top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 1 year ago

They switched writers.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I guess they did some market research between the two testaments

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 154 points 1 year ago (40 children)

    its almost like the whole thing is an amalgam of thousands of texts edited and repurposed across thousands of years by human beings with various motivations.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [+] 62 points 1 year ago (35 children)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    And Christianity isn't technically monotheistic either, as it has the trinity of God, Christ, and the Spooky Spirit... errrm... I mean Holy Ghost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    And trinitarianism specifically is basically just a reason to wage wars. I was raised in a trinitarian denomination and I still mostly consider myself Christian but I can't reconcile my morals with waging literal wars over fucking metaphysics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It really is tho. The 3 are the same thing. Different parts/names of one entity. Probably wasn't originally, but def is now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So some guy has an alternative theory

    but no evidence of pre-Israelite Yahweh worship among the peoples of the ancient Levant has surfaced

    That's because the israelites were the worshippers of Yahweh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah see this is how I know you're not serious. The author of that article isn't "some guy", he's an incredibly respected and accomplished historian and archaeologist, specializing in ancient near-east civilizations. And you couldn't be bothered to read past the first paragraph. You don't want to have an actual discussion about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I read all there was contained on the list. He admits it is literally just a theory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're either being obtuse or you don't understand how science works if you think "he says it's just a theory" is a gotcha

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is history. History works different than other sciences. You cannot just claim that it's common knowledge/scholarly accepted that yahweh originated in a pantheon because one scholar puts forward a theory on it, which most scholars reject (but they get dismissed because they are "biased")

    History isn't replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Absolutely, definitely, totally, 100% incorrect. Just because I only provided one source does not mean that that's the only source available claiming that Yaweh originated in a pantheon. To suggest that is laughably disingenuous, and more proof that you're not approaching this discussion seriously or with honesty.

    History isn't replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology

    Your close-minded definition of "history" isn't, because it doesn't allow you to update and believe new things based on new scientific discoveries and evidence. It's stagnant, stuck in the past, rigid, and unwilling to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wikipedia is a source of sources. You can scroll down to the bottom of the damn page and view the original sources if you really need the originals. No, you're just using this as an excuse. Fuck off. Everyone can see right through this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wikipedia is policed by radical atheists like tgeorgescu who deliberately delete Christian sources

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lol. Meanwhile here you are, policing what people provide as evidence because you only accept something that supports your worldview. You should be a wiki moderator apparently... oh wait, they actually have standards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wikipedia isn't a source. A whole Wikipedia article doesn't back up your claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Wikipedia is a source, even in academics. It isn't a primary source. If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least have the decency to be correct.

    Repeating this doesn't actually address anything I said though. Presumably you can't actually engage with what was said because you have no standing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

    You should have just looked this up yourself. It's going to be the first result in most search engines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Then check the sources listed under that wiki article.

    If you couldn't be bothered to look up something as simple and undisputed as this, then it's really silly to make a stand with "Wikipedia isn't a source", it just makes you look like a bad troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What do you mean "undisputed". The whole pantheon thing is a historical reconstructed theory, not a fact. You'd find millions of people who'd dispute a claim as absurd as pre-messianic Judaism not originally being monotheistic.

    Now yes, the israelites have practiced polytheism several times. The Bible records this. But the Christian religion has always been monotheistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, undisputed. Except by religious zealots who resort to bad faith arguments when some of their cultist beliefs are not accepted as fact by non believers, but on those subjects, those people aren't taken seriously by anyone except others from their cult, so yes, pretty much undisputed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're acting as if there's actually solid evidence for this theory. There really isn't. We know polytheism existed, that doesn't mean it was necessarily the origin. Heck, there are even hindus today that claim to worship Jesus. Does that mean that Jesus originated in Hinduism? No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That isn't even remotely analogous to this situation.

    One easy way to know it's the origin is to recognize that every religion is an evolution of other religions on the area. The others are polytheistic. It would only be reasonable to assume Judaism originated from the same practice, and we can observe similarities between Judaism and local religions of the time and find they share some aspects, implying they have the same origin. That origin being polytheistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • The book of Job is literally written in different parts in entirely different dialects that were spoken hundreds of years apart. The opening and ending is from the older dialect, and written much like a folktale. The middle is newer and written much more like an epic poem.

    Even the a single book of the Bible comes from numerous sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Because they're completely different gods. The old testament is only a part of christianity because in order to gain some legitimacy for their early church, they decided that their new god must be the same dude as the the god of the people that they were living among.

    But in reality, they are very different books, written in very different times, by two very different religious cultures.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Also, the old testament god is not a single god.

    It started as a god among other equally powerful and important gods and was later turned (by the writers) into the most important god.

    Then it turned into god and satan as being similar in power.

    Nowadays, the majority of church people flip the switch whenever they want a bi-theism (god vs satan) or a monotheism (god is all powerful and even satan can't act with god's explicit orders).

    Similar thing with free will.

    You have free will until you don't have and you have no free will until it is convenient to say you actually have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Yeah, they are "very different books" each individually comprised of "very different books," and all of the other books that eventually got left out are a lot of the best parts. I haven't read them, but it feels like how my friend used to describe the Star Wars extended universe books.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why Hulk can defeat Wolverine in one comic but in the next one gets obliterated by someone weaker?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't see how hulk can defeat wolverine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hulk's power level has no upper limit. Wolverine can heal, sure. But if Hulk smashes him down to atoms, and smashes those atoms together, it's gonna be a long healing process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It's because the Old Testament is actually just the Torah, rearranged and edited to fit the beliefs of what was once a sect of Judaism. That sect branched off when they decided that Jesus Christ was their Messiah, then progressively became more open and split away from the rest of Judaism and became their own religion.

    That might be a bit oversimplified, but that's really the gist of it. Jesus made a new covenant with god, which was meant to replace the old one, chronicled in the New Testament; but the old covenant was kept in as background, becoming the Old Testament.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    the only "um akshually" I would even bother adding to this is that the Torah / Pentateuch is just the first five books of the Tanakh, which is the best / closest approximation of books that later became the Christian old testament. The Tanakh also includes the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim). There's also a few books in there that the council of Nicaea (the council of og old Catholic dudes who decided which books were true or not) chose not to include. Also relevant is the Septuagint which was the first translation from Hebrew into a mainstream language (which at the time was Koine Greek) which is relevant because that specific translation has had a profound effect on translations since, which really hammers in that concept of "a translation of a translation of a translation of-"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeahhhh... I took a class on the history of the Bible, but that was about a decade ago, so I'm spotty on some of the details. Thanks for fleshing it out, though - I knew my take was probably missing something!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    I've been getting back into Christianity lately for a variety of reasons but I've also been doing a lot of research into the history and philosophy and whatnot and reconciling:

    that outer sphere of what all these different people over the centuries have written and decided to include or exclude from their various compilations and what motivated them morally or especially politically to do so

    vs

    the inner sphere of my own lived experience with what does and does not make the world a better place and what motivations exist in the modern day to practice or interpret those centuries of texts in one way or another

    and honestly it's actually been really interesting from an academic perspective as well. It's a fascinating combination of history, language, culture, and even what influences it's had on the sciences over time like I recently wound up learning some stuff about early geometry and the ways metaphysical interpretation of mathmetical concepts have affected the architecture of churches.

    and that actually led me to creating this gif of how Metatron's Cube is constructed using basic geometric concepts with a compass and straightedge. The animated circles were specifically programmed in FMS logo it was a really fun way to spend my weekend.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I was reading a scholar's book and one of her central themes was that there are clearly two gods in the Bible. It was really dry reading, couldn't finish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Some argue that there are even more! I'm definitely not an expert on this one, but I remember something about Yahweh being the god of some town or village that then somehow got absorbed into the old testament god when tribes and traditions consolidated, and then new testament god is just a completely different animal. I'm probably getting something wrong, so don't quote me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Seems clear early Jews believed in multiple gods. There's more than a couple passages in the Old Testament talking about gods, plural. I would think singular vs. plural would make the translations, and even if you changed the passage to singular god, it wouldn't make sense or need to be stated.

    "You shall have no other gods before me.", comes to mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    Because it's all fake. Everyone who actually reads it finds way too many inconsistencies.

    That's because it underwent some serious transformations across the millennia. Yahweh started as a storm god (basically Thor of Canaanite religion). Back then each nation in the religion had their own patron god and guess which god did the Israelites happen to have? Good old storm god Yahweh.

    Over centuries the religion evolved and among Israelites Yahweh slowly took on attributes of other gods, mostly El (the all-father and creator of the universe) and Baal. First the other gods were degraded and monotheism was required, even though other gods were known to exist (you might remember the whole "jealous of other gods shtick" even though the rest of the Bible says there's only one god).

    Then the other gods were slowly edited out of the Bible, though some remains persevere (the aforementioned jealousy of other gods, some gods are even mentioned by name). If the gods couldn't be removed because the story wouldn't make sense, they were mostly changed into angels or other mythical beings.

    It's pretty funny rereading the Bible with this knowledge, you can clearly recognise which parts were the original Yahweh-the-storm-god and which used to be El-the-actual-creator by how he behaves in the story. When he's all jealous, rageful and angry, it's mostly based on the original Yahweh.

    Anyway, that's basically what Old Testament is - a bunch of edits of much older religions. IIRC Yahweh precedes even the Canaanite religion, so it's a really old and grumpy storm god.

    Now, New Testament is something else entirely, that was basically just slapped onto Judaism to have some legitimate and widely recognised vessel. Unlike the other edits, it didn't evolve naturally over time, it was just violently slapped onto the Old Testament.

    Fun fact: try finding Satan anywhere in the old testament. You won't. Satan has been retrofit on multiple characters, but neither is mentioned directly as Satan, devil or really anything. The most famous one, the snake in the garden? Just a snake (which checks out with older religions where animals had a lot of influence). Then some morons come and say "actually, that snake was the grand adversary." The concept of a grand adversary wasn't really common in older religions, there usually wasn't a Satan-like figure. Compare for example with Greek, Roman or Norse gods.

    So, in conclusion, the Bible is a horrible mess of edits that were made so the religion would serve the needs of the time they were introduced in. IIRC the Israelites were having some trouble with their neighbours back when Yahweh got the promotion, so having a strong sense of nationality would really help in keeping the nation together. New Testament is even more obvious because it didn't even really try to fit with the rest. They just tried to retrofit a few things and called it a day.

    Well, this got longer than I planned, but I really like the topic and I don't think you can do it justice in two paragraphs. If anyone's interested, do some research, it's honestly fascinating! For example, what's the connection between Dionysus and Yahweh? That would be a homework for ya!

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Fun fact: try finding Satan anywhere in the old testament. You won't.

    What about the Book of Job? That was all about a bet between God and Satan to make Job suffer. Like, I'm sure he was still an edited deity from another religion. But he's straight up referred to as Satan, right there in the Old Testament, which seems to be the exact thing you're claiming can't be found.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I meant the character, not the name, I perhaps worded it poorly. Satan in this context is meant in the "accuser" sense. As in it's a role in a divine court, not an entity. Anyone could be the "satan" for the specific case, it's not a person, but a role.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Me when I listen to tiktok instead of doing actual research

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Could you be more constructive with your feedback?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    It's the same stuff I see copypasted everywhere. A lot of it is speculation from like one academic which gets quoted as fact

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    I guess you're referring to Dan McClellan. I've consumed a lot of his content via YouTube and his podcast.

    It generally seems like a pretty impartial, critical analysis of the data, rather than speculation. But given that he has dominated my understanding of the data I recognize I've got a pretty big blindspot. Where would you point me to refute the view that the bible seems to be a source that has been heavily edited to remove its polytheistic origins?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    Dan McClellan is a textbook example of this. He is known to block people whom responds to his videos. which is bad faith.

    I could point you to another video about the Yahweh pantheon by the same guy.

    The Bible hasn't been heavily edited. There isn't much proof for this, notably, no original "unedited" documents. Yahweh was worshipped in a pantheon though, and the Bible records this. But it's the writings of a monotheistic sect.

    Numbers 25:1–3:

    While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

    Judges 2:11-13 ESV [11] And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. [12] And they abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the Lord to anger. [13] They abandoned the Lord and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth.

    Judges 3:5-7 ESV [5] So the people of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. [6] And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods. [7] And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth.

    Judges 10:6 ESV [6] The people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines. And they forsook the Lord and did not serve him.

    The archaeology is basically just backing it up that there were instances of Yahweh being worshipped alongside other gods.

    So the Bible hasn't been edited- it documents this happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Uhhh the dead Sea scrolls showed exactly how much the Bible had been edited over there years. The entire book today is edit upon edit upon edit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The dead sea scrolls are the same as the Bible we have today

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    There are significant differences as I understand it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It was explained to me by someone I know who I trust. I would have to ask them or go looking. Unfortunately I haven't been in contact with them so that's not much of an option for the foreseeable future. As I said it is my understanding,

    I was led to believe this isn't really something to argue about as there were entire books that no longer exist in modern versions. This was about 15 years ago and you are the first person to challenge that assertion I've made since then. (It isn't something that has come up all that often to be fair)

    Sorry if I'm mistaken or was misled

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The assertion I've generally heard is that it's quite close. Like some things are worded differently to the masoretic text which we used before it (although other manuscripts were right anyway) but no doctrine changes.

    You hear the likes of Bart Ehrman claim all these things about thousands of textual variants- most of them are simply spelling errors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Dan McClellan is a textbook example of this. He is known to block people whom responds to his videos. which is bad faith.

    I know he blocks people if he decides they are not engaging productively. Like in the video you linked InspiringPhilosphy says that: when Jesus knew the doubters wondered "who can forgive sins but God"... InspiringPhilosphy insists that they were talking about God the father, but trinitarian belief didn't exist at the time of the composition of the gospel of Mark right? I suspect Dan lost patience with the retrojection of Trinitarianism.

    The Bible hasn't been heavily edited. There isn't much proof for this, notably, no original "unedited" documents.

    These are the first three edits that come to mind: Pericope of the women caught in adultery is absent from all early manuscripts if the gospel of John. Johannine comma being absent from all Greek manuscripts (except for the forgery from like 1000 years later), short ending of Mark. Also the pseudepigraphal letters of Paul, are editing in a sense.

    Yahweh was worshipped in a pantheon though, and the Bible records this. But it's the writings of a monotheistic sect.

    What is monotheism? Is it compatible with belief in the power of rival gods like in 2 Kings 3:27?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    That recording in Mark is Jesus teaching Trinitarian belief.

    I also said "heavily" edited. A story here in there added in isn't heavy editing. The Johannine Comma existed for a period of time but isn't in modern bibles except maybe a footnote. Even the woman caught in adultery comes with a disclaimer, as well as the ending in Mark.

    2 Kings 3:27

    Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

    What rival god?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    I don't think trinitarianism was invented at that point, if Jesus is teaching it there he is doing a terrible job.

    The rival god that the son was sacrificed to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    What do you mean "it wasn't invented"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Jesus was literally claiming to be God in the passage about forgiveness of sins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Pretty sure he claims to be the son of man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Mark 2:5-12 ESV

    [5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” [6] Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, [7] “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” [8] And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? [9] Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? [10] But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— [11] “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” [12] And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

    By saying "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" was a divinity claim. Because the scribes were correct - only God can forgive sins.

    Sin is a transgression against God. So only God is in a position to forgive that.

    Psalm 51:4 ESV [4] Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

    This is written by David despite the fact he committed adultery.

    2 Samuel 12:9, 13 ESV [9] Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. [13] David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.

    If someone were to wrong me, would my child be able to forgive them? Nope. I'd have to forgive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins

    He says the son of man has the authority to forgive sins. If he is trying to explain that he is god, he is doing a terrible job. To me it seems like he is saying "you think only god can forgive sins, I'll show you you're wrong"

    If someone were to wrong me, would my child be able to forgive them? Nope.

    You're saying that your omnipotent god can't authorize someone to forgive sins on its behalf?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Whenever Jesus did directly claim to be God, they tried to kill Him.

    John 8:58-59

    Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

    John 10:30-31

    "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    John 8 starts with the pericope of the women caught in adultery, one of the edits I mentioned....

    Do you know what John 10 doesn't say?

    The father and I and the holy ghost are one, and three, but most of the time one. 3 persons, one being. Like why didn't he try explaining it to someone that wouldn't try to kill him, and that was writing things down...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago*

    The old testament is essentially Judaism which is an ethnic religion. There is no marketing needed because it is a religion for a specific group of people from a theoretical single lineage. There is no need for God to be accepting or patient since the goal appears to be unify and keep people under control during times of great strife.

    Christianity is a universal religion ie. it tries to create new followers. If you're a religion that is trying to grow your following, you need to have a message of openness and acceptance.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    Going well beyond my competencies to answer, but I think a lot of it comes down to monotheism changing the nature of god.

    Judaism thinks of itself as starting monotheism; and that is largely true. However, the old testament is still littered with vestiges of it's polytheistic origins.

    If there are multiple God's, then those God's will come into conflict. That is simply the nature of human storytelling.

    Looking at the old Testament, probably the most violent God has been was during exodus. In addition to freeing the Jews, he smite the Egyptians with 10 plagues, among which was the death of all firstborn sons.

    For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. (Exodus 12:12)

    Note the polytheistic origins of this story. God is not merely intervening in the Earthly affairs of us lowly humans. The Jewish God is fighting with the Egyptian gods. He does not have the luxury of being nice and good. Even if he wins this fight without resorting to such drastic measures; he still needs to do so to act as a deterrent against other gods acting against him. That is not so much a specific tactical calculation in this case, but the way humans tend to imagine polytheistic gods working (reflective, of course, of the way human conflict tends to work).

    It probably doesn't help that Yahweh was the god of War before becoming the only God.

    By the time we get to the new testament, the situation is different. Beyond merely declaring that their god is the only God, the early Christians believed it, and had believed it for generations of storytelling. Their view of God had shed the vestiges of polytheism and morphed into what is truly possible under monotheism. God can be good because he lacks a peer rival. There is no narrative reason for God to be mean, because he can simply win any direct confrontation he faces.

    We see similar dynamics play out in modern story telling. When we have vastly overpowered characters, the nature of the conflicts they get in us not fights. Perhaps they are trying to mediate between lesser parties. Perhaps they want to get something while respecting the rights and interests in weaker parties. A story where a vastly superior force wants something and just takes it is boring; so we don't tell it.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My take is that it's a reflection of the Israelite people. It's easy to be all fire and brimstone when you can back it up with military force. Suspiciously that all went away after they got conquered...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›