Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Nostalgia, nostalgia...
Today at 08:49 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 08:41 PM

“Why do you disbelieve in...
Today at 07:04 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 04:03 PM

Reading Quran And Inquiri...
Today at 02:55 PM

Coronavirus crisis
Today at 01:33 PM

Random Science Posts
Yesterday at 01:47 PM

What music are you listen...
Yesterday at 11:54 AM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
March 27, 2020, 12:20 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
March 26, 2020, 08:37 AM

Excellence and uniqueness
March 24, 2020, 01:34 PM

The means of rumor making...
March 24, 2020, 01:52 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Trinities

 (Read 2226 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Trinities
     OP - March 29, 2015, 06:47 PM

    Came across a comment

    Quote
    There was three powers in effect in the early Israelite world view - a 'supreme divinity' ,his Man (Ishu) and then Moses 'the Man [of God]


    Has Islam taken this view and changed it? 

    Issa and Mohammed? 


    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Trinities
     Reply #1 - March 29, 2015, 10:27 PM

    Um, I've heard of a lot of members of the Canaanite pantheon, most of which were probably worshiped by the Israelite cults (which were the groups that existed before what we can identify today as modern Judaism); most of their names are still in the Bible. But I've never heard of "Ishu" or "his man". Is this person trying to strongarm an early version of Jesus into the texts? I mean, the one with a name closest to that, who was worshiped, was Asherah (or in some areas, the goddess Ishtar); these were both female "mother goddesses", goddesses of fertility. We know that they were and how they were worshiped because of the condemnation of their worship, as in Jeremiah 7:18:
    Quote
    "The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger."


    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Trinities
     Reply #2 - March 29, 2015, 11:31 PM

    I did read a bit about Canaanite and Israelite religion(s) in my misspent youth, but "Ishu" is a first for me. Sounds like a demon in a bad fantasy novel :^x

    Anyway here's Baruch Halpern's classic article on Canaanite influence on Israel, especially the northern kingdom:
    https://www.academia.edu/9510171/The_Baal_and_the_Asherah_..._Yhwhs_Retainers_Retired

    As for trinitarian thought in Semitic religions generally - seems to me even the Syrians couldn't ever quite grok it, which is why they kept falling to Miaphysitism on the one side or Nestorianism on the other. It's the Indo-Europeans who really loved them some Rule of Threes: JP Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans".
  • Trinities
     Reply #3 - March 30, 2015, 01:24 AM

    Are you sure the comment was not about Ishi not Ishu? Hosea 2:16 mentions Ishi.  An issue is that there are two Ishi, I (אישי) and Ishi II (ישעי). The former being husband while the later is salvation is linked to Jesus for Christians. In Judaism it is a link between the God and Israeli. God is the husband of the wife Israeli. It's population are the children of both. It is completely symbolic. Further in the text it compares the "children" following different masters, Baali, which is symbolic for following other gods. The comment, if correct, can not be about the Judaism view since God is Ishi nor is there a husband of God  whistling2  It could be about a modified version due to mistranslation of II into I context as salvation provided by God. This of course is invalid.
  • Trinities
     Reply #4 - March 30, 2015, 08:38 AM

    Are you sure the comment was not about Ishi not Ishu? Hosea 2:16 mentions Ishi.  An issue is that there are two Ishi, I (אישי) and Ishi II (ישעי). The former being husband while the later is salvation is linked to Jesus for Christians. In Judaism it is a link between the God and Israeli. God is the husband of the wife Israeli. It's population are the children of both. It is completely symbolic. Further in the text it compares the "children" following different masters, Baali, which is symbolic for following other gods. The comment, if correct, can not be about the Judaism view since God is Ishi nor is there a husband of God  whistling2  It could be about a modified version due to mistranslation of II into I context as salvation provided by God. This of course is invalid.


    Yeah as you pointed out, the verses that include the word "ishi" are not actually about another god, they read directly and unequivocally as monotheistic. Chapter 1 of Hosea is Hosea marrying a woman who is a prostitute because God told him to, and naming all her children various things that indicate God is mad because of Israel and Judah's idolatry. (Sucks to be those kids.)  Chapter 2 is God going on a bit of a monologue about how angry he is, and how he should kill them all, but he won't because love (because nothing says "I love you" like "I should murder you and your children because you're a whore.") And then it says: "18 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call Me Ishi, and shalt call Me no more Baali. 19 For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name."

    Basically, the Baal was a title for a god or gods of a local pantheon because it meant "lord." So it was either used as a title like "lord of the ______" or it was a proper name for a god. The one example that stands out of a named Baal in the Bible is Baal-zebub, which is in 2 Kings 1 as the god of a Philistine city. This was almost certainly not the actual name of the deity, since it seems to translate to "lord of the flies" and was therefore probably an insulting homonym. Although later Jewish works fleshed this out to say that he was the god of feces and that's why he was associated with flies, and that a Jewish man broke into a temple of Baal-zebub during their worship and basically did his business on the statue, and they said "No one has ever shown such devotion!"  But this is probably not a true story, it was probably also invented to be insulting.

    The word Ishi, in contrast, means something more like "my man", and doesn't have any religious connotations, not being linked to any local gods. So the text is basically saying that God didn't want to be labeled with the names of the Baal, and wanted to remove their names from the language, so the people would call him something else and not say "hey, if our God's ba'al and these other gods are also ba'al, what's the harm of adding an altar and maybe a little worship time?"

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Trinities
     Reply #5 - March 30, 2015, 09:19 AM

    The discussion is also around nomina sacra and that xianity might have picked on the wrong god - Jesus or Joshua instead of this one - the man of war!

    I wondered if Islam had kept this other tradition via Samaria - Crone Hagarism.

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Trinities
     Reply #6 - March 30, 2015, 09:23 AM

    Exodus 15 3 The LORD is a man of war, the LORD is his name!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Trinities
     Reply #7 - March 30, 2015, 09:23 AM

    I think maybe ishi, ishu, ishta etc are from sanskrit or hindu origin. Ishi i think means god, ishu means messenger and ishta is a variant from some other word, can't remember related to fish or pisces.
  • Trinities
     Reply #8 - March 30, 2015, 09:46 AM

    I think maybe ishi, ishu, ishta etc are from sanskrit or hindu origin. Ishi i think means god, ishu means messenger and ishta is a variant from some other word, can't remember related to fish or pisces.


    If this is true, then it is probably not something the local low-level Israelites or later Jews would have been aware of. Most of them were probably barely literate, and those that were at most probably spoke a few local languages; studying the astrology and languages and such of far-off places would have been the purview of the elite. Although there probably was some level of trade most of the time, Aramaic and Hebrew aren't even in the same language family as Sanskrit. So I doubt that most people would have spoken them; most trade probably wasn't done by a single merchant or scholar crossing great distances with his material, it was probably mostly done through dozens of middle men, each of whom spoke enough of the languages of them and their neighbors to conduct trade. So probably most of the people on the route didn't speak the language of the originator of the goods or the person who was intended to be the final recipient. Therefore, to claim that it was a practice of the common people to worship a god they'd never heard of, from a region whose language they did not speak, is pretty silly. Sure, maybe if there were enough people passing by they might have erected an altar; but even that's a stretch, since there's no mention of it in the local texts.

    Ishi, in the context of Hosea, was a Hebrew word, derived from the root "ish", meaning "man", which is quite an old usage in the local language. It is part of the story of man and woman in Genesis:

    Quote
    וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.

    Then the man (ha'adam--Adam was at this stage not a proper noun) said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman (isha) for from man (ish) she was taken". Genesis 2:23


    So, this use is quite old; and if it had originally ever been from Sanskrit, by the point when Hosea was written, that use had long been forgotten. The local deities didn't have much to do with places that far away, most of them were more closely related to the Fertile Crescent, because they had much more interaction with them. So they wouldn't have used it as a name for a god. It was a word for very human relationships, and that was why its use in Hosea was so revolutionary.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Trinities
     Reply #9 - March 30, 2015, 10:37 AM

    I haven't read into it deeply but i remember reading that the earliest hebrews may have originated in a place near afghanistan so perhaps that is how hebrew and sanskrit share a link, also we have a few clues to hinduism's influence on the abrahamic faiths by looking, as an example at the Kaba stone and how muslims venerate and direct their prayer to the yoni symbol which is directly from the hindu religion.
  • Trinities
     Reply #10 - March 30, 2015, 11:39 AM

    Also think Ishtar is related to the name Eostre (pagan fertility goddess in Europe) origin of term Easter.
  • Trinities
     Reply #11 - March 30, 2015, 11:43 AM

    Well not related but have been jumbled up.
  • Trinities
     Reply #12 - March 30, 2015, 12:38 PM

    I haven't read into it deeply but i remember reading that the earliest hebrews may have originated in a place near afghanistan so perhaps that is how hebrew and sanskrit share a link, also we have a few clues to hinduism's influence on the abrahamic faiths by looking, as an example at the Kaba stone and how muslims venerate and direct their prayer to the yoni symbol which is directly from the hindu religion.


    This theory is only for the lost tribes post-Assyrian conquest. Hosea was supposedly created before this conquest while only the later part depicting the conquest. So can not be a result of a post conquest linage nor transmission which has no evidence of having taken place. Israelite origins are Canaanite for the most part. Although there are nomadic influence which brought people and ideas. None are from as far as India nor Afghanistan.

    Assimilation of concepts into Islam can not be placed on Judaism without evidence. The gap between Judaism and Islam is over a millennia so the time gap alone refutes such a claim with no evidence. Direct influence is unlikely. However one could build a case that other ME religions assimilated ideas from India which were passed on as Judaism assimilated regional and local ideas.   
  • Trinities
     Reply #13 - March 30, 2015, 01:05 PM

    Also think Ishtar is related to the name Eostre (pagan fertility goddess in Europe) origin of term Easter.


    Easter is Christianity assimilation and adaption of passover and the resurrection. The modern customs are certainly Germanic in origins. However modern customs and theology are clearly separate so should not be confused as the same assimilation event(s).
  • Trinities
     Reply #14 - March 30, 2015, 04:27 PM

    As an aside, I've always thought it is interesting how Islam complains about the trinity, but has replaced it by a very precise equivalent, with the 'eternal uncreated' Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet being used to bridge the gap between a remote creator deity and mankind.  Instead we have a divine eternal 'book' that is separate from Allah himself, as well as a divine being (Muhammad) who is not himself to be worshiped but his behavior, speech, and actions are to be taken as divine.

    The Mu'tazilites, as I recall, opposed the doctrine of the eternal uncreated Qur'an largely for this reason, it's essentially polytheistic.
  • Trinities
     Reply #15 - March 30, 2015, 05:02 PM

    I was going to point out that was the position of the Mutazilah, until you mentioned it.
  • Trinities
     Reply #16 - March 30, 2015, 05:06 PM

    well  the folder  heading says "Trinities"  .. DAMMIT i read it as titties..  what the hell.. 

    but ..but ..
     

    As an aside, I've always thought it is interesting how Islam complains about the trinity, but has replaced it by a very precise equivalent, .....................

     Well Zaotar I am not sure about Islam replacing Christianity  Trinities or with some equivalent stuff.,  But If I remove one thing from Quran which is very important statement  and it says quite often in different verses and that is

    Quote
    "Christ is NOT God or son of God but just a prophet..."


    .So if I remove that important statement from Quran., what is left in Islam is neither  "Trinities"  nor equivalent of  "Trinities" .. but just titties ..  ..just titties ..... that is all what is there in it..

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Trinities
     Reply #17 - March 30, 2015, 05:24 PM

    The Bible is considered the inspired word of God in Christianity. The Sunnah of the prophet is considered inspired by God in Islam. Jesus is considered the word of God in Christianity. The Quran is considered the word of God in Islam.

    So, the equivalent of the Bible in Islam is the prophet or the Sunnah.The equivalent of Jesus, as understood in Christianity, in Islam is the Quran.
  • Trinities
     Reply #18 - March 30, 2015, 05:25 PM

    .....The Sunnah of the prophet is considered inspired by God in Islam. .....


    Nope .. you are wrong dear Skywalker

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Trinities
     Reply #19 - March 30, 2015, 05:46 PM

    It's the height of irony, when you think about it, that if you threw out the 'divinity' of these later polytheistic accretions (the Qur'an, the Sunnah), then what was left of "Islam" would indeed be something that almost all monotheists would accept.  Consensus Biblical monotheism.

    Of course that exact anxiety is the core of how Islam developed as a distinct religious confession.  The movement began by rejecting the trinity and associated squabbling about petty details/social divisions of the existing Biblical monotheists, and then it ended up doing almost exactly the same thing when the apocalypse never came and a new religion needed to be advanced against other monotheistic groups.  Just as Jesus rejected the Law in favor of its inner message, but then when the Kingdom of God never came, you had the return of the divine man and scriptural/priestly conflicts about how to govern society.

    The real problem, IMO, is that if you don't really 100% believe in the imminent Last Judgment of the Creator, then consensus monotheism doesn't work.  Your focus gets distracted by how to run contemporary society and state, and this means that you can't take literally the Qur'anic admonition to believe in Allah and the imminent last judgment, which makes everything else irrelevant.  Instead you must believe the faction that will correctly explain how to structure your society in accordance with Divine Law.

    Btw as to the TS question, I don't believe there was anything like a trinity in ancient Israelite religion.  There was a Canaanite multi-level pantheon of gods, which got systematically collapsed by the Jerusalem priesthood in favor of a single God + his king + his priesthood who deserved complete control and obedience.  There were polytheistic elements to this, but they tended to be in the form of divine kingship and divine 'messenger/spirit' of the deity, which sort of oscillates between independent messengers/council and a dependent messenger/spirit.  Jesus, as Isa, was clearly envisioned as being in the line of Davidic divine kingship, so there was a polytheistic element to that, but not in the strict trinitarian sense that developed much later.

    Reminds me of the point my essay makes about Muslims finding Sulayman's command of angels to be polytheistic -- Sulayman and David definitely were described by Jewish tradition as quasi-divine beings, which is why they sort of replicate the tiered Canaanite structure of divinities that they were supposed to be replacing.
  • Trinities
     Reply #20 - March 30, 2015, 05:53 PM

    It's the height of irony,...........

    indeed it is height of  irony.. I am looking at link that Bogart posted in one of his posts  http://www.zamaniproject.org/index.php/

    That link  along with http://www.aluka.org/  have    "Documented Heritage Sites"  of so-called present Islamic nations.  It speaks volumes on that "height of irony,.."

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Trinities
     Reply #21 - March 30, 2015, 06:01 PM

    yeezevee
    Didn't really get what you meant was wrong....but here is Suyutis explanation(found it online)...
    Quote
       ?The revealed speech of God is of two kinds:

        As to the first kind, Allah says to Gabriel:

        Tell the Prophet to whom I sent you that Allah tells him to do this and this, and He ordered him something. So Gabriel understood what His Lord had told him. Then he descended with this to the Prophet and told him what His Lord had told him, but the expression is not this (same) expression, just as a king says to someone upon whom he relies: Tell so-and-so: The king says to you: strive in his service and gather your army for fighting ? and when the messenger (goes and) says: The king tells you: do not fail in my service, and do not let the army break up, and call for fighting, etc., then he has not lied nor shortened (the message)?

        And as to the other kind, God says to Gabriel:

        Read to the Prophet this (piece of) writing, and Gabriel descended with it from God, without altering it the least, just as (if) the king writes a written (instruction) and hands it over to his trustworthy (servant) and says (to him): Read it to so-and-so.

        Suyuti said: The Qur?an belongs to the second kind, and the first kind is the Sunnah, and from this derives the reporting of the Sunnah according to the meaning unlike the Qur?an.? ? [Sabuni, tibyan, p.52.]

  • Trinities
     Reply #22 - March 30, 2015, 06:08 PM

    yeezevee
    Didn't really get what you meant was wrong....but here is Suyutis explanation...

     well Skywalker, in traditional Islam there is difference between the Origins of  Sunnah/Stories of Summah and origins of Quran..

    but where did you get this from..
    Quote
    ?The revealed speech of God is of two kinds:

        As to the first kind, Allah says to Gabriel:

        Tell the Prophet to whom I sent you that Allah tells him to do this and this, and He ordered him something. So Gabriel understood what His Lord had told him. Then he descended with this to the Prophet and told him what His Lord had told him, but the expression is not this (same) expression, just as a king says to someone upon whom he relies: Tell so-and-so: The king says to you: strive in his service and gather your army for fighting ? and when the messenger (goes and) says: The king tells you: do not fail in my service, and do not let the army break up, and call for fighting, etc., then he has not lied nor shortened (the message)?

        And as to the other kind, God says to Gabriel:

        Read to the Prophet this (piece of) writing, and Gabriel descended with it from God, without altering it the least, just as (if) the king writes a written (instruction) and hands it over to his trustworthy (servant) and says (to him): Read it to so-and-so.

        Suyuti said: The Qur?an belongs to the second kind, and the first kind is the Sunnah, and from this derives the reporting of the Sunnah according to the meaning unlike the Qur?an.? ? [Sabuni, tibyan, p.52.]


    could you throw a link for that

    http://www.slideshare.net/Rachidm/ulum-alquran

    http://www.sunnah.org/sources/ulumquran/chapter1.htm

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Trinities
     Reply #23 - March 30, 2015, 06:18 PM

    Link
    https://umersultan.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-difference-between-quran-hadith-and-hadith-qudsi-the-quran-series/
  • Trinities
     Reply #24 - March 30, 2015, 06:23 PM



    oh ok but that tells me about Quran and it says

    Quote
    ...“The most important distinction between the Qur’an and all other words or writings therefore is that the Qur’an is the speech from Allah, revealed in its precise meaning and wording through the Angel Gabriel, transmitted by many…”....


    and I agree with that and it is traditional assumption in Islam..  and this one  from there

    Quote
    There is agreement among Muslim scholars that the contents of the sunnah are also from Allah. Hence they have described it as also being the result of some form of inspiration.[Footnote 9] The contents of the sunnah are however expressed through the Prophet’s own words or actions, while in the case of the Qur’an the Angel Gabriel brought the exact wording and contents to the Prophet, who received this as revelation and then announced it, in the very same manner that he received it.


    that is rubbish

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Trinities
     Reply #25 - March 30, 2015, 07:48 PM

    My OP comment
    Quote
    There was three powers in effect in the early Israelite world view - a 'supreme divinity' ,his Man (Ishu) and then Moses 'the Man [of God]


    is from a website I frequent and I think the people here might have some fascinating discussions with them, snag is I use my name there but never mind!

    I see this as a repetition of a generic problem - how to communicate with the gods.  An angel of some type, a mediator , a book, a prophet helps, but immediately sets up a three way relationship.

    Because Islam does riff about Moses, the supreme power and Isa I propose there is a direct link to very early Judaism that has been lost.

    But I am not knowledgeable enough about this stuff!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Trinities
     Reply #26 - March 30, 2015, 10:10 PM

    Zaotar answered your last point Moi. The missing element is the polytheism edited out of and demonized by editors trying to create a unified monotheistic religious view then impose this view on a history. It only works for those presupposed to accepting claim of monotheism which are usually people taught such a view from childhood.

    Also keep in mind the trinity is not 3 people becoming one, it is tri-personae. Your example is only prophets and natural people acting as the mouth piece of god. In Christianity the one becomes 3; Father, Son, Spirit. This is at the core of Christian theology as God has no reason to create anything as a singular persona. Love is part of the Christian idea of the greatest conceivable being hence all loving,. Before creation God can not be all loving with only a single identity, there must be something to love other than itself. The Trinity provides the grounding for creation and all loving. To love itself is seen as self-worship. This is one of the core reasons any serious Christian will reject Allah. Allah is singular thus can not be all loving before creation. So from the Christian view Allah is less than the greatest conceivable being thus is seen as a lesser being.

    In Judaism there is evidence of convergence of two beings into one, YHWH and El. El is the father God, creator, supreme being. YHWH is the deity of war, the son, the more restricted of the two. This is a reason why in the OT God has two major themes; Love and War. There are examples of each aspect acting alone in different ways. El is presented as the transcendent being which is now common to the concept of God. YHWY is presented as the hands on God that literally in the fray of whatever event at the time. God is taking control not of a single person by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands. The theme and method of interaction with reality is repeated in the OT a number of times. Most of this YHWH acts are within the period of emergence of the proto-Israelites in Canaan. EL is before and after these events. In the NT Jesus replaces the YHWH aspect as the literal avatar of God in reality. The Father is still the transcendent Father. The addition of the Spirit replaces the prophets of old within the transcendent theme becoming more dominate. 
  • Trinities
     Reply #27 - March 30, 2015, 10:31 PM


    Btw as to the TS question, I don't believe there was anything like a trinity in ancient Israelite religion.  There was a Canaanite multi-level pantheon of gods, which got systematically collapsed by the Jerusalem priesthood in favor of a single God + his king + his priesthood who deserved complete control and obedience.  There were polytheistic elements to this, but they tended to be in the form of divine kingship and divine 'messenger/spirit' of the deity, which sort of oscillates between independent messengers/council and a dependent messenger/spirit.  Jesus, as Isa, was clearly envisioned as being in the line of Davidic divine kingship, so there was a polytheistic element to that, but not in the strict trinitarian sense that developed much later.



    The Sanhedrin (beit din ha-gadol), at least in their final form, were not identical to the priesthood or the king; the priesthood and king were both, in a sense, under them. They didn't exist yet at the time of the pre-1st exilic kings (although the priesthood seems to have been more firmly established, based on the writings), and there weren't many real kings after that. The Sanhedrin was more or less a supreme court, where they debated the "constitution"--the Torah--and discussed at first what constituted it (though at this time they were mainly still schools of scholars) and later, what each piece meant (at this point they were the hand-picked disciples of scholars), finding evidences from within it to explain how to handle their contemporary problems. In their final form, towards the end of the 2nd temple period, had the power to decide who was a king and who wasn't and what the day to day practices of the Jewish people should be.

    Priests had comparatively little power, by that time. In the beginning of the Jewish writings, in books like Judges (which seems to have been written during the time of the pre-1st exilic kings), anyone could be a priest, and it was not limited to a particular clan--although Levites were favored. Judges frequently discusses people setting up their own children as priests. In the kingdom of Israel (once it separated from the kingdom of Judah), there doesn't seem to have been concern over the clan of the priests either: 1 Kings 12:31--"And he made houses of high places, and made priests from among all the people, that were not of the sons of Levi." Being a judge in the pre-2nd Temple era seems to have been something that required consensus of the people, and was a position held for life, but not usually passed on to your children--though it could be passed to your students. There doesn't seem to have been much in the way of earthly qualifications to become a judge before the kings but it seems you had to claim a direct line to God; later, kings could appoint judges, regardless of the judge's link to God, as long as they were pious and had the support of the people.

    Judah did apparently have Levite priests, and that became the norm, until the destruction of the 2nd temple, apparently. In the Christian texts it seems to be just a part of accepted practice that the priests were Levites, as the words seem to be synonymous. However, to be a member of the Sanhedrin did not require being a part of a particular clan; you simply could not be a convert, and you must have studied "at the feet" of an existing member, and been appointed his successor by him. A Levite could be a member of the Sanhedrin, but that wasn't automatically true; and a member of the Sanhedrin had to be a Levite to be a priest, being a member of the Sanhedrin did not grant priestly status.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Trinities
     Reply #28 - March 30, 2015, 11:08 PM

    One could see the Prophets before the Monarchy periods as a variation of the Priest-King role. This is primarily Sumeria or influenced by them into small religion in the area. In fact the route of developed between Canaanite and Sumer is very similar. Both had an established city-state systems which collapsed in varying degrees due to a series of events. This broke the previous social order allowing for the emergence of a new one which was secular. These events also broke down other factors such as trade, production, influence, populations, military power, etc. Parallel to the secular authority emerging the religion(s) of the area also go through a period of transformation. For Canaan the emergence of the Priest caste or career. 
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »