Same in Psalm 82 and Psalm 89:6–7

>>18323546
It's well-known that Judaism is an offshoot of the polytheistic Canaanite pantheon

>>18323546
I'm a Mormon so we don't much care for the Jewish fairytales part of the Bible.

>>18323599
Yeah you skipped the pretenses and straight up adopted polytheism lol

This idea rests on a series of inferences. Sadly biblical scholars aren't trained to think in terms of epistemology or probabilities. Each step leading to this conclusion can be given a probability.

1. The Pentateuch is a composite text with a complex redactional history. Let's be very generous assign a probability of 95%.

2. The sources of the Pentateuch can be identified, different parts assigned to different sources: the Elohist source (E), Yahwist (J), etc. IMO this is the weakest link in the chain. It's based on identifying different sources by different divine names: where you see El/Elohim, that's E, and where you see YHWH, that's J. A huge weakness here is that the Septuagint uses Kyrios for YHWH and Theos for Elohim, but often it will have Theos for YHWH and Kyrios for Elohim. This suggests it's based on a different, lost Hebrew version where the names were switched up. If so, you can't reconstruct sources based on names. But let's be generous and split it down the middle: 50%. (In reality it must be much lower.)

3. J and E represent different cults of different deities. Elohim is one, YHWH another. This is so integrated with the Step 2 it's hard to assign a probability. The idea of different deities is part of the rationale for J and E as distinct sources, and J and E as distinct sources also supports the idea of different deities. And even if J and E were real sources, El/Elohim and YHWH may just as well have been different names for the same god (a fairly common thing in ANE religions). But assuming Step 2 let's say probability: 60%.

This yields a probability of 28.5% for the conclusion (i.e. El Elyon, one deity, allotted a nation to YHWH, another deity). That's based on the most generous probabilities. But IMO since the probability of Step 2 is much lower than 50%, the probability of the conclusion is negligible. IOW I just don't think it's true. El Elyon and YHWH are names for the same deity who did the alloting and he kept a portion for himself.

>>18323602
Retard.

>>18323546
Abraham tells everyone to listen to Moses and the Prophets. That's what Abraham is about.

File: related.png (523.3 KB)

523.3 KB PNG

>>18323546
this is a consequence of how all people once understood God... specifically that phenotypical variations or racial categorizations exist because of a divine entity sowing its spirit into their flesh, causing that type to be the vessel of that spirit, animated by that spirit of that deity, and the collective embodiment of that god. This is a good enough general description of olympianism as well, and is also reflected in the beliefs of the light who inhabited the north shore of the med sea in ancient times.

>>18323546
If El is a separate person than Yah the why does it use the word own? His own portion?

>>18323546
Also I curse the enemies of the holy people.

>>18323683
Mormons are polytheists.

>>18323584
Isn't that Judaism is ancient jewish+ancient babylonese pantheons?
>>18323627
Thanks, ChatGPT.

>>18323931
That actually isn’t in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “own” was added by the NRSV

>>18323938
....do you even know what Mormonism is?

>>18324124
Mormonism adopts the partialist view of the trinity, which is inherently polytheistic.

>>18323901
>>>/x/

File: Heracleidae.png (614.4 KB)

614.4 KB PNG

>>18324667
You will never be Heracleidae

>>18324075
Liar. It was.

>>18325244
NTA and whatever Hebrew is used by biblehub doesn't look like it has a word corresponding to "own."
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-9.htm
And in the collection of dead sea scroll translations here: https://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2032.htm
It just says, "For Yahweh’s portion is his people."

File: Related.jpg (208.4 KB)

208.4 KB JPG

>>18324694
And you will never be a Rmt you MENAMedfag beardless boys booty worm harvesting christer.

>>18325291
In Hebrew biblehub you can find dozens of verses from scripture where it says that Yah is Elyon.

>How do Christians resolve this?
By denying it, since it is a lie

>>18324134
Is there even one view of the trinity that isn't polytheistic in essence?

>>18327106
The main views assert that God has one essence, and that each of the three Persons are fully and entirely God, not a "part" of God.

>>18327123
All humans also share one essence yet there are billions of us. A 3 headed god is still polytheistic but christianity says at least one of them has a distinct body from the others too

>>18323546
Christianity resolves this by saying those scrolls are non-canon.

>>18323584
Not quite. Judaism's take is that those polytheistic Canaanite pantheons were goyim false beliefs and/or golden calf-tier delusions. The ambiguity of the archeological record at the time basically makes any assertion one way or another indefensible.

>>18327128
You're making a category error. There is one God, but three beings with the essence of this singular God. They are not separate gods, only separate beings.

To put it another way: Those billion humans all share the same objective reality. It does not follow from this that there are billions of objective realities.

>>18327151
>The ambiguity of the archeological record at the time basically makes any assertion one way or another indefensible
Cope. Their scriptures are awkwardly patched up and you can see the polytheism peeking from behind the curtain.

>>18327155
Separate beings? That is polytheism. What does one God mean to you? Just a shared essence?

>>18323546
>it describes Elyon (El, the Canaanite God) giving land to Yahweh
El making a commodity transfer to Yahweh appears nowhere in the text. What appears is this:
>"Yahweh's own portion was his people"
Which is a way to express the relationship between Yahweh and Israel - they are each other's "portion" because they are in a marriage (as is the NT follow-up: Church and God).
>That suggests early Abrahamic tradition was polytheistic
Abrahamic polytheism is well attested, even by the Bible itself. What you claimed is more than this - that the OT was written from a perspective of El and YHWH being different beings. This is not supported by the text.

>>18327156
Good luck arguing that. There exists 2000 years of autistic deliberation and cope.

>>18327159
>That is polytheism.
Nope. One God, but the father is not the son is not the holy spirit.
>What does one God mean to you? Just a shared essence?
It means there is precisely one God.

>>18327345
Never has The Father been the main title of the Most High on the OT yet it is the title the NT and christians use exclusively. One or two prophets might have referred to Him as their father, but he has NEVER been titled The Father anywhere in the OT in the thousands of years of his interaction with the Israelites prophets.

Satan however, is usually referred to as the (all) father of the (pantheon) gods, and the gods are the demons, weird this same religion also worships the one titled queen of heaven which in pagan religions is the mother of the pantheon demons. And you worship the son of these two entities and call him your saviour.

There were inscriptions that said Yahweh's wife is Asherah, Asherah is a Canaanite goddess and the wife of El

So yes, Yahweh is a Canaanite God, he either is El, or El was a separate God and Yahweh eventually merged with El over time

>>18327430
How can someone be so moronic?

>>18327376
>Satan however, is usually referred to as the (all) father of the (pantheon) gods
Father of X or son(s) of Y was common parlance, not to mention spiritual fatherhood like in 2 Kings 2:12.
> weird this same religion also worships the one titled queen of heaven which in pagan religions is the mother of the pantheon demons
Except she isn't lol Astarte (Ishtar) wasn't primarily a mother goddess and neither was Inanna, two of the few deities titled queen of heaven among dozens of other titles.

You might as well hold a suspicion against the title "Lord".

>>18327151
Actual archeological evidence shows that the events of Exodus and the Israelite conquest of Canaan never happened and instead the Israelites were originally a Canaanite tribe from the Judaean highlands (modern-day West Bank) who later became the dominant tribe. The earliest known reference to “Israel” is the Egyptian Merneptah stele from the 13th century BC which refers to “Israel” as one of the many Canaanite tribes pharaoh Merneptah conquered and subdued (something curiously omitted in the Old Testament). The Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, no different from Phoenician, Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite. It was even written in the same script as other Canaanite languages as the “Paleo-Hebrew” alphabet is just the Phoenician alphabet, the independent Hebrew alphabet we know didn’t emerge until the 2nd century BC.

Yahwism, aka proto-Judaism, evolved out of Canaanite paganism. Yahweh was originally a Canaanite storm god from Edom whom the Israelites later made their chief god and syncretized with the already-existing Canaanite chief deity called El (El’s name is also a generic term for deities and in fact, the word Elohim is actually the plural form of it). The demonization of Baal comes from a distorted memory of Yahweh replacing Baal as the pantheon’s main storm god (at least among the Israelites) and many of Baal’s functionalities were actually reassigned to Yahweh (Psalm 29 for example is believed to have originally been a hymn to Baal). Yahweh also had a consort named Asherah (likely as a result of being syncretized with El as Asherah was originally El’s consort). The Israelites didn’t actually become properly monotheistic until after the Babylonian exile, which is interestingly around the same time they made contact with the monotheistic Zoroastrians.

>>18327151
>>18327509
The events described in the Old Testament are at most based on distorted oral memories of real events. There probably was a king David and a king Solomon, but they were very different from the ones described in the Old Testament. Only the Israelite priests were taken to Babylon, not the whole populace. The events of Exodus are most likely based on a distorted oral memory of the Hyksos being expelled from Egypt (the Hyksos were a Canaanite peoples who ruled over Egypt as its 15th dynasty from the 17th to 16th centuries BC and were later overthrown and driven back to Canaan).

There’s a bunch of other historical inaccuracies in the Old Testament as well, which only shows that its stories are either distorted oral memories of real events or outright fabrications. The Book of Jonah claims that the prophet Jonah converted Nineveh in the 8th century BC. But according to actual history, Nineveh never converted to Yahwism at any point and still worshiped their native gods until the Christianization of the Assyrians in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD. The Philistines are mentioned in Abraham’s time (18th century BC). But the Philistines didn’t exist until after the Bronze Age collapse (12th century BC). The books of 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles claim that Damascus fell to king David. But archeology shows that Damascus never fell to the Israelites at any point. Around the time Exodus supposedly happened, Canaan was controlled by the Egyptians, so why would the Israelites escape Egypt by fleeing to a land controlled by Egypt? It’s like trying to escape from the US government by fleeing to Guam.

>>18327151
>>18327509
>>18327510
“Judaism” as we know only fully emerged during the Hellenistic period. The Torah might have been completed sometime during the Persian period, but the rest of the Old Testament wasn’t written until much later; for example the Book of Daniel was not actually written in the 6th century BC, but rather in the 180s BC under the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes and (along with the non-canonical Book of Enoch) it was written in the context of the Maccabean revolt.

Why does pointing out that First Temple Judaism was polytheistic upset people so much? It's got nothing to do with modern Christianity.

>>18327516
If the Old Testament is prove to be bullshit, then logically the New Testament is bullshit as well.

File: images (9).jpg (41.5 KB)

41.5 KB JPG

>>18327472
>Father of X or son(s) of Y was common parlance, not to mention spiritual fatherhood like in 2 Kings 2:12.
Nowhere is he ever given the title of The Father.

Asherah is the mother of all demons, wife of Satan and mother of Baal. Baal is the Sun God.

File: image-79 (1).png (339.6 KB)

339.6 KB PNG

>>18327538

>>18327538
>Nowhere is he ever given the title of The Father.
It is a common title of authority, verses provided.
>Asherah is the mother of all demons
Asherah is given various titles like "mother of all living" and "mother of gods" . "Queen of heaven" appears later and it isn't clear if it's referring to Asherah or Astarte (who had this title verbatim).

Again, you can just as well bicker that other deities were called "Lord" and that this should make someone suspect. It's a moot point.

>>18327538
>>18327544
Meds now

>>18327575
Provide verses.

And pure nonsense.

>>18323546

Despite the fairly straightforward-sounding name, there can be some nuance to the anal only lifestyle, and this can lead to some confusion.

In its most fundamental form, going anal only (AO) means that you are replacing all vaginal sex with anal sex instead and no longer taking part in vaginal intercourse.

It does not restrict oral sex, though there are some who choose to do so.

It does not restrict clitoral stimulation, though there are some who choose to do so for the various benefits that can come from it.

It doesn’t even necessarily eliminate all vaginal penetration, though most choose to do so. There are some, however, who only have anal sex with their partner but will still use a dildo vaginally during sex if they feel the need.

It’s highly personal and variable, with the only real restriction being on vaginal intercourse. Beyond that, you can customize it to your own needs and desires.

>>18323546
Revelation was a slow process.
In the beginning, the Israelites, or perhaps some proto-Israelite Canaanite group, were clearly polytheistic and followed traditions similar to those of the surrounding peoples.
Later, the one true God revealed Himself to the Israelites. However, this did not immediately end the existence of every other god in their pantheon. In the Bible, a long struggle to finally eradicate all idolatry toward other gods is recorded.
These texts were most likely composed during this period of coexistence of multiple gods in the minds of the Israelites. But as another anon said, they are not canon, and for a good reason they were forgotten.

>>18327737
>they are not canon
Does that still count as a valid excuse if it were in fact the original reading in Deutoronomy? Can a holy text be edited into its one true canonical form by some random scribe who wasn't the first author?

>>18327751
>Can a holy text be edited into its one true canonical form by some random scribe who wasn't the first author?
Yes.
Only the church has the authority to say which texts are canonical. They decided that the current version of the text is THE one canonical version, therefore it is.
It also comes with the benefit that the person that edited the text into its actual form was not a random dude, but rather a person inspired by God to transmit the divine truth faithfully.

>>18327761
Nice. So the church is free to rewrite the Bible however they want as long as they can reach enough unanimity, and it will then become the new authoritative word of God.

>>18327779
No.
The church already infallibly defined that the canon is closed and cannot be changed in any way or form.

File: 1756869634524409.jpg (39.7 KB)

39.7 KB JPG

>>18327794
>The church already infallibly defined
That's a great thing about spirituality. Anybody can come along and 'infallibly' negate your niggerish attempts to ossify and gatekeep the faith by starting another branch in which your niggardry is denied.

Water finds its level.