail to disappoint.

Just as I never fail to get any response from you other than insult. You have nothing to say but rattle on none-the-less, just like an empty can. I shut you down every time, and frankly without much effort. So please refer to the post and explain away how you are so sure there is no creator, or STFU. Your insults only illustrate, once again, that you have no real response. You're just here to stir the shit, a boy with an agenda to be sure. Discord and division is all you know, absolutely useless traits in our collective current struggle.

[Yo Mama]

Thanks for another emotional post full of ad hominem attacks and insults, GordZilla.  That seems to be all you're capable of.  Well, that and calling people Jews - you're pretty good at that too.

 :roll:

[GordZilla]

Thanks for the multiple ad hominem attacks and insults, GordZilla.  That seems to be all you're capable of.  Well, that and calling people Jews.

 :roll:

Yeah this also has been addressed by me, quite awhile ago -look it up.
(to refresh your memory I spent a long time reframing from attacks on your person, taking personal attacks on me repeatedly until I finally stated that I would no longer reframe when it came to you personally, you have long since earned that distinction in my book)

Again, anything on just how you are so sure there's no creator? Didn't think so.

It seems I'm also very capable of keeping you from addressing my points, as you never do. Perhaps it's because you can't know for sure, and you know it, but to admit that, well......That's a lot of ego to swallow isn't it?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for another emotional post full of ad hominem attacks and insults, GordZilla.  That seems to be all you're capable of.  Well, that and calling people Jews - you're pretty good at that too.

 :roll:

Jews always accuse others of what they themselves do.

[Yo Mama]

Again, anything on just how you are so sure there's no creator? Didn't think so.

Are you confusing the Platonic god of the philosophers with the Zeus-like god of the ancient Jews?  Thought so.

 8-)

[Yo Mama]

Jews always accuse others of what they themselves do.

Yes, they do.  But, of course, I would never accuse you of being a Jew simply because you disagree with me.  Only stupid people who have no arguments resort to such a childish tactic.  

[Yo Mama]

(to refresh your memory I spent a long time reframing from attacks on your person, taking personal attacks on me repeatedly until I finally stated that I would no longer reframe when it came to you personally, you have long since earned that distinction in my book)

I think the word you're looking for is "refrain", not "reframe".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refrain

You're welcome.  Always remember, I'm here to help.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Jews always accuse others of what they themselves do.

Yes, they do.  But, of course, I would never accuse you of being a Jew simply because you disagree with me.  Only stupid people who have no arguments resort to such a childish tactic.  

Liar. You have insinuated that I was a Jew several times merely because I believe in Christianity, which you call a co-conspirating Jewish offshoot.

[GordZilla]

Still no answer, but you are still sure there's no creator, that is why you sir are a hypocrite.

[Yo Mama]

Still no answer, but you are still sure there's no creator, that is why you sir are a hypocrite.

Still confusing the Platonic god of the philosophers with the Zeus-like god of the ancient Hebrews(Yahweh)?  You do understand that these are two entirely different god concepts, right?

Maybe you should start a new thread debating the existence of the god of the philosophers.  That is not the subject of this thread.