Abrahamism

Sloterdijk, Peter wrote:

With the advent of Islam, the third exclusive monotheism appeared on the scene. Its establishment was defined by the fact that it viewed itself emphatically as the latest and most perfect manifestation of the Abrahamic one god complex. Islam took its late arrival as its most precious spiritual chance, as it claimed the advantage of seeing and correcting the errors, both alleged and real, of the two preceding monotheisms. This is why Muslim clerics refer to the founder of their religion as the ‘seal of the prophet’. The idea of correction in the process of monotheistic revelations is constitutive for Islam, as it permits it to make a virtue out of necessity by converting the deficit of non-originality into the advantage of a later clarification.
Just as the Christian message before it could only come about through a partial abrogation, a corrective revocation of Jewish teachings (literary critics would add: through a severe misreading), the Islamic revelation presupposes the partial abrogation of the two older versions of monotheism. (Here this misreading of its two predecessors is taken to a spectacular level; yet it is precisely the success of Islam that shows that the adepts of this new holy book had more important things to do than draw on the sources of existing cults in a philologically correct fashion.) Consequently the religion of the Qur'an, like that of the New Testament, was substantially characterized by a position of theological contrast; its first front stood in the tradition of the Jewish and Christian zealots who waged war against the gods and idols of their polytheistic surroundings, while the second opposed the Jews and Christians directly. The former were accused of being frivolous and hypocritical, as they did not even take their own prophets seriously, while the latter were presented with the charge of falsely declaring the prophet Jesus ‘the Son of God’ in their deludedness, whereas all true knowledge of God, according to Islam, begins with the realization that the Highest is alone for all eternity and has no child.
The pathos of the Islamic thesis of God's solitary position is based primarily on the polemic against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which was regarded with suspicion as a form of tritheism.
[God’s Zeal: The Battle of the Three Monotheisms]

Strauss, Leo wrote:

Now, in the course of these extremely summary remarks, I have tacitly replaced morality by justice, understanding by justice obedience to the divine law. This notion, the divine law, it seems to me is the common ground between the Bible and Greek philosophy. And here I use a term which is certainly easily translatable into Greek as well as into biblical Hebrew. But I must be more precise. The common ground between the bible and Greek philosophy is the problem of divine law. They solve that problem in a diametrically opposed manner.
Before I speak of the root of their difference, I would like to illustrate the fundamental antagonism between the bible and philosophy by enumerating some of its consequences. I have indicated the place of justice in both Bible and Greek philosophy. We may take Aristotle’s Ethics as the most perfect or certainly accessible presentation of philosophic ethics. Now, Aristotle’s Ethics has two foci, not one: one is justice, the other, however, is magnanimity.
…The Bible and Greek philosophy agree, indeed, as regards the importance of morality or justice, and as to the insufficiency of morality, but they disagree as to what completes morality.
According to the Greek philosophers, as already noted, it is understanding, or contemplation.
Now, this necessarily tends to weaken the majesty of the moral demands, whereas humility, a sense of guilt, repentance, and faith in divine mercy, which complete morality according to the Bible, necessarily strengthen the majesty of the moral demands.
[The Culture of Jewish Modernity]

Quote :

Polytheism in the Old Testament

How did Christianity begin? The world’s largest religion developed through several stages over a long period, and surprisingly, each stage along the way can still be identified through a careful reading of the Christian scriptures. The sacred writings of the Jewish people, which Christians later came to call the Old Testament, chronicle the earliest stages in this process. The polytheism in the Old Testament reflects practices common in ancient Canaan and it is to that small patch of the Middle-east that we must turn in order to understand the origins of Christianity.

Canaan is the ancient term for the region we would today call Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and so on.  As will be shown, the ancestors of those tribes we call Jewish were originally no different from their Canaanite neighbors.  How many gods did the ancient Israelites worship?  Quite a few, it turns out. How do we know?  The Bible (1) tells us:

Judges 10:6 wrote:

The Israelites . . . served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines

1 Kings 19:18 wrote:

Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal.

Ezekiel 8:14 wrote:

Then he brought me to the entrance . . . and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz.

Polytheistic behavior among the Israelites is not disputed. The traditional Jewish and Christian rationalization for these reports is that the people were monotheists, followers of Yahweh, who were being led astray to false, foreign gods.  As will be shown, that traditional rationalization is wrong.  The Israelites were not monotheists being led astray.  Rather, they were polytheists just like their Canaanite neighbors.
Incidentally, do not be fooled by the beginning of Genesis, which sounds monotheistic, into thinking that the Israelites were monotheists . . . in the beginning.  The Old Testament text was assembled and redacted over many centuries and the sequence of the material does not necessarily reflect the order in which it was composed. For example, most scholars believe that the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) was written long after the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24).

The following are three arguments for the extensive and long-lasting polytheism of the Israelites:  first, textual footprints; second, covenantal logic; and third, the emergence of omnipotence. Let’s start with textual footprints. When we look closely, we can see the evidence of early polytheistic beliefs fossilized within the Christian scriptures.

What is the name of the Old Testament god?  As will be shown, the English language translations of a variety of names into “Lord” or “God” disguises a rich diversity of beliefs. Consider the following passages.
Abraham’s god first names himself: “I am God Almighty (El Shadai)” (Genesis 17:1).
Isaac says to Jacob, “May God Almighty (El Shadai) bless you” (Genesis 28:3).
The god who renames Jacob says, “I am God Almighty (El Shadai)” (Genesis 35:11).
Jacob, now Israel, says to his son, “God Almighty (El Shadai) appeared to me” (Genesis 48:3).
These are among the earliest interactions that the Biblical patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – have with their god.  In each case, that god is referred to as El Shadai, which means El of the Mountain or El the Mighty.
Of course, the Old Testament refers to its god with a variety of names.  By itself this is not surprising.  After all, the Bible is a big book, written by multiple authors, tackling difficult issues. But the fact that some of these names were also the name of another god is suspicious:  El is the name of the god at the head of the Canaanite pantheon, the pantheon of deities worshipped by the Israelite’s predecessors and neighbors.  It included El as the patriarch and chief deity, his wife Asherah, and their numerous offspring, including their son Baal. (2)
Aside from El Shadai, other common names for the Old Testament god are El Elyon, which means El Most High and Elohim, which is the plural of El.  You read that correctly.  The Old Testament refers to its allegedly monotheistic god using the plural form of El!  All of these El names suggest that the god of the Hebrew patriarchs was the Canaanite god El, not Yahweh.  And if they worshipped El, then presumably they believed in his pantheon and were . . . polytheists.  But wait.  If the patriarchs were not talking to Yahweh, then where does he come into the picture?  Well, later, in Exodus.
In Exodus 6:2-3, Yahweh introduces himself to Moses with these words: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.”  This is one of the most surprising verses in the Bible.  Here, the god in question has to go out of his way to explain that he is the same god who appeared to the patriarchs.  But for some unexplained reason, he was then going by another name.  That is strange, to say the least.
Confusion about the identity of a god is the last thing we would expect as part of a competent revelation.  And that’s especially so if there were only one god in existence and he was in the process of educating his chosen people about the revolutionary concept of monotheism. Under those circumstances, making multiple appearances under multiple aliases would not be part of any success strategy.  Notice also that there is never any explanation provided for why the patriarchs were not eligible to hear this god’s real name while Moses somehow was.  The real purpose of this strange verse should by now be coming into focus. It appears to have been an editorial attempt to link two completely different traditions:  an El tradition and a Yahweh tradition. (3)
The most likely explanation for the dual traditions is that the Israelites were at one point no different than their neighbors, worshipping the Canaanite pantheon.  At a later stage, a new god named Yahweh was introduced into the mix.  Over time, Yahweh gained strength.  Eventually Yahweh and El were fused into one, and the rest of the pantheon was demoted and ultimately rejected altogether.
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there are many Old Testament polemics against Baal but none against El.  Why not?  El would have been the logical target.  After all, he was the head of the pantheon that would have been Yahweh’s competition. Once again, the most likely explanation for the absence of polemics against El is that he and Yahweh became one and the same.  El’s attributes and elements of his biography were interwoven with those of Yahweh.
As centuries passed, written references to El would have, in many cases, been modified so that the term El came to serve as a generic reference to a god or as a title, rather than indicating the name of a particular god.  In parallel, Baal became a generic term for any false or foreign god. (4)
But there is more to the story. What do you notice about these other well-known quotations?
From the creation: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).
From the banishment from Eden:  “Now that the man has become like one of us” (Genesis 3:22).
From the Tower of Babel:  “Let us go down and confound their speech” (Genesis 11:7).

All three of these verses quote the god using the first person plural.  This certainly sounds like polytheism. Why else would a god speak this way?  Among Christians, one popular response is that the plural reflects inter-Trinitarian communication, that is, conversation among the three persons of the trinity.  An alternative response is that the god is using the honorific plural, as in the “royal we.” But neither of these explanations is persuasive.  If either were correct, we would expect to see this plural construction throughout the Bible.  But we do not.  It appears only in a few instances, only in these very old strata of the text.
There is a simpler explanation for the plural pronouns. A theme common in ancient near eastern literature, such as the Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic texts, is that of a chief god presiding over a divine council or heavenly court.  In these other ancient texts, the chief god engages in conversations with his fellow gods in an anthropomorphic manner.  That is probably what we are seeing in these verses with the plural pronouns.
In fact, there are several Biblical passages where the idea of a divine council is explicit.  A review of several examples points more directly at a polytheistic world under the Canaanite god El.  Consider this example:

“The heavens praise your wonders, Lord (Yahweh), your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones.  For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord (Yahweh)?  Who is like the Lord (Yahweh) among the heavenly beings (bene ‘elim – sons of the gods)?  In the council of the holy ones, God (El) is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him” (Psalm 89:5-10).
This passage raises numerous questions.  First, if Yahweh were a single, all-powerful deity, it would be odd to have to make the point that he is superior to other heavenly beings.  This statement suggests insecurity — and insecurity suggests past rivalry.
Second, who are these other heavenly beings? Perhaps this is just poetic speech. But that does not seem likely.  If someone wanted to employ a metaphor to describe the exciting new idea of a monotheistic god, he would probably have emphasized what was special about such a god – namely his singularity and uniqueness. It is unlikely he would choose to situate that god in a traditional polytheistic setting, precisely that milieu which monotheism had transcended.
Could these heavenly beings be angels?  That is not likely.  The Hebrew word for angel, malak, appears nowhere in the text. The angel rationale also raises the “problem of angels,” — namely, why would an all-powerful god need helpers?  He could perform all of the angelic duties directly and effortlessly. Not only would this be simpler, but it would eliminate the drawbacks of under-performing and even mutinous helpers. Angels do not quite fit within monotheism. Their presence in Judaism and later in Christianity seems best explained as a vestige of a primitive spirit religion or of demoted members of a pantheon.  Consequently, it seems simplest to see the psalmist’s passage (above) as a description of a divine council.  And there are other examples:
“I saw the Lord (Yahweh) sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him . . . And the Lord (Yahweh) said, ‘Who will entice Ahab . . . ?’ One suggested this, and another that.  Finally, a spirit (ruach) came forward . . . ‘I will entice him.’  ‘By what means?’ the Lord (Yahweh) asked.  ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.  ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord (Yahweh). ‘Go and do it.’”  (1 Kings 22:19-23).
Here we have a front-row seat to a discussion within the divine council.  Yahweh apparently asks for suggestions, or at least volunteers, until one or other of the spirits comes forward with a plan. The others do not seem to be occupied singing his praises as angels are said to do.  This seems more like a meeting of the management team.
The most fascinating divine council passage gives us an insight into the very human process by which the biblical text was cobbled together.
“When the Most High (‘elyon) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.  For the Lord’s (Yahweh) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9).
It is difficult to make sense of these verses.   How does the number of males in Israel relate to the countries of the world?  How does the concluding sentence follow from what preceded it?
Comparing alternative manuscript texts provides a clue.  The phrase “sons of Israel” is found in the Masoretic text (the original Hebrew wording).  But there is a different phrase in the Septuagint (the Greek translation) and yet another in the Qumran text (the Dead Sea Scrolls):
“bene yisrael” (sons of Israel) — Masoretic text
“aggelon theou” (angels of god) – Septuagint text
“bene elohim” (sons of elohim) – Qumran text
Of the three versions of the text, the Qumran, having been buried for the last 2,000 years, is the least likely to have been tampered with, and hence most likely to reflect the original intention.
As discussed earlier, Elyon is a traditional title for El as he presides over the Ugaritic pantheon. (5)  If we accept the Qumran text and read Elohim as another variant for El, then the passage can be re-written as:
“When El gave the nations their inheritance . . . he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of his sons.  For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”
Now, the passage makes sense: humankind is divided up according to the number of gods, described as El’s sons.  El assigns all the gods (sons) a country.  Yahweh, one of the gods subordinate to El, gets his chosen people of Israel.  In this polytheistic setting, Yahweh was only one among many.
This interpretation is given support by the following fact:  according to the Ugaritic texts, El had seventy sons. (6)  And according to Genesis 10, there were seventy countries in the world.  So the number of El’s sons matches perfectly the number of countries in the world.  This particular textual footprint points to a period during which Yahweh had joined the pantheon, but had not yet acceded to the top position.
Of course, traditionalists will proffer Old Testament verses in support of their contention that the Israelites were monotheists all along.   They may quote, for example, Deuteronomy 4:35, which reads, “Yahweh alone is god (elohim), there is none beside Him.” Other examples include 2 Kings 19:15, 2 Samuel 7:22, Deuteronomy 4:13.  But critical readers of the Old Testament will not be surprised to find that it contains contradictions.  Against the monotheistic verses above, we may counterpose polytheistic verses such as Exodus 18:11, which reads, “Now I know that the Lord (Yahweh) is greater than all other gods (elohim).”  Other examples include Exodus 15:11, Deuteronomy 10:17, and Psalm 95:3.
A cacophony of viewpoints is precisely what we would expect to find in a batch of writings composed over many centuries by fallible human beings.  But if monotheism had been a constant belief among the Jews, we would expect to see constant references to it, not a jumble of contradictions.  Why are there so few passages trumpeting monotheism?  Monotheism was revolutionary – arguably the most important idea in history – the foundation of Israel’s entire identity and its gift to the planet. The paucity of monotheistic statements and the presence of polytheistic ones suggest a long twilight of polytheistic belief within the culture. Later editors would make adjustments but they could never eradicate the footprints of the earlier stage.
Let’s turn to the second reason for supposing that the Israelites were polytheists:  covenantal logic. The idea of covenant is one of the central ideas in the Old Testament.  But it makes more sense in a polytheistic than in a monotheistic context.
Recall that, in the Mosaic covenant, the people forswear other gods in exchange for Yahweh’s favor. But what other gods would the people need to forswear?  Again, this suggests a polytheistic setting. Check out the wording of the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).  It does not say that other gods don’t exist.  On the contrary, it presupposes the existence of rival gods.
A competitive context explains why Yahweh has to resort to offering incentives. A monotheistic god would not have to negotiate.  If there were only one god, people would have no alternative:  that god could simply dictate terms.
Finally, it seems implausible that a monotheistic god would choose to favor one people over others.  If he existed, he could communicate with, and bestow blessings upon, all the people on earth simultaneously.  Favoritism toward one group appears to be completely arbitrary, and hence immoral.  (And their god did favor them:  the people of Moses were given the “land of milk and honey” and received supernatural assistance in exterminating its former occupants.)
This rationing of the god’s favor leads to the third reason for supposing that the early Israelites were polytheistic:  the Old Testament god was not omnipotent. Notice that because polytheistic gods are not alone, no one of them can be omnipotent.  If one were omnipotent, that would leave no power for the others.  Hence omnipotence can only emerge with monotheism.
And the Old Testament attests to the limited powers of its god in several instances.  Let’s review two examples.
The first example involves the Israelites’ attempts to complete the conquest of the “promised land.”  As discussed earlier, Yahweh assisted the Israelites in the slaughter of many rival peoples. But not every battle ended in victory.  Specifically, Yahweh was no match for iron-age technology: “The Lord was with the men of Judah . . . but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron” (Judges 1:19).  In other words, the all-powerful creator of the cosmos got licked by some guys with iron chariots.
The second example is less well known. The prophet Elisha had predicted that the Israelites would defeat the Moabites.  During the battle which followed, Mesha, the king of Moab, sacrificed his son to their god Chemosh.  “The king of Moab . . . took his firstborn son . . . and offered him as a sacrifice.”  Following this, the Moabites defeated the Israelites.  “The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew . . .” (2 Kings 3:26-27).  So, as a result of this sacrifice to the Moabite god Chemosh, Yahweh and the Israelites were defeated.
These two examples illustrate the early view of Yahweh as just one of many divine authorities, and hence not the sole repository of celestial power.

In summary, we have reviewed three reasons to believe that the early Israelites were polytheists: textual footprints, covenantal logic, and emerging omnipotence.  The evidence suggests that the early Israelites were an indigenous Canaanite people with beliefs indistinguishable from those of their neighbors.
If that is true, then we can see parts of Biblical history as the useful creation of later generations. This explains, for instance, the complete lack of archeological evidence for the exodus story.  It is difficult to believe that two million people wandered a desert for forty years and left zero trace of their presence, but this is what the repeated efforts of international archeologists have told us.  It is likely therefore that the entire story is contrived:  Exodus is a foundation myth, one which served to legitimate the beliefs and values, such as chosen-ness and separateness, of later generations.

What was the decisive turning point in the evolution from polytheism to monotheism? The best explanation is to be found in the nation-shattering upheavals of the eighth to the sixth century BCE. (7)  Recall that after the golden age of David and his son, Solomon, the kingdom of the Jews had split into two. The Northern Kingdom, called Israel, was home to ten of the twelve tribes. The smaller Southern Kingdom, called Judea (origin of the term Jew), was home to the other two. The Assyrians obliterated the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE.  (As a result, these people are sometimes referred to as the lost tribes of Israel.)  The Southern Kingdom of Judea endured for another century and a half but succumbed to the Babylonians in 587 BCE.  The Babylonians uprooted the elite of Judean society to work as slaves in Babylon. (This is a period known as the Babylonian captivity or exile.)

The Assyrian and Babylonian defeats induced crises of confidence among Jewish thinkers. Many concluded that Yahweh had given up on them or that he was not as powerful as the gods of their conquerors. But a minority developed a radical reinterpretation of events. To them, Israel’s defeats were not signs of Yahweh’s weakness but rather of his strength. Israel’s conquerors were, in actuality, Yahweh’s unwitting instruments: he was using the Assyrians and the Babylonians to punish Israel. But for that to be true, then Yahweh must control the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Extending this reasoning, these thinkers concluded that Yahweh was not merely the most powerful god but that he was the only god.  A true monotheism had fully arrived.
We can see this breakthrough thinking reflected in Second Isaiah (, written circa 540 BCE.  Here, at last, we find the type of emphatic singularity that we would have expected to find all along:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God . . . I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things . . . there is no other; there is no other god . . . I am the Lord, and there is no other . . . there is no God apart from me . . . there is none but me . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5-22).
When the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, conquered Babylon, he emancipated many of the groups that the Babylonians had enslaved, including the Jews.  Those Jews who returned to Judah under his aegis reinvigorated worship of Yahweh and enforced a strict monotheism during what became known as “the second temple period.”
This brief survey of polytheism in the Old Testament draws back the curtain to reveal a very human process by which the old gods of Canaan were gradually deposed by a single, all-powerful deity. The emergence of classical Jewish monotheism out of Canaanite polytheism was only the first of several major transitions in the long human construction of Christianity.


Notes:

(1) All of the quotations shown are from the NIV translation.  The words in parenthesis represent the original Hebrew text.
(2) Much of this new understanding has come from scholarly work on what are known as the “Ugaritic texts,” discovered in 1929 in Ras Shamra, in modern day Syria.
(3) There appears to be another attempt the link the two traditions; this one is not only clumsy, but it contradicts the one we have just discussed.  In Genesis 4:26, we read, “Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord (Yahweh).”  Since Seth was the son of Adam and Eve, the claim being made here is that the Israelites knew the name of Yahweh quite early.  That explicitly contradicts Exodus 6:3.
(4) The name Israel means “El rules” or “El contends.”  If the original god of the patriarchs had been Yahweh, why do we not see “Yahweh rules” or “Yahweh contends”?  Here is another example:  One early and well-known proponent of Yahweh has a name which speaks to the enduring polytheism of his coreligionists.  Elijah’s name means “my god is Yahweh.”  Once again, we can ask:  instead of “my god” why not “the god”?
(5) For a brief discussion see the Jewish Study Bible, Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Editors, Oxford University Press, 2004, page 441 and notes.
(6) This is documented in the Ugaritic Texts, KTU 1.4. VI.46, quoted in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Mark S. Smith, Oxford University Press, 2001, pages 55, 135, and 157.
(7) BCE means before the Common Era; CE means Common Era.
( The Book of Isaiah, probably the most influential of the prophetic writings, is the longest; but most scholars agree that it was written by at least two and probably three different individuals. First Isaiah, writing at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom, composed chapters 1-39. Second Isaiah, writing at the end of the Babylonian exile, composed chapters 40-53 or 55. Third Isaiah, writing immediately after Second Isaiah, composed chapters 54 or 56-66.

Æon wrote:

I believe that it crosses spans of many generations.  European pagans who were dominated by Christian Crusaders in the 1200s, 1400s, 1500s, etc. were subjugated then, and never free again.  These have been slaves of the Christian God for centuries or longer.

Meisner, Dwayne wrote:

The Hieronyman theogony is an excellent example of how intellectuals in late antiquity used these texts to represent Greek tradition. Although we have only two sources, both of them represent important perspectives. applies Neoplatonic allegory to his reading of a prose commentary that might have applied Stoic allegory to a poem, though it is possible that the poet himself was influenced by Stoicism. It would make sense for a Stoic or Platonist to present ideas in the form of a pseudepigraphic Orphic poem, thus attaching the authority of Orpheus to their writings, in a manner similar to the authors of the Jewish Testaments.17 But this is where we must be most cautious: what appears to be a Stoic element in the poem might be a distortion caused by the source used by Damascius who, unaware of this distortion, might have transmitted Stoic allegory as if it were the poetic material itself, in turn subjecting this material to his own Neoplatonic allegorical interpretation.

Meisner, Dwayne wrote:

While the Christian apologists interpreted the texts literally and focused on the most shocking details, the Pagan philosophers interpreted the texts as allegories for philosophical concepts that the Christians would find more acceptable.

Meisner, Dwayne wrote:

The Jewish poem known as Testaments is worth observing in the context of these Orphic poems. Whereas the earlier versions of the hymn hyperbolically praised Zeus as the king of the universe, and the Rhapsodic version seemed to make Zeus synonymous with the universe, in the Jewish Testaments, the concept of divinity is pushed all the way to absolute monotheism. This poem is a product of the Hellenistic Period, and it is thought to be an imitation of an Orphic hieros logos in which a Jewish pseudepigrapher adapted the idea of the supremacy of Zeus to reconcile Jewish monotheism with Greek ideas.100 It begins with a version of the so- called Orphic sphragis,101 and it addresses itself to Musaeus, who becomes a Moses- figure. There are two versions of the poem (OF 377– 378 B), neither of which mention Zeus by name, but the Testaments emphasize ideas about their one god that are similar to the Orphic Hymns to Zeus. The clearest parallel is OF 377.8 B, which says, “He is one, self- existent, from one all offspring are made (τέτυκται).” This is close in both wording and
meaning to OF 378.10 B, which says, “He is one, complete in himself, and everything is brought to completion (τελεῖται) by him” The phrase “he is one” does not convey precisely the same concept as “Zeus the head, Zeus the middle,” but both point to the supremacy of the deity being praised. The Jewish poem places greater emphasis on the uniqueness of the Hebrew god as the only one, which goes beyond the uniqueness of Zeus as the supreme god in the earlier poems (or the idea of Zeus being the only one in existence for a brief moment).
The closest parallel between the Testaments and the Orphic Hymns to Zeus is found in the last word of these two lines: τέτυκται is the same word that appears at the end of the first line of the Derveni, Classical, and Rhapsodic
Hymns to Zeus, and τελεῖται is one of the many variants listed above. This seems to indicate that the authors of both versions of the Jewish Testaments were familiar with some version of the Orphic Hymn to Zeus. The Jewish
authors found common ground in the emphasis on Zeus as the supreme deity and re- creator of the cosmos, and adapted these themes to their own purpose, promoting monotheism.

Bjerknes wrote:

The Gnostic's Principles of the New Covenant 9:5 provides the correct interpretation of Genesis 3:15 under the Oral Law, which interpretation the Cabalists would later copy in various and changing forms,

Genesis 3:15 wrote:

You are the descendants of the Eloheim, and their beauty radiates from you. This was not true of Cain, for his father was the serpent.
The serpent adulterated the race of the Eloheim, and from his adultery proceeded murder, for the enmity of darkness versus Light was reproduced in Cain's enmity toward his brother Abel.
This same enmity caused Judas, Cain's son, to betray the Son of the Eloheim. When the children of darkness engage in sexual intercourse with the children of Light, it is an adulterous act which produces death.

Bjerknes wrote:

The concept of a virgin giving birth has three elements which were important to Gnostics and Cabalists. One, the Gnostic notion that sex is evil because it occurs among non-androgynous beings who were created by the harmful and imperfect separation of the divine androgyne into male and female. Two, the cabalistic belief that Samael/Lilith impregnates human females and is the only method by which virgins can become pregnant.
Three, that the cycle of birth, life and death is inherently evil in that it places divine light in a corrupt material body in the imperfect world of flawed creation.
Consider the following passage in the Gnostic The Apocryphon of John (The Secret Book of John—The Secret Revelation of John),

The Apocryphon of John wrote:

[She] glorified the virginal Spirit and praised It since she had appeared because of It. That one is the first Thought (Protennoia) of Its image. She became a womb for the All because she is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first Human, the holy Spirit, the triple male, the triple power, the triple named androgyne, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth.

With the corrosive separation of the divine androgyne into male and female came prostitution. The Gnostic work The Exegesis on the Soul states,

The Apocryphon of John wrote:

"Wise men of old gave the soul a feminine name. Indeed she is female in her nature as well. She even has her womb.
As long as she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton creatures passed her from one to another and [...] her.
Some made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with a gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...] her virginity.
And in her body she prostituted herself and gave herself to one and all, considering each one she was about to embrace to be her husband.

Bjerknes wrote:

The Canaanite goddess Asherah, known as Shekinah in cabalah and the Holy Spirit in the Bible, has a mirror image in Judaism in the demon Lilith, who is married to Satan, known to the cabalists as "Samael". Just as the cabalah adheres to the occult principle "as above, so below" to create a mirror image between what occurs in the heavens among the gods and what happens here on Earth to humanity; so too does cabalah create a mirror image between Jews and Gentiles. Jews are the image of divine light and Gentiles are the mirrored image of demonic darkness, but they reflect one another like Yin and Yang.

Bjerknes wrote:

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls is entitled "War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness". The Jews are the Sons of Light and the Gentiles are the Sons of Darkness. The light must exterminate the darkness, which darkness is Belial,"unnecessary and wicked" or "vanity". "Belial" means "unnecessary and wicked" and is one of Samael's names. Gentiles are his Sons.
Only after the Satanic Sons of Darkness are extinguished will the divine light fill the world and reign in peace forever. This provides further proof that Tikkun Olam and the Jewish Mission to be a light unto the nations is an extermination agenda. The Judiacs believe they must remove
the darkness, including the Gentiles, from the tzimtzum, the vacuum created when the Ein Sof contracted itself, in order for light to fill the universe. The Judaics project their light onto the Gentiles by killing them off. The Jewish Mission of Tikkun Olam is a genocidal war against Gentiles.
The Wikipedia page for this "War Scroll" states,

Wikipedia wrote:

These scrolls contain an apocalyptic prophecy of a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The war is described in two distinct parts, first (the War against the Kittim) described as a battle between the Sons of Light, consisting of the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, and the exiled of the desert, against Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Amalekites, and Philistia and their allies the Kittim of Asshur (referred to collectively as the army of Belial), and [those who assist them from among the wicked] who 'violate the covenant'. The second part of the war (the War of Divisions) is described as the Sons of Light, now the united twelve tribes of Israel, conquering the 'nations of vanity.' In the end, all of Darkness is to be destroyed and Light will live in peace for all eternity. The text goes on to detail inscriptions for trumpets and banners for the war and liturgies for the priests during the conflict.

Bjerknes wrote:

Judaism asserts that Gentiles have different, evil types of souls from Jews. Jewish souls derive from divinity (Adam Ahelion) and are good.
Gentile souls derive from Satan (Adam Belial) and are evil. The Ari, Isaac Luria said,

Quote :

Israel possesses the three levels of soul nefesh, ruach, neshama—from holiness…The gentiles, however, possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the shells…for the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot [shells], are called evil and not 'good' since they are created without knowledge (daat). The animal soul of man is the good and evil inclination. The soul of the gentiles comes from the three shells: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds.
However, the animal soul of Israel and the animal soul of pure animals, beasts, and birds all come from [klipat] noga."

Orthodox Jews are forbidden to sit at the same table as Gentiles when eating, because the evil souls of Gentiles impart uncleanliness like nonkosher foods. As Luria said, Gentiles are unclean animals.
The Talmud likens Gentiles to beasts and asserts that only Jews come from Adam (Ahelion) and that only Jews are men, not beasts. It is,
therefore, lawful to slay Gentiles and take their property. The Talmud states in Sanhedrin 59a (see also: folio 57a),

Quote :

A goyim who studies the Torah must be killed.

and,

Quote :

The Law Moses gave unto us as an heritage; it is an heritage for us, not for them.

Judaism teaches that only Jews are men. According to Judaism, Arabs are literally animals, "asses" to be exact, and their semen is the semen of
horses. This belief comes derives from the Old Testament. Ezekiel 23:20 states:

Ezekiel 23:20 wrote:

Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."—Cf.

The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakoth, Folio 58a. Ezekiel 34:31 states:

Ezekiel 34:31 wrote:

And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.

Bjerknes wrote:

Though the early Christian Churches were largely made up of Jews, Jesus' brother James urged Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
According to cabalah, the prince of princes and guardian angel of the Gentiles is Samael. The god of the Gentiles became Jesus, who is the Son
of Samael. Jesus is a god of sacrifice. Samael gave his son as a sacrifice so that whosever believes in him shall have everlasting life. He tempted the Gentiles to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, just as Samael tempted Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
Samael is also known to the cabalists as "Azazel". The priests of the Temple of Solomon used to sacrifice two identical goats every year on the
Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. One of these goats was sent out into the wilderness as a gift to Azazel, who is Samael (Satan). Before giving the goat to Satan, the priests would place all of the sins of the Jewish people onto it. Satan would accept the gift and then transfer all of the sins of the Jews to the Gentiles, who would then be damned for them. This is the origin of the term "scapegoat" (Leviticus 16, Yoma 6:4, 67b

Bjerknes wrote:

The Old Testament casts Gentiles in the form of a hairy animal, Jacob's twin brother Esau. The animal is a sacrificial animal which is sacrificed to Satan as a scapegoat in order to place the sins of the Jews, Jacob, onto the Gentiles, Esau.
Esau is an unsophisticated, gullible and honest beast of the fields. Jacob and their mother Rebekah are deceptive and tricky. Esau is an animal
working the fields, and Jacob is a divine intellectual studying the Torah in the tents. Jacob takes advantage of Esau when he is starving and forces Esau to trade his birthright as the firstborn of the twins for a mere bowl of red lentil pottage.

Bjerknes wrote:

The Greek word "Gnosis" means knowledge. In the view of the Gnostics, Jesus Christ and Sophia (which is Greek for wisdom) were the Serpent who tempted Eve to bite the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, Christ was the son of Satan, Lucifer, the light, who was a benevolent and loving god who blessed mankind with knowledge, in the Gnostics' view.
Philo the Jew of Alexandria created a syncretic form of Judaism which incorporated the Heraclitean and Platonic notion of Logos into Judaism. John rewrote the creation story of Genesis to adopt this belief in the Logos (John 1:1-5).
The Gnostics created a derivative mythology which became the cosmological belief in "Adam Kadmon" in cabalah. Jesus was not the son
of Yahweh, the evil creator god who was styled "Demiurge" by the Gnostics. Instead, Jesus was the son of a higher god, the divine light, what
would become the "Ein Sof" of cabalah, which sent its emanations of divine light into the world in the form of an universal human androgyne Adam Kadmon. The Cabalists call their Metagod the Ein Sof or limitless light.

Bjerknes wrote:

St. Peter was crucified upside down in order to demonstrate that Christianity reverses the laws and deeds of Yahweh. Peter also stated the occult principle "as above, so below" which reappears much later in the Zohar. Cabalah adopted the Christian desire to reverse the Torah. Cabalah claims that evil is actually good, and that the Jews will be redeemed through sin.
The apocryphal book The Acts of Peter gives Peter's account as to why he asked to be crucified upside down. Peter stated that Christianity was
reversing the Torah and creating a new belief system, which held that left is right, right left, and as above, so below,

Quote :

XXXVIII. And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down—who also cast his first state down upon the earth—established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

Bjerknes wrote:

Many ancient Jews worshiped Nehushtan. Their idolatrous religion of Serpent worship eventually became Christianity. The ancient rulers of the Jews tried to stamp out both the worship of Nehushtan and Christianity,
which evidently evolved from it.
II Kings 22-23 and II Chronicles 34-35 describe how King Josiah destroyed idols. II Kings 18:4 states that King Hezekiah destroyed
idolatrous images of the Serpent Nehushtan, whose cult likely inspired Christianity, and of Asherah, whom cabalists now worship as the goddess
Shekinah. When the Bible refers to cutting down groves it is making reference to the idolatrous wooden poles that the Jews used to erect for the
purpose of worshiping Asherah/Shekinah. II Kings 18:4 states,

Quote :

He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake
Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)"—NIV

The Babylonian Talmud in the tractate Sanhedrin folios 56-60 names the seven Noahide Laws which apply to Gentiles. The Noahide Laws make
Christianity a capital offense, because it is a form of idol worship. The punishment for being a Christian under the Noahide Laws is death by decapitation. John the Baptist was the first Christian and died by decapitation.

Bjerknes, Christopher wrote:

The Talmudist rabbis and to an even greater extent the Cabalists dissected and parsed the Torah and returned Judaism to its Canaanistic roots, which Christianity, especially Gnostic Christianity, and the Mishna had preserved. They clarified and amplified the Torah's most racist, genocidal and supremacist dogma to glorify themselves while pouring murderous scorn on the Gentiles.
The polytheism and Paganism of Judaism returned in full force in the now written ‘Oral Law’ despite having been concealed for centuries by the illusion of the Christian Trinity and the mistranslations of ‘gods’ (Elohim, the pantheon of the Canaanite gods) in the Torah as if a singular ‘God’ for the consumption of Europeans.
Beware the world to Come

Bjerknes, Christopher wrote:

The Talmud states in Sanhedrin 97a-b that the six thousand years of creation are divided into the three ages of two thousand years each signifying the periods from Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Jesus and Jesus to the present. This reveals the fact that Judaism is a Pagan form of star worship which follows the zodiac, and which practices numerology and the worship of the divine number six which is made up of two times three, R. Kattina said: ‘Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye said: it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, after two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.’
It has been taught in accordance with R. Kattina: ‘Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day,’ and it is further said, ‘a Psalm and song for the Sabbath day, meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath—and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past’.
The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: ‘The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [97b] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.
Beware the world to Come

Bjerknes, Christopher wrote:

The planet Saturn is in the seventh heaven from the Earth in the Ptolemaic and talmudic systems, and is the seat of the Devil in ancient lore.
The ancient Jews worshiped the heavens and the planet Saturn as the heavenly seat of their gods.
The planet Mars is the seat of Samael. Mars is associated with war and blood. Mars is the ‘Red Planet’. Esau had red hair and skin and Edom had red soil. Esau gave up his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of red lentil soup. ‘Adam’ means red, and Adamah means ‘red clay’. ‘Dam’ means blood, which is red. If Adam were made into a female name, that name would be Adamah. Red is also associated with the Egyptian god Seth who wars with his brother Horus and with his father. Seth is the god of foreigners, darkness and chaos, which in Judaism makes him the god of Gentiles, Tohu and Bohu, which is an exact description of Samael. The Jews evidently adopted the myth of Seth from the Egyptians to form the myth of Esau and Samael, Esau's guardian angel, the angel of Death, the poison god Satan. Seth becomes a serpent in the form of Typhon of Greek mythology.
The Gnostic Sethians developed the cosmology of cabalah whereby the Egyptian and Greek myths are employed to turn the Torah on its head.
The Samael of the rabbis, in other words Satan, becomes Yahweh the evil Demiurge creator god in the eyes of the Gnostics, and is called Samael. The Apocryphon of John states that jealous Yahweh, the creator god of the Old Testament, has three names, ‘Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.
Beware the world to Come

Bjerknes, Christopher wrote:

The Temple Jews called Jesus ‘Samael,’ and the Gnostics called Yahweh ‘Samael’.
Judaism is a syncretic religion which draws from Egyptian, Greek, Babylonian and other sources. Adam and Eve bore a son named Seth. Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Aaron and Moses are the same story told in different traditions, and are based on the Egyptian myths of Isis, Osiris, Horus and Seth. Horus castrates Seth and Yahweh castrates Samael. This castration story is mirrored in the Greek myths of Kronos and Uranus, where Kronos bears a sickle to castrate Uranus. Kronos is Saturn, the planet of Yahweh.
The castration sickle became a communist symbol as an emblem of Saturn's, Yahweh's, castration of Samael which produces the death of the Gentiles. In the communist seal, the sickle is combined with the hammer of Judah Maccabee, who used it to smash and genocide Greeks, to symbolically complete the Communists objectives of exterminating the Gentiles with an eternal emblem of the hammer and sickle, which Communists disingenuously claim symbolizes agriculture and industry, which are also symbols of the struggle between Esau and Jacob.
Seth is the god of foreigners and Samael is the prince of princes and guardian angel of Esau, as such he is the god of the Gentiles, which are the 71 foreign nations to the Jews. The brothers Horus and Seth fight over their birthright just like Jacob and Esau.
Beware the world to Come

Covid is an Abrahamic religion, the less sense it makes, the more pious its followers become the less they can tolerate non believers… [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Gilad Atzmon (@GiladAtzmon) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]