IP is a typical example of someone who starts with the conclusion and tries to arrange the data so that it fits it, instead of starting with the data and see where it leads. Btw, the actual history behind the Bible and its composition is far more interesting and fascinating than the stories IN the Bible.
Well no since IP actually gave sources and arguments to support. Whereas Dan goes with "consensus". The worship of Asherah was condemned way before in Isaiah and Asa's reforms.
@@Tzimiskes3506While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel.
That "no textual data" line was the moment I gave up on that guy as not just being mistaken or disagreeing with me, but just being a flat-out liar. Given how much he reads about & discusses these kinds of things, there's no possibly way he didn't know.
@gekksvide0 I do not think it is lying, either, nor do I think that Mr. Jones of InspiringPhilosophy is misrepresenting the scholarly material. I think it is more to do with not being fully convinced on what the majority of scholars thinks is evidence that Asherah was worshipped in a positive light. After all, correlation is not causation. Just because evidence exists that Asherah may have been worshipped alongside Yahweh prior to the 7th century B.C, with some inscriptions putting her in a positive light, that doesn't mean that everyone prior to Josiah's reign saw this as a good thing. In much the same way, as Mr. Jones argued in his video The Imperfect Torah, even though slavery is present in the Scriptures, and even some aspects of the Mosaic Law, that doesn't mean that slavery was morally acceptable to the Jews.
@@thomasecker9405well, we have other temples of other cultic gods being worshipped, and noone had a problem with that right up until the Assyrian invasion
@@me-ul5zt Much like a lot of Mark Smith's arguments in his second edition of The Early History of God (which he himself admits as much in the beginning of the book), this is an argument from silence. You're arguing that based on the lack of graffiti and early polemics against the worship of Asherah, that meant that worship of her and these other gods was accepted and tolerable.
@@thomasecker9405 very cool of you to give authors and book names, I'm just getting into it and I'd love to make my library bigger; however we also have evidence that the "destroyed" temples of other gods, filled in with dirt before the Assyrian invasion, look to be more for a later restoration that didn't happen, I don't know if Mark Smith wrote that book before that was a proposed theory, but if he did I'd acc like to hear the counterpoint
I grew up JEHOVAH's Witness. We believed that God has always had an organization of people on earth that followed and maintained the truth but that others would come and pervert the truth, such as what happened in the few centuries after Christ and the apostles were gone. So if someone brought up ancient Hebrews doing something against that organization and the truth God and the prophets condemned it and punished them for it. There's no consideration given to the idea that maybe they were all making it up as they went, and competing cults all had the opportunity to Duke it out. That the Bible ended up being canon and ultimate source of truth after much revision then condemning"false worship" just demonstrates how human the whole thing is and not a result of anything inspired by a god.
Some of this connects to the work of the independent scholar Margret Barker and her overall project on Temple Mysticism and Temple Theology which has some appeal in both Christian and LDS circles. As a layperson very interested in these topics, I do think some of her findings are somewhat eccentric, but lots of value in them in terms of reconstructing ancient Israelite religion and how that filters into later apocalyptic Judaism and emerging Christian communities. Really love your work Dan! Keep it up!
@@jamesaxios8397 Just because you deem the subject fiction doesn't mean the fact is false. Harry Potter is fictional, that he wears glasses and has a scar is still a fact. Even in a secular study of history, it's important to know what people believed because that goes a long way to influencing their actions and decisions, that they believed it has far more impact on the world than whether or not it was fiction.
J_Z913 - Beware of Dan McClellan. He is a MORMON Bible scholar. He is biased & is trying to give a theory on how Mormonism can be true - to pave a way for people to accept that false religion. That is why he & others say that the Law of Mosheh (Moses) was written later around 7 B.C. They have an agenda. The Bible doesn't support that position. The 5 Books of the Law were written [completed] very early. Only Iyoḅ (Joḅ) & possibly 1st Ḥanoch (Enoch) were written before.
it is obvious that christians do not want to admit that their man made deity was no different from any other regional or wider mesopotamian god that had physical features and also a wife.
Really? I'm a Christian and due to my career choice in being an engineer, I rely on things being logical. Consider this case, during that time of Jesus, there was a heavy following of Jewish Mosaic law, and nothing was stepping in its way, until Jesus' ministry happens. Surely something big really happened to challenge the Mosaic law and he must have done something so revolutionary that people made a significant move away from Jewish Mosaic law, and that was considered almost treasonous. What could have happened that could make a huge group of people abandon tradition and adopt a movement by one claiming to be the Son of God? Surely the only logical thing is that He showed He really is. And here we are today. But I'm curious, I wanna hear more of what you say and how you believe it comes to be. Cheers
I wonder if the Christian world today would be a kinder, more compassionate place if Asherah worship hadn’t been crushed? I wholeheartedly believe a significant number of cruelties and injustices imbedded in the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion would be vastly reduced or entirely eliminated if women were not excluded from shaping their future. #RestoreAsherah
That is something I've always wondered as well. If polytheism had remained dominant, would civil rights and women's rights have come to fruition much earlier than it did in our world?
No, I don't think so. Worship of Kali hasn't made Hindus less horrible, witness Modi and everything the Hindu nationalists have been up to for decades.
Am I correct in saying it's similar to what happened in Egypt with Akhenaten with Aten? Obviously a different scenario but the shift towards Aten was made for political purposes to distance from the cult of Amon-Re, which appears to be the purpose behind consolidating around Adonai
Certainly similar, both wanted to centralize spiritual and political power in one city under one king - There's one Yahweh to be worshiped in one temple, There's one Aten to be worshiped thru one child of the god, etc. But of course the Yahwist kings had allies and prophets etc, and eventually won out during/after the exile. Whereas Akhenaten kinda said, "I'm going to do it myself, I don't care who I piss off", and that probably was a rash decision.
I would say this is good but there are a few things absent. 1. Elephantine Jews thought Anath was the consort of Yahweh. 2. Asherah was the consort of El, and as such mother of Hadad and Yahu. The tradition that comes from the south appears to be an independent tradition in which Asherah is the consort of Yahweh. There is discontinuity between yahu belief in the earliest iron age and Yahwism of the monarchal period. There is a tradition in Sumer were Anu is not the father of Enki, and that Enki was the first partner of Ninhursag, the sumerian equivilent of Atharat. Its possible that this tradition carried to Beth Lahmi. 3. Isra'el during the premonarchic period was thoroughly polytheistic and remained so into the dual monarchies. Moreover the idea of Yahu, a god in Judea was gradually replaced by over a wider region by Yahweh, this possibly resulted because the philistines invaded and occupied Bethlehem, the ancient center of Lahmi resulting in the posdible local death of that god and allowing its replacement with the more powerful arabian derivative. Over time Yahweh grew in prominence. It is possible that the arabian cult kicked the philistines out of their classical trading and foraging areas, gaining prominence. 4. The fall of Isra'el to Assyria was a death nail to Israelite polytheism. The reason given is that the [old] gods did not comes to Isra'el's defense so that they were dead to people who survived the invasion in-situ.
i just find IP's confidence so suspect. i had heard him in conversations and i just cant help but be skeptical of his perspective. also dan maklelan destroys his arguments
It's interesting that Josiah basically pulled off an Akhenaten. What would have been the social differences that led to his purge of polytheism being successful where Akhenaten's was not?
The fundamental difference is that Josiah died in battle and later kings supported his ideas, leading eventually to historians writing text favoring his/their point of view. Whereas Akhenaten was succeeded by his son Tutankhamun who eventually rejected the new movement (which was probably generally disliked by traditional society) and soon enough it was Ramesses and then the late bronze age collapse etc, no Egyptian elites became obsessed that somehow Akhenaten had got it right and everyone else was just idolaters, etc - and certainly his son disowning his ideas wasn't nearly as heroic an end as Josiah.
Hello all. The hypotheses / theories mention at the end of the video that scholars are not convinced of. Are there any good resources on why they're not convinced?
can you do more on IP's videos. I listened to a video of his on consciousness and it was so bad I couldn't believe he wouldn't have taken it down after all the evidence against his ideas. anil seth, a leading consciousness research, would majorly disagree with IPs opinion
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Hey Dan. I’m a little confused by some of the dating given the elephantine writings. Is it possible that what we think of Josiah is actually an anachronistic change to make Josiah seem more fervent, considering the Jews at elephantine were later and polytheistic? Maybe it was projected back further, but monotheism was actually a later invention?
It’s hard to use the oldness/“legitimate historicalness” of a text as a tool of convincing through logical fallacy if one just rewrites it obviously, it is easier to adultérate the texts slowly to trick the other bishops/priests and later generations post wars and book/record burnings.
@@letsomethingshine You don't need much rewriting ✍🔁, because of how language works ⚙. Adding words changes the effective meaning of other words dramatically. For example: Peter killed Harry and Peter killed Harry in Fortnite mean completely different things. Editing the whole text is *always* unnecessary to get to a desired goal.
You know what else they cannot show, they cannot show that Yahweh agrees with the biblical authors that say Yahweh hates the worship of Asherah. It’s literally just “some dudes said it so it MUST be true” 😅
These apologists know just enough to be dangerous, and incorrect. They ALMOST get it right, but not quite. One thing this apologist seems to do is to conflate the 'biblical authors' with the rank and file Israelite's. Most likely, the author and compilers of the texts in question where of the priestly cast, an elite group of people who could actually read and write. It often took a long time for the ideas of the priests to make their way down to the work-a-day average citizens. As I recall, the men of Israel took Canaanite wives and allowed those wives to continue to worship their particular cultural gods, including Asherah, in order to maintain peace in the household. After the Babylonian exile, this intermingling with foreign wives and the worship of foreign deities is mentioned in Ezra 9:1-2 "After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the eLevites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 hFor they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the iholy race1 has jmixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.” Notice that the practice of marrying 'foreign wives' was 'foremost' among the 'officials and chief men', so this practice was systemic, from top to bottom.
“There is no textual evidence that god had a wife in ancient Israel. Only evidence that people at the time believed god had a wife. but they were wrong so it doesn’t count”
So it seems to me that the thing that is disagreed upon is whether or not Ashura was widely and enthusiastically worshiped or not. Should that matter to practicing/believing Christians?
yeah he's always like this, I watched his stuff and always thought he's against christianity (as his demenior is nothing Christ like and rebukes other Christian views- like an angry demon inside / pride, natural emotions) this guy can't wait till his enemies end up in sheol
Is there a video discussing the JDP sources hiding somewhere? Scribes were not very particular about their edits. But you can see the beginnings of monotheism and some parallels with Nicea.
Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
I've always assumed Asherah was referred to in Jeremiah as the "queen of heaven," and Jeremiah's condemnation was an expression of the post-Josiah view of multiple (and northern) deities, no?
I believe that is basically correct? Jeremiah is writing from a post-Josiah context and also plays fast and loose with some other things for rhetorical ends (for example he claims the Molech sacrifices were made to foreign gods, which does not seem to be a claim found in earlier deuteronomistic literature or what comports with the data we have available). I've read that while Josiah might not have been 100% on board with all of the reforms made by Josiah, he was absolutely on board with the denigration of foreign deities and practices.
@Agryphos That's what I was taught at university, but that was a long time ago! I agreed with you totally. That would mean that Asherah was well known as the "queen of heaven," at least up to Josiah.
@@Agryphos I think that was to maintain the hidden message that the Pagans never sacrificed to their Gods 💃🤖 and Yahweh made that up. That is why the Bible never says they did outside of quotes and implies they didn't with statements like calling the Israelites worse than the Pagans were.
Yep, what both Michael Jones and Dan McClellan are talking about is Jeremiah 44 - where post-exile Jews in Egypt are declaring that they (and their wives) still love Asherah even after this significant upset. And importantly, they state that there were even princes & kings who worshiped her too, this fits with other sections (I think in Deuteronomy & Kings) where kings do set up an Asherah pole in a Yahweh shrine, etc. So the evidence we do have in the biblical text is actually quite positive of Asherah worship even in its highest levels, and only later do we get a different picture of "the perfect reformist kings and their prophets" when histories were written in the 2nd Temple Persian period onward. This was when such people were in power.
Does anyone know if Dan does a video on Adonai? and Jehovah? I saw him make a statement that Jehovah is NOT Jesus of the NT, so I was wondering if there is a video of him explaining this in more depth? Thanks! :D
Dan has hundreds of videos between CZcams and tiktok. Try searching with focused keywords. Depending on the context, he also uses “God” in the title of his videos.
Question: I see this a lot in your videos. Why do you say Adonai but the text says YHWH? They may refer to the same God but are not the same linguistically
That's a nice catch! If we don't think anything here is an interpolation, then that'd suggest both Asherah and Yahweh had an equal ~400 prophets each (being husband and wife), but Baal gets 450! Ouch. And funny that it's quite strict in 1 Kings 18 "450 and 400" whereas in 1 Kings 22 it's looser, he only has "about 400", did some get lost hiding in the caves? :D
@@palmermcmath5822 Yeah my thought was, assuming that they were prophets only of YHWH might not be warranted? Perhaps the text is presenting these prophets as idolators like the king 🤷♂️
@@JosiahTheSiah Yeah a good point, a pretty interesting interpretation that the same 400 people are prophets of both Yahweh and Asherah at different times? It's always great to peer into the strange and unanswerable details.
The most simple question anyone should ask; why does a Bronze Aged Canaanite/Assyrian/Babylonian/Mesopotamian deity require human apologists to defend it from scrutiny and criticism, Hmmmmm.🤨
It would be amazing if someone uncovered a cache of pre-Josiah Biblical literature. It would probably cause these folks who need the current Bible to be a certain ways heads to explode.
It’s easy to think that anything prior to Josiah was common but the clear acculturation with the Canaanite deities and later the phillistines added Asherath, Baal, EL etc. Texts show that Moses was adamant about a belief system about Adonai being a singular deity with no connection to other deities. The addition of Asherath not being condemned shows obvious acculturation occurred after exodus. Just read the books 🤷🏻♂️
Asherah, a goddess in ancient Semitic religion, was removed from Hebrew scripture due to the monotheistic reforms of the Israelites. According to the biblical account, Asherah was the name of a fertility goddess and the wooden cult object dedicated to her. The Israelites were commanded not to worship idols or any other false gods, and Asherah was seen as a symbol of paganism. So, basically Yaweh took them out to the woodshed.
I would like to congratulate God for remaining strong with his divorce with Asherah and still has time to kick Lucifers you-know-what, STAY STRONG KING 😇😇😇😇🫡🫡🫡🪽🪽🪽👁🪽🪽🪽🙏🙏🙏🙏
The apologists' problem with the full context of the nature of the Hebrew pantheon is that the totality of the tests indicated a dynamic theology playing out in ancient Hebrew society. It is unfortunate that they reject the much more likely scenario put forth by the scholarly consensus: it fits better with known mechanisms still at work in social groups. Holding that only Hebrew society did not have an evolving religion shows that the apologists' true and only aim is to defend their religious dogma. The irony? Their approach is evidence that the scholarly consensus is right - even in contemporary religions, including their own.
I've thought so for the longest time. I don't know how you can honestly read the text of the Hebrew Bible and come up with anything else. I am a practicing Jew who is well-aware that most of my coreligionists do not agree.
There is something about Michael Jones' smug self righteous attitude that makes it extra pleasurable to see him being debunked. The fly in the ointment is that I know that Christians can easily handwave away this debunk, since they don't accept consensus from "liberal" or "atheist" scholars. An argument from consensus on its own is pretty weak, actually, but I think there is a lot more than just that in this debunk.
there's actually many "liberal" or "athiest" scholars that accept that Christ was crucified and that his tomb was empty 3 days later, and that 500+ people saw the same thing in the same short time frame: Christ ressurrected.
@@lucypevensie6284 if there are actual atheist scholars who accept all of those things, then I'd love to hear how they manage to maintain such an extreme cognitive dissonance, considering none of that is supported by any actual evidence whatsoever.
i'd love to understand them too. it comes down to human arrogance. and there are actual evidences that support the bible and events in it and even Christ's resurrection: most people just say there isnt because they're afraid and lazy and ignorant in general. if you want to look for it, you will find it. many athiests and other religions' people have. the bible even confirms this Jeremiah 29:13 expedition bible has a whole channel on it.
@@lucypevensie6284 but there isn't any CONVINCING evidence in the Bible. You can see that because some people aren't convinced. It requires you to take it on faith, in fact. So when you step back, it's easy to see why. It isn't that atheists aren't looking assiduously enough in the Bible for evidence. It's actually that whatever a book says, that isn't evidence of something being a historical fact or anything like that, it just shows it was written in a book. So if a book is written, and it describes something that we believe did happen, or something that we think quite likely could happen, then we might accept that and move on to see what else the book has to say, but that doesn't mean that anything else in the book is "true". For example if I pick up a novel, and it has a story about the 1969 moon landing, okay this is something I believe happened, even though it is quite extraordinary and unusual, so that's a good start, but then as the book develops, imagine there are moon-dwelling beings, who are made of nostrils and who communicate only using odors. Now this is something I have a much harder time believing, if I was still thinking that this book was historical fact. But to find any evidence about that, I would need to travel to the moon and do a thorough search for these beings. Claims are not the same as evidence, and that's why EVIDENCE for extraordinary events in the Bible needs to be found outside of the storybook. In my example, the moon landing is easier to believe because there's a lot of external evidence for it, while there's no evidence at all, outside of the hypothetical storybook, to believe that the nostril odor moon persons actually exist. So it's difficult to find convincing evidence, and it is a bit circular to insist that the storybook that's making the claim is also the evidence which proves the claim.
the only thing Dan was “certain” about was “it’s not certain” some scholars think she was edited out in the 7th century BCE. That’s not exactly conclusive. Let’s just be really ambiguous, but it’s an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. All Dan is presenting is there is speculation from some scholars. That’s pretty far from definitive.
@@paulpierce2051 exactly and I can’t see why people don’t see it. Might be because they want him to be right. But what he is doing is using speculations that creates a dogma over data.
“There is no evidence that god had a wide in early Israel. There is only evidence that people believe his had a wife in early Israel and worshiped that wife alongside god, but they were wrong so it doesn’t count”
Some questions: 1. Why is Isaiah 17:8 considered a gloss? 2. 3:19 What evidence exists that Asherah was positively received in any biblical text, and that it was edited? 3. Saying that “these theories have not convinced the majority of scholars” (7:50) is not an argument. I am personally concerned about what the evidence shows, not what the “scholarly consensus” believes. What evidential issues do you have with the scholars who IP cited?
2. While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel. 3. If the arguments were any good, then more scholars would be convinced of them. That's how it works. If other experts are not convinced then that should make us question why, of course, but you'll only get the answer from reading lots of scholarship which typically doesn't engage with apologists like Heiser who have an evangelical axe to grind.
@@gekksvide0 He's certainly an apologist when it came to Israel's polytheistic past. His arguments on that front have never convinced anyone in the field and he has an obviously biased interest in keeping Yahweh from being a "son of El" like Deut. 32:8-9 implies.
@@gekksvide0 We just disagree. There is an academic published article on Heiser's apologetics. "Heiser's work is apologetic. It is not firmly rooted in the evidence, and he makes his case primarily for theological reasons, which are rampant in his books like Unseen Realm, which is explicitly for a Christian audience. Heiser is interested in the divine council only so far as he can make it conform to a Christian worldview, but not when it more obviously contradicts his position. Many of these same problems bely his attempts to reinterpret Psalm 82." - Chrissy Hansen, The Case Against Michael S. Heiser, Reddit Academic Biblical.
@@gekksvide0 Heiser is literally the apologist poster boy for denying polytheism in the Old Testament! His other scholarship notwithstanding. Make no mistake, his work on Yahweh/El is pure apologetics. That's why his articles addressing that stuff are published on sites like Liberty University! For crying out loud! You appealing to scholarship _in other areas_ doesn't make his apologetics not apologetical. It clearly is and I'm done explaining why that is so. Be gone now.
Where do you guys come up with this type of gibberish? God married Israel at Mt. Sinai, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." God latter divorced Israel, "She, (Judah), saw that I divorced faithless Israel because of her adultery." Prophetically God has redeemed Israel and promised to re-marry us, Israel. "This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away?" Then of course we see the Great Wedding Feast in Revelations. " Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride (Israel) has made herself ready;" Rev 19 Study the Bible and SEE.
I am a bit skeptical of the idea that worship of Asherah was ‘commonplace’. I certainly understand that some communities probably did worship Asherah, but saying that it was commonplace seems to lack evidence. Certainly, there are some temples and inscriptions. Is there any literary evidence of the worship of Asherah being allowed/promoted by Jewish sects though? It seems like this hypothesis is lacking a bit of support that it probably needs to go so far as to say that this worship is commonplace for most Jews, especially when the earliest writings are condemning the practice. I dunno, just a thought.
While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel.
@@lanternwaste8361 Archeological finds such as the famous depiction of Yahwe and ʾĂšērā on a pithos jar shard found within the Kuntillet Ajrud region of the Sinai Peninsula.
God married Jerusalem. He divorced Israel. So if you want to add texts that are not the word of God, it’s up to you. To think God could not bring forth His Words intact for our edification is doubting God.
They weren't "revealed words", they were Man-Made Words Thought of by Human Minds and Written by Human Hands. Even the book of Genesis contains ample evidence that the ancient Hebrews were once Henotheists (if not also Polytheists), among evidence of Other things (like Borrowing/Plagiarism [Almost Verbatim] of Parts of the Much-Older Sumerian, Zoroastrian, and Canaanite Beliefs. How could it have been "revealed to his people", IF others who were Decidedly NOT "his people" Had Already Known & 'Revealed' Those Very Words FIRST?! Most of the cultures in that Time & Place had a strong tendency to Genuinely BELIEVE that Larger, Stronger, and Healthier Societies were the Direct Result of those people Having Stronger & More-Powerful "Gods", and so the Smaller, Weaker, and/or More-Struggling Cultures would frequently "Adopt" Beliefs and Stories from the Societies, Cultures, and Nations Around Them... in the HOPES of it Strengthening Their Own People... And that included the Ancient Hebrews who were frequently trampled upon by other cultures.
The word consensus means a general agreement among the members of a particular group. If the group you are referring to is just the scholars who agree with you then I suppose you are correct, but you should specify that. Otherwise you are being deceitful.
This sounds like a pagan carry over into early judaism. Current abrahimic theology still has a "wife of god" concept though. In the formation of the Universe, The god is all things in one, and there is no duality or separation, and obviously nothing dichotomous or gendered. That's why the tetragrammoton is both masculine/feminine, singular and plural. After creation,"The Bride" is Olahm H'Asaiah, or Shekinah. The concept implies that there is a spirit cause and consciousness behind the universe depicted as masculine, and a mechanistic body or form (all matter and energy in the universe) depicted as feminine. This theology is fiercely monotheistic though, so anything that exists is repeatedly identified as a part of the singular Deity.
@@TheDragonshadow1231 many christians don't really look at the Bible but the mythology has origins that are thousands of years old. Christianity and Islam are both built on a Jewish framework and rely on Jewish ideas.
Thanks for this. I do believe Asherah is The Lord God's lover. I watched your segment over on Myth Vision about God being in a body. Excellent! Also he has a lover .. Asherah. They have had children. They would be angels to you. They are also in bodies. Unknown to all. Asherah still exists as does Yahweh. Her name is just not Asherah in 2023 because she and Yahweh and move in and out of bodies over time. The devil (satan) is also a child of Yahweh and Asherah and they have had to deal with him. Broke their hearts. Just like it would break any parents heart to have to deal firmly with an unruly son. They have a son born at the top (I can't emphasise enough. HE IS NOT JESUS.) who will restore the world and turn the world to peace. "The Sun God". A popular God to worship back in the day before ... Roman orthodoxy... which is how I label Christianity. In this current generation they will reveal themselves and the "Son" will be like the priest explaining Yahweh and history. What happened with satan etc. Where they are from. All kinds of things. Atlantis, Troy, if they existed and if so what is their story. The world before history. He gets it all straight from Yahweh and Asherah. He just calls Asherah... mom and Yahweh dad. They are a family. Angels too. Very sexual people and into life and happiness and joy. Love the Arts, Sciences and Music. Of course none of what I am writing here is scholarly. But I am not trying to deceive. its just when it comes to the real story of God. No one book exists to explains things correctly. The devil simply wouldn't allow any truth of God to exist unless it was twisted in some way. See how Asherah is being portrayed. That's what the devil would do. Smear her as much as he could. Yahweh too. He's not the God of Mt Sinai. He doesn't work that way. He's not the God of the great flood. He is much more patient than that. He also doesn't really want worship as its traditionally viewed by current religions. But a proper respect of course is do him because of who he is.
The ancient Hebrews were once Polytheists, hence Asherah, but it was inspired by Canaanite Polytheism (among other beliefs from the surrounding cultures, like Zoroastrianism and the Sumerian "Enuma Elish", because to those ancient peoples having a Stronger Society/Community with Health, Power, and Wealth was a Sign of "Having a Stronger God"; so many smaller neighboring cultures would often Adopt One Another's Beliefs & Stories [in the HOPES of it Strengthening Their People]). The pantheon of Canaanite Polytheism was headed by 'El', with his consort being Asherah (and with whom they had 70 children, each of which was given a Plot of Land [and/or a 'People' & Culture] Over Which They Were To Rule ~ Yahweh is believed to possibly have originally been one of those Children or Asherah & El, who ruled over the Israelites). Even though there were FAR More Than Just 70 Lands and 70 People-Groups, but most of the people of that time & place (the Canaanites and Neighbors particularly) couldn't really even begin to comprehend that. Under those beliefs, the ancient Hebrews eventually became Henotheists, no longer Revering 'El' or any of the Other 'Gods' More than Yahweh but Still Believing in them, until ultimately they began shifting more toward Monotheism in which they pronounced their Disbelief in those other 'Gods' and subsequently set about trying to expunge Their [Now Newly-Shameful] Past-Beliefs, to have them be gradually outmoded and/or edited bit by bit (but not Entirely Eradicated). You say that your writing here isn't scholarly, and that you aren't trying to deceive. Nor is mine, and nor am I. This is just the way I see things, the way I understand it as being the Most-Likely Probability based on the known-evidence. In my opinion, 'when it comes to the real story of God', no one book exists to explain things correctly Purely Because there is No Real 'God' and people invented their own "Gods" as well as their own "Deceptive God-Like" Villains. The idea that *//"The devil simply wouldn't allow any truth of God to exist unless it was twisted in some way."//* ...I would have to refer to as absurd and/or nonsensical. As Who/What Created the Character Called "Satan/The Devil" in the First Place?!? Besides, the entire point of 'satan' wasn't originally to deceive for Evil, the idea that the character was a Deceptive Villain was purely a Christian Invention, the character of 'satan' was pretty much Only Ever an Argumentative Person... someone who acted, in essence, akin to what we might refer to in modern-terms as a "Prosecution Attorney" (but a Rather Poor One). The idea of an Evil Anti-God Villain called the Devil, just like the idea of a Fiery Hell of Eternal Torment, is largely based mainly on Christian Literary FICTION (such as those from the 1500s and 1600s CE, like Faust, Paradise Lost, and Dante's Inferno).
@@TechySeven I am learning there is much to learn about God. Asherah and El. See I haven't learned too much about El. I don't think Lucifer was always bad. I do think he turned bad. I don't believe in hell. I agree it is a Christian invention. Interesting stuff.
@@rjpearsonIV "Lucifer" was also only ever used One Single Time in the Bible, if I recall correctly, in a passage in the Book of Isaiah... and it said something like "Oh, how you have fallen, oh Lucifer" And I know there are at least 2 fairly-reasonable interpretations: 1) If I recall, the Scholarly View is that 'Lucifer' in that context was referring to Some Ancient King... I think Cyrus or something, and/or a King of Tyre, who Seemed to Turn to Evil. A Human/Mortal, not some Spiritual Entity. 2) There's another interpretation that involves the word "lucifer" itself, which was typically a word used to refer to "Morning Star" (eg. Venus in the Morning Sky). The people of the time & place of the Author of Isaiah, Seemed to Genuinely Believe that Actual Stars Could Fall from the Sky. And, furthermore, in their location on the Earth there was a specific period of time in which Venus (because of its peculiar Orbital-Rate Around the Sun) would Literally No Longer Be Visible in Their Part of the Sky for a certain significant amount of time. Lucifer isn't once used to refer to "Satan/The Devil" anywhere in the Bible. Sorry, I really like to dive into discussion of these issues... heh 😅
@@TechySeven💯💯💯OMG that was a amazing read. Yes and people forget that men were called gods and lords back then. So to think they were actual immortal gods is just plain silly. People dying for the idolization of men religion/cultism’s that no longer exist is insane and sad. Nothing in this universe lives forever as things come and go. Humans are the only creatures that believe this crap.
The ONLY wife that YHWH God has is the Church - i.e. His [spiritual] wife. The New Testament is another witness that the Law of Mosheh (Moses) was written before 7 B.C. God doesn't have anyone beside Him (Isa. 44:6-8). It is Mormon scholars with an agenda that want to produce a theory on how their Scriptures can be true. They are not true. God only used Hebrew & Aramaic to spread His Message.
So, Yahwe wants to grab the Church's "coconuts"? He wants to plunge his fingers deep into the Church's oily "latchkey"? He wants the Church to open its "garden" and take himself inside and have his way with it?
Both of you are saying the same thing and that's the problem. The Bible does not attest to Ashera being God's wife but other beliefs and traditions of the same time do. IP said the same thing he just states correctly by the way that this has no bearing on what Christians believe because we see those beliefs as competing beliefs. Your issue is you want to push the Gods wife's belief as the exclusive belief that was then edited instead of a competing belief the reason you have to do that is because the Bible's interpretation is the largest surviving belief set from that era. In short the belief system that doesn't have God married to Ashera won. So you must go on trying to convince of an edit to those scriptures. So neither of you are denying the other sides existence it's just you who have the burden of explaining why it should be considered as the truth. beliefs with similar people groups in close proximity to each other conquering and being conquered by each intermarrying and trading with each other who shared knowledge via oral tradition for most of their history of course we have competing and overlapping beliefs of similarly named and described God's. But as IP points out the Bible literally tells us that there were times when even the children of Israel incorrectly (as far as the Biblical God was concerned) worshipped other Gods alongside the God The Bible also many times literally refers to those gods as the gods of the other nations. So you're not really refuting his point or Biblical beliefs here. You're more or less confirming our beliefs if anything.
So the name of god is supposed to be sacred, that’s also why he’s says the sacred name instead of yahway. Adonai is master in Hebrew, Kinda like a religious “N-word”
Compare bible translations verses. [System of Things] vs [End of the Age] [Morning Star] vs [Bright Morning Star] I do realize how a word or phrases changes the meaning. I used the King James Bible that's where I learned God's name. Psalms 83:18 unless you use a revised King James Bible. Matthew 20:18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the [system of things].” Jesus is the Bright Morning Star. Jesus said I would be with his disciples until the end of the age. Matthew 28:20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the [end of the age].” The end of the age was 2012 it was The Transit of Venus and Jesus is the Bright morning star. Revelation 22:16 “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David and the [bright morning star].’” Jesus shows up in Jerusalem when he is 12 years old. He shows up 18 years later and throws out the money changers. So 2012 + 18 years 2030. But right after when the 8th King is ruling the earth. I use bible hub for most translations and New World Translation. Here's the Dragon. Revelation 13:11 This is why the beast like a lamb started speaking like a dragon. Satan is a morning star who was hurled to the earth. The morning star of 1874 The Transit of Venus. Who gathered the nations for the Great War of 1914. Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, [morning star], son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Isiah 14:12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.
Satan was a title meaning something more like Adversary or Opponent until later in the Hebrew Bible. Someone who argued the other side simply to make sure things were done correctly. A modern term that I find amusingly apt is devil's advocate
So maybe God created man in his own image in Genesis 1:27 is referencing male being created in the image of Yahweh and female after Asherah. Also in Genesis 2:24 Adam uses himself as the primary example of " a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Adam's father is Yahweh and Asherah as his mother?
This is so wrong. So many people can explain how wrong it is, with evidence. I know you won't stop because you know what you are doing, just know it does not look good when you give unfounded information.
Does pre- Deuteronomistic literature has something positive to say about the Goddess. If not then this is an argument from silence. We know the bible is a product of the Yahweh-only group that according to bible was a small minority. I think IP can agree with you that the worship of Asherah was normative but unless you can show how the prophets before the reforms were seeing her worship positively it's not a strong argument. Consensuses don't exist unless they are 95% they should be called majority opinions which is always less normative. Image if 30% of the historians doubted the Holocaust.
It is so hard to listen to him. My gosh. He is so condescending. Of course Inspiring Philosophy knows the bible didn't exist at the time as we know it now. He is saying what a orthodox Jew or a follower of God of the time like one of the Prophets would believe. We have so called Christian people who have a theology that isn't biblical too. He gives so many half truths and doesn't understand the Bible in any meaningful way. He sounds smart I will give him that. He can fool people but if you know your stuff this guy isn't going to make you lose any sleep.
Imagine spending your entire life, dedicated to biblical scholarly pursuits in an academic light, only to embrace whole heartedly everything surrounding the Christian theology that seeks to deny Christ.
Biblical Scholarship and Ancient Near-East Studies, IF and/or When NOT being irrationally Biased toward a Religious-Belief... has continually, slowly but steadily, discredited and disputed Most "Theology" more and more. As the Evidence just results in that, all on its own, because Theology is typically about little more than Making Post-Hoc Excuses in Defense of A Type/Version of A Religious Belief via Convenient Interpretation and/or Convenient Re-Interpretation.
Don't become like Manasseh. "Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts. He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger." "He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the Lord had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever. I will not again make the feet of the Israelites wander from the land I gave their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.” But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites." 2 Kings 21
IP is a typical example of someone who starts with the conclusion and tries to arrange the data so that it fits it, instead of starting with the data and see where it leads.
Btw, the actual history behind the Bible and its composition is far more interesting and fascinating than the stories IN the Bible.
Well no since IP actually gave sources and arguments to support. Whereas Dan goes with "consensus". The worship of Asherah was condemned way before in Isaiah and Asa's reforms.
@@Tzimiskes3506While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel.
@@resurrectionnerd I agree.
so was Baal. Doesn't make him Yahweh brother.
Great content. Love your data backed content. Love seeing you on CZcams.
That "no textual data" line was the moment I gave up on that guy as not just being mistaken or disagreeing with me, but just being a flat-out liar. Given how much he reads about & discusses these kinds of things, there's no possibly way he didn't know.
@gekksvide0 I don’t know if I find his argument for 1 kings 18 in relation to Asherah convincing though.
@gekksvide0 I do not think it is lying, either, nor do I think that Mr. Jones of InspiringPhilosophy is misrepresenting the scholarly material. I think it is more to do with not being fully convinced on what the majority of scholars thinks is evidence that Asherah was worshipped in a positive light. After all, correlation is not causation. Just because evidence exists that Asherah may have been worshipped alongside Yahweh prior to the 7th century B.C, with some inscriptions putting her in a positive light, that doesn't mean that everyone prior to Josiah's reign saw this as a good thing. In much the same way, as Mr. Jones argued in his video The Imperfect Torah, even though slavery is present in the Scriptures, and even some aspects of the Mosaic Law, that doesn't mean that slavery was morally acceptable to the Jews.
@@thomasecker9405well, we have other temples of other cultic gods being worshipped, and noone had a problem with that right up until the Assyrian invasion
@@me-ul5zt Much like a lot of Mark Smith's arguments in his second edition of The Early History of God (which he himself admits as much in the beginning of the book), this is an argument from silence. You're arguing that based on the lack of graffiti and early polemics against the worship of Asherah, that meant that worship of her and these other gods was accepted and tolerable.
@@thomasecker9405 very cool of you to give authors and book names, I'm just getting into it and I'd love to make my library bigger; however we also have evidence that the "destroyed" temples of other gods, filled in with dirt before the Assyrian invasion, look to be more for a later restoration that didn't happen, I don't know if Mark Smith wrote that book before that was a proposed theory, but if he did I'd acc like to hear the counterpoint
I grew up JEHOVAH's Witness. We believed that God has always had an organization of people on earth that followed and maintained the truth but that others would come and pervert the truth, such as what happened in the few centuries after Christ and the apostles were gone. So if someone brought up ancient Hebrews doing something against that organization and the truth God and the prophets condemned it and punished them for it. There's no consideration given to the idea that maybe they were all making it up as they went, and competing cults all had the opportunity to Duke it out. That the Bible ended up being canon and ultimate source of truth after much revision then condemning"false worship" just demonstrates how human the whole thing is and not a result of anything inspired by a god.
Thank you so much for this. Been trying to explain it to my in-laws but they won't hear it. Smh...
Some of this connects to the work of the independent scholar Margret Barker and her overall project on Temple Mysticism and Temple Theology which has some appeal in both Christian and LDS circles. As a layperson very interested in these topics, I do think some of her findings are somewhat eccentric, but lots of value in them in terms of reconstructing ancient Israelite religion and how that filters into later apocalyptic Judaism and emerging Christian communities.
Really love your work Dan! Keep it up!
Dan dropping facts again! IP has a huge audience, so I'm glad you're taking him to task for some of his assertions.
False facts on fictional subject.
@@jamesaxios8397 Just because you deem the subject fiction doesn't mean the fact is false.
Harry Potter is fictional, that he wears glasses and has a scar is still a fact.
Even in a secular study of history, it's important to know what people believed because that goes a long way to influencing their actions and decisions, that they believed it has far more impact on the world than whether or not it was fiction.
IP is just another apologetic preacher preaching to a choir full of idiot evangelicals
J_Z913 - Beware of Dan McClellan. He is a MORMON Bible scholar. He is biased & is trying to give a theory on how Mormonism can be true - to pave a way for people to accept that false religion. That is why he & others say that the Law of Mosheh (Moses) was written later around 7 B.C. They have an agenda. The Bible doesn't support that position. The 5 Books of the Law were written [completed] very early. Only Iyoḅ (Joḅ) & possibly 1st Ḥanoch (Enoch) were written before.
Thank you for your work. I appreciate you.
Just found your channel, subbed and learning. Thank you so much for teaching us.
it is obvious that christians do not want to admit that their man made deity was no different from any other regional or wider mesopotamian god that had physical features and also a wife.
Quite ignorant. I just get to know and who knows Paul knows and remove Asherah
Really? I'm a Christian and due to my career choice in being an engineer, I rely on things being logical.
Consider this case, during that time of Jesus, there was a heavy following of Jewish Mosaic law, and nothing was stepping in its way, until Jesus' ministry happens. Surely something big really happened to challenge the Mosaic law and he must have done something so revolutionary that people made a significant move away from Jewish Mosaic law, and that was considered almost treasonous. What could have happened that could make a huge group of people abandon tradition and adopt a movement by one claiming to be the Son of God? Surely the only logical thing is that He showed He really is. And here we are today.
But I'm curious, I wanna hear more of what you say and how you believe it comes to be. Cheers
Dan over here slapping down biblical misconceptions left and right.
And this is why I love ya Dr. Dan!❤
I had a "Deuteristic literature in the 7th century BCE, under the reign of Josiah" overdose.
I like how this refrain comes as a chorus...
If that is the case I recommend the series of Inspiring Philosophy on the documentary hypothesis. It is very professional.
I wonder if the Christian world today would be a kinder, more compassionate place if Asherah worship hadn’t been crushed?
I wholeheartedly believe a significant number of cruelties and injustices imbedded in the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion would be vastly reduced or entirely eliminated if women were not excluded from shaping their future.
#RestoreAsherah
then it wouldn't be very christian wouldn't it?
That is something I've always wondered as well. If polytheism had remained dominant, would civil rights and women's rights have come to fruition much earlier than it did in our world?
@@xaayer probably not
No, I don't think so. Worship of Kali hasn't made Hindus less horrible, witness Modi and everything the Hindu nationalists have been up to for decades.
Catholics have had Mary for centuries. Has it made them less patriarchal?
Great research here. THX.
The apologists are really scrambling for a thread to hang onto these days.
Is it my imagination or are the right wing close-minded Christian commenters particularly noxious on this format?
Thank you for responding to this Christian apologetic. Always keep them in check.
Am I correct in saying it's similar to what happened in Egypt with Akhenaten with Aten? Obviously a different scenario but the shift towards Aten was made for political purposes to distance from the cult of Amon-Re, which appears to be the purpose behind consolidating around Adonai
Certainly similar, both wanted to centralize spiritual and political power in one city under one king - There's one Yahweh to be worshiped in one temple, There's one Aten to be worshiped thru one child of the god, etc. But of course the Yahwist kings had allies and prophets etc, and eventually won out during/after the exile. Whereas Akhenaten kinda said, "I'm going to do it myself, I don't care who I piss off", and that probably was a rash decision.
I would say this is good but there are a few things absent.
1. Elephantine Jews thought Anath was the consort of Yahweh.
2. Asherah was the consort of El, and as such mother of Hadad and Yahu. The tradition that comes from the south appears to be an independent tradition in which Asherah is the consort of Yahweh. There is discontinuity between yahu belief in the earliest iron age and Yahwism of the monarchal period. There is a tradition in Sumer were Anu is not the father of Enki, and that Enki was the first partner of Ninhursag, the sumerian equivilent of Atharat. Its possible that this tradition carried to Beth Lahmi.
3. Isra'el during the premonarchic period was thoroughly polytheistic and remained so into the dual monarchies. Moreover the idea of Yahu, a god in Judea was gradually replaced by over a wider region by Yahweh, this possibly resulted because the philistines invaded and occupied Bethlehem, the ancient center of Lahmi resulting in the posdible local death of that god and allowing its replacement with the more powerful arabian derivative. Over time Yahweh grew in prominence. It is possible that the arabian cult kicked the philistines out of their classical trading and foraging areas, gaining prominence.
4. The fall of Isra'el to Assyria was a death nail to Israelite polytheism. The reason given is that the [old] gods did not comes to Isra'el's defense so that they were dead to people who survived the invasion in-situ.
i just find IP's confidence so suspect. i had heard him in conversations and i just cant help but be skeptical of his perspective. also dan maklelan destroys his arguments
It's interesting that Josiah basically pulled off an Akhenaten. What would have been the social differences that led to his purge of polytheism being successful where Akhenaten's was not?
The fundamental difference is that Josiah died in battle and later kings supported his ideas, leading eventually to historians writing text favoring his/their point of view. Whereas Akhenaten was succeeded by his son Tutankhamun who eventually rejected the new movement (which was probably generally disliked by traditional society) and soon enough it was Ramesses and then the late bronze age collapse etc, no Egyptian elites became obsessed that somehow Akhenaten had got it right and everyone else was just idolaters, etc - and certainly his son disowning his ideas wasn't nearly as heroic an end as Josiah.
I got called a "Babylonian Gypsy Jew" by a Nazi on FB, for my interest in these Gods and Goddess. 😂😂😂
Gotta love the random crap they spout. My favorite was being called a liberal fascist communist 😂
It’s a whole another level of brain rot. Even merely acknowledging this ancient theology makes you a pariah nowadays, it’s deeply unfortunate.
Another interesting video, thanks
Appreciation comment. Keep them coming.
With Gratitude! ! !❤⚜️❤
Blessed Be! ! !❤🙏❤
I am a Prophet of Asherah, we are dropping new scriptures soon.
Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter
Hello all. The hypotheses / theories mention at the end of the video that scholars are not convinced of. Are there any good resources on why they're not convinced?
can you do more on IP's videos. I listened to a video of his on consciousness and it was so bad I couldn't believe he wouldn't have taken it down after all the evidence against his ideas. anil seth, a leading consciousness research, would majorly disagree with IPs opinion
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
The world would be a more interesting place if asherah was still worshipped alongside Adonai.
Holy f"&*, thank you so much for this, I don't know what to say, but you're a fountain of knowledge.
Excellent comment, and very well sourced.
Excellently researched, this is my conclusion too.
Thank you for this!
Awesome video, Dan! What would one have seen as a benefit to worshipping Asherah alongside Yahweh at that time?
The benefit is to pursue whatever vice you want as much as you want. Thats what paganism is all about.
Excellent video.
Hey Dan. I’m a little confused by some of the dating given the elephantine writings. Is it possible that what we think of Josiah is actually an anachronistic change to make Josiah seem more fervent, considering the Jews at elephantine were later and polytheistic? Maybe it was projected back further, but monotheism was actually a later invention?
Great video. I would love to see longer-form content on this channel, if you ever feel up to it. Maybe set up a Patreon.
He has great courses on his website that take you deeper.
@@Trwanddon great!! Thank you!
This remindes me of how Shinto scollars discuss the development of Amaterasu Omikami.
On that note, if I may ask, does anyone know of any CZcams channels that discuss Shinto in an academic way?
@@TheAseer2020this is late, but Religion For Breakfast has done a video or two on it, I think
1V :"Honor thy Father & Honor thy Mother" 😉
It is amazing what one can do with a little bit of editing ✍🔁. It is almost like it affects the meaning of a text the most...
It’s hard to use the oldness/“legitimate historicalness” of a text as a tool of convincing through logical fallacy if one just rewrites it obviously, it is easier to adultérate the texts slowly to trick the other bishops/priests and later generations post wars and book/record burnings.
@@letsomethingshine You don't need much rewriting ✍🔁, because of how language works ⚙. Adding words changes the effective meaning of other words dramatically.
For example:
Peter killed Harry
and
Peter killed Harry in Fortnite
mean completely different things.
Editing the whole text is *always* unnecessary to get to a desired goal.
You know what else they cannot show, they cannot show that Yahweh agrees with the biblical authors that say Yahweh hates the worship of Asherah.
It’s literally just “some dudes said it so it MUST be true” 😅
These apologists know just enough to be dangerous, and incorrect. They ALMOST get it right, but not quite. One thing this apologist seems to do is to conflate the 'biblical authors' with the rank and file Israelite's. Most likely, the author and compilers of the texts in question where of the priestly cast, an elite group of people who could actually read and write. It often took a long time for the ideas of the priests to make their way down to the work-a-day average citizens.
As I recall, the men of Israel took Canaanite wives and allowed those wives to continue to worship their particular cultural gods, including Asherah, in order to maintain peace in the household. After the Babylonian exile, this intermingling with foreign wives and the worship of foreign deities is mentioned in Ezra 9:1-2 "After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the eLevites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 hFor they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the iholy race1 has jmixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.”
Notice that the practice of marrying 'foreign wives' was 'foremost' among the 'officials and chief men', so this practice was systemic, from top to bottom.
“There is no textual evidence that god had a wife in ancient Israel. Only evidence that people at the time believed god had a wife. but they were wrong so it doesn’t count”
So it seems to me that the thing that is disagreed upon is whether or not Ashura was widely and enthusiastically worshiped or not. Should that matter to practicing/believing Christians?
There are many different Bible canons AND versions based on historical developments at various centuries if not decades.
🕯️⏳💐
Is it just me, or did the other guy seem really offended and /or angry? Like having a different interpretation than him was a personal insult
yeah he's always like this, I watched his stuff and always thought he's against christianity (as his demenior is nothing Christ like and rebukes other Christian views- like an angry demon inside / pride, natural emotions)
this guy can't wait till his enemies end up in sheol
Is there a video discussing the JDP sources hiding somewhere? Scribes were not very particular about their edits.
But you can see the beginnings of monotheism and some parallels with Nicea.
Yahweh is from the Samaritans. John 4:22 Samaritans had their own temple! Within the region of Samaria, in the city of Sychar, was Jacob’s well. This was the location of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman, who asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” (John 4:12). Later in the conversation, she brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God. John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.
Thanks for being honest
I've always assumed Asherah was referred to in Jeremiah as the "queen of heaven," and Jeremiah's condemnation was an expression of the post-Josiah view of multiple (and northern) deities, no?
I believe that is basically correct? Jeremiah is writing from a post-Josiah context and also plays fast and loose with some other things for rhetorical ends (for example he claims the Molech sacrifices were made to foreign gods, which does not seem to be a claim found in earlier deuteronomistic literature or what comports with the data we have available). I've read that while Josiah might not have been 100% on board with all of the reforms made by Josiah, he was absolutely on board with the denigration of foreign deities and practices.
@Agryphos That's what I was taught at university, but that was a long time ago! I agreed with you totally. That would mean that Asherah was well known as the "queen of heaven," at least up to Josiah.
@@Agryphos I think that was to maintain the hidden message that the Pagans never sacrificed to their Gods 💃🤖 and Yahweh made that up.
That is why the Bible never says they did outside of quotes and implies they didn't with statements like calling the Israelites worse than the Pagans were.
Yep, what both Michael Jones and Dan McClellan are talking about is Jeremiah 44 - where post-exile Jews in Egypt are declaring that they (and their wives) still love Asherah even after this significant upset. And importantly, they state that there were even princes & kings who worshiped her too, this fits with other sections (I think in Deuteronomy & Kings) where kings do set up an Asherah pole in a Yahweh shrine, etc. So the evidence we do have in the biblical text is actually quite positive of Asherah worship even in its highest levels, and only later do we get a different picture of "the perfect reformist kings and their prophets" when histories were written in the 2nd Temple Persian period onward. This was when such people were in power.
Does anyone know if Dan does a video on Adonai? and Jehovah? I saw him make a statement that Jehovah is NOT Jesus of the NT, so I was wondering if there is a video of him explaining this in more depth? Thanks! :D
BTW, word "Jehovah" is a result of misreading masoretic text 😂
Dan has hundreds of videos between CZcams and tiktok. Try searching with focused keywords. Depending on the context, he also uses “God” in the title of his videos.
@@neuroshima cool
@gekksvide0 thats wat i just started to do as well. if u can share that list with me i'd appreciate it as well lol.
@@neuroshima Jehovah is Jesus
Question: I see this a lot in your videos. Why do you say Adonai but the text says YHWH? They may refer to the same God but are not the same linguistically
The 400 prophets show up again in 1 Kings 22... I've been reading them as the prophets of Asherah mentioned in chapter 18. Is that not viable?
That's a nice catch! If we don't think anything here is an interpolation, then that'd suggest both Asherah and Yahweh had an equal ~400 prophets each (being husband and wife), but Baal gets 450! Ouch. And funny that it's quite strict in 1 Kings 18 "450 and 400" whereas in 1 Kings 22 it's looser, he only has "about 400", did some get lost hiding in the caves? :D
@@palmermcmath5822 Yeah my thought was, assuming that they were prophets only of YHWH might not be warranted? Perhaps the text is presenting these prophets as idolators like the king 🤷♂️
@@JosiahTheSiah Yeah a good point, a pretty interesting interpretation that the same 400 people are prophets of both Yahweh and Asherah at different times? It's always great to peer into the strange and unanswerable details.
❤
The most simple question anyone should ask; why does a Bronze Aged Canaanite/Assyrian/Babylonian/Mesopotamian deity require human apologists to defend it from scrutiny and criticism, Hmmmmm.🤨
🤘
It would be amazing if someone uncovered a cache of pre-Josiah Biblical literature. It would probably cause these folks who need the current Bible to be a certain ways heads to explode.
It’s easy to think that anything prior to Josiah was common but the clear acculturation with the Canaanite deities and later the phillistines added Asherath, Baal, EL etc. Texts show that Moses was adamant about a belief system about Adonai being a singular deity with no connection to other deities. The addition of Asherath not being condemned shows obvious acculturation occurred after exodus. Just read the books 🤷🏻♂️
Asherah, a goddess in ancient Semitic religion, was removed from Hebrew scripture due to the monotheistic reforms of the Israelites. According to the biblical account, Asherah was the name of a fertility goddess and the wooden cult object dedicated to her. The Israelites were commanded not to worship idols or any other false gods, and Asherah was seen as a symbol of paganism. So, basically Yaweh took them out to the woodshed.
I would like to congratulate God for remaining strong with his divorce with Asherah and still has time to kick Lucifers you-know-what,
STAY STRONG KING 😇😇😇😇🫡🫡🫡🪽🪽🪽👁🪽🪽🪽🙏🙏🙏🙏
How did I not know God had a wife. I thought was Virgin Mary
The apologists' problem with the full context of the nature of the Hebrew pantheon is that the totality of the tests indicated a dynamic theology playing out in ancient Hebrew society. It is unfortunate that they reject the much more likely scenario put forth by the scholarly consensus: it fits better with known mechanisms still at work in social groups. Holding that only Hebrew society did not have an evolving religion shows that the apologists' true and only aim is to defend their religious dogma. The irony? Their approach is evidence that the scholarly consensus is right - even in contemporary religions, including their own.
Is it safe to say Judaism evolved into monotheism instead of beginning as a monotheistic religion?
I've thought so for the longest time. I don't know how you can honestly read the text of the Hebrew Bible and come up with anything else.
I am a practicing Jew who is well-aware that most of my coreligionists do not agree.
There is something about Michael Jones' smug self righteous attitude that makes it extra pleasurable to see him being debunked.
The fly in the ointment is that I know that Christians can easily handwave away this debunk, since they don't accept consensus from "liberal" or "atheist" scholars. An argument from consensus on its own is pretty weak, actually, but I think there is a lot more than just that in this debunk.
there's actually many "liberal" or "athiest" scholars that accept that Christ was crucified and that his tomb was empty 3 days later, and that 500+ people saw the same thing in the same short time frame: Christ ressurrected.
@@lucypevensie6284 if there are actual atheist scholars who accept all of those things, then I'd love to hear how they manage to maintain such an extreme cognitive dissonance, considering none of that is supported by any actual evidence whatsoever.
i'd love to understand them too.
it comes down to human arrogance.
and there are actual evidences that support the bible and events in it and even Christ's resurrection: most people just say there isnt because they're afraid and lazy and ignorant in general.
if you want to look for it, you will find it. many athiests and other religions' people have. the bible even confirms this Jeremiah 29:13
expedition bible has a whole channel on it.
@@lucypevensie6284 but there isn't any CONVINCING evidence in the Bible. You can see that because some people aren't convinced. It requires you to take it on faith, in fact.
So when you step back, it's easy to see why. It isn't that atheists aren't looking assiduously enough in the Bible for evidence. It's actually that whatever a book says, that isn't evidence of something being a historical fact or anything like that, it just shows it was written in a book.
So if a book is written, and it describes something that we believe did happen, or something that we think quite likely could happen, then we might accept that and move on to see what else the book has to say, but that doesn't mean that anything else in the book is "true".
For example if I pick up a novel, and it has a story about the 1969 moon landing, okay this is something I believe happened, even though it is quite extraordinary and unusual, so that's a good start, but then as the book develops, imagine there are moon-dwelling beings, who are made of nostrils and who communicate only using odors. Now this is something I have a much harder time believing, if I was still thinking that this book was historical fact.
But to find any evidence about that, I would need to travel to the moon and do a thorough search for these beings.
Claims are not the same as evidence, and that's why EVIDENCE for extraordinary events in the Bible needs to be found outside of the storybook.
In my example, the moon landing is easier to believe because there's a lot of external evidence for it, while there's no evidence at all, outside of the hypothetical storybook, to believe that the nostril odor moon persons actually exist.
So it's difficult to find convincing evidence, and it is a bit circular to insist that the storybook that's making the claim is also the evidence which proves the claim.
Thanks for taking on IPs pseudo-scholarship!
It’s not pseudoscholarship. You can disagree with it, but in no way is it pseudoscholarship.
the only thing Dan was “certain” about was “it’s not certain” some scholars think she was edited out in the 7th century BCE. That’s not exactly conclusive. Let’s just be really ambiguous, but it’s an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. All Dan is presenting is there is speculation from some scholars. That’s pretty far from definitive.
@gekksvide0 ok, i suppose unproven educated guess would be better. Your arguing semantics and it doesn’t change what i said.
@@paulpierce2051 exactly and I can’t see why people don’t see it. Might be because they want him to be right. But what he is doing is using speculations that creates a dogma over data.
God was negative energy he had to go. Attention all sheep I can an I will prove Jesus power.❤
Yes she exist
“There is no evidence that god had a wide in early Israel. There is only evidence that people believe his had a wife in early Israel and worshiped that wife alongside god, but they were wrong so it doesn’t count”
Some questions:
1. Why is Isaiah 17:8 considered a gloss?
2. 3:19 What evidence exists that Asherah was positively received in any biblical text, and that it was edited?
3. Saying that “these theories have not convinced the majority of scholars” (7:50) is not an argument. I am personally concerned about what the evidence shows, not what the “scholarly consensus” believes. What evidential issues do you have with the scholars who IP cited?
2. While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel.
3. If the arguments were any good, then more scholars would be convinced of them. That's how it works. If other experts are not convinced then that should make us question why, of course, but you'll only get the answer from reading lots of scholarship which typically doesn't engage with apologists like Heiser who have an evangelical axe to grind.
@@gekksvide0 He's certainly an apologist when it came to Israel's polytheistic past. His arguments on that front have never convinced anyone in the field and he has an obviously biased interest in keeping Yahweh from being a "son of El" like Deut. 32:8-9 implies.
@@gekksvide0 We just disagree. There is an academic published article on Heiser's apologetics.
"Heiser's work is apologetic. It is not firmly rooted in the evidence, and he makes his case primarily for theological reasons, which are rampant in his books like Unseen Realm, which is explicitly for a Christian audience. Heiser is interested in the divine council only so far as he can make it conform to a Christian worldview, but not when it more obviously contradicts his position. Many of these same problems bely his attempts to reinterpret Psalm 82." - Chrissy Hansen, The Case Against Michael S. Heiser, Reddit Academic Biblical.
@@gekksvide0 Heiser is literally the apologist poster boy for denying polytheism in the Old Testament! His other scholarship notwithstanding. Make no mistake, his work on Yahweh/El is pure apologetics. That's why his articles addressing that stuff are published on sites like Liberty University! For crying out loud! You appealing to scholarship _in other areas_ doesn't make his apologetics not apologetical. It clearly is and I'm done explaining why that is so. Be gone now.
He sounds angry and desperate.
Where do you guys come up with this type of gibberish? God married Israel at Mt. Sinai, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." God latter divorced Israel, "She, (Judah), saw that I divorced faithless Israel because of her adultery." Prophetically God has redeemed Israel and promised to re-marry us, Israel. "This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away?" Then of course we see the Great Wedding Feast in Revelations. " Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride (Israel) has made herself ready;" Rev 19
Study the Bible and SEE.
Does not condemn does not mean it was approved..may be it was monolatrous before
7th cen bc. deuteronmistic period. Time of Josiah. Got it
I am a bit skeptical of the idea that worship of Asherah was ‘commonplace’. I certainly understand that some communities probably did worship Asherah, but saying that it was commonplace seems to lack evidence. Certainly, there are some temples and inscriptions. Is there any literary evidence of the worship of Asherah being allowed/promoted by Jewish sects though? It seems like this hypothesis is lacking a bit of support that it probably needs to go so far as to say that this worship is commonplace for most Jews, especially when the earliest writings are condemning the practice. I dunno, just a thought.
While I agree the evidence for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is lacking, (although I think it's still a reasonable inference given the El connection), we know that she was worshipped in the temple as 2 Kings 23:4 makes clear. This verse refers to images of Asherah, the goddess herself, being removed from the temple and then verse 6 refers to the cult object which was obviously a symbol of the goddess as well. Another reference to the goddess being worshipped, even by royalty, is 1 Kings 15:13 where Queen Maachah had made an idolatrous object dedicated to the goddess. There are also references in 1 Kings 18:19, Judges 3:7, and 2 Kings 21:7 that seem to be about the goddess herself. I do not know how to make sense of this evidence other than the worship of Asherah being relatively widespread in ancient Israel.
You mean the "sacred scripture" which was chosen as such by a VOTE ?
So if there’s no textual data, how then can anyone conclude she was God’s wife?
Because there is such but simply not within the Tānāḵ.
@@Dice_roller so direct me to the proof!!
@@lanternwaste8361 Archeological finds such as the famous depiction of Yahwe and ʾĂšērā on a pithos jar shard found within the Kuntillet Ajrud region of the Sinai Peninsula.
Genesis 1:26
Somebody tag IP
😁🍿
No data as usual lol, I find your "No Data" style very funny and rather mocking the intelligence of your opponent. It makes me laugh sometimes. Lol
The more you know... 🤔
God married Jerusalem. He divorced Israel. So if you want to add texts that are not the word of God, it’s up to you. To think God could not bring forth His Words intact for our edification is doubting God.
So God revealed to his people his words, but the other people who did not receive it, tell us that he had a consort..
tells ya that the other people didnt truly have God's word. pure humanistic cult and pagan copywork is the rest.
They weren't "revealed words", they were Man-Made Words Thought of by Human Minds and Written by Human Hands.
Even the book of Genesis contains ample evidence that the ancient Hebrews were once Henotheists (if not also Polytheists), among evidence of Other things (like Borrowing/Plagiarism [Almost Verbatim] of Parts of the Much-Older Sumerian, Zoroastrian, and Canaanite Beliefs. How could it have been "revealed to his people", IF others who were Decidedly NOT "his people" Had Already Known & 'Revealed' Those Very Words FIRST?!
Most of the cultures in that Time & Place had a strong tendency to Genuinely BELIEVE that Larger, Stronger, and Healthier Societies were the Direct Result of those people Having Stronger & More-Powerful "Gods", and so the Smaller, Weaker, and/or More-Struggling Cultures would frequently "Adopt" Beliefs and Stories from the Societies, Cultures, and Nations Around Them... in the HOPES of it Strengthening Their Own People... And that included the Ancient Hebrews who were frequently trampled upon by other cultures.
The word consensus means a general agreement among the members of a particular group. If the group you are referring to is just the scholars who agree with you then I suppose you are correct, but you should specify that. Otherwise you are being deceitful.
This sounds like a pagan carry over into early judaism. Current abrahimic theology still has a "wife of god" concept though. In the formation of the Universe, The god is all things in one, and there is no duality or separation, and obviously nothing dichotomous or gendered. That's why the tetragrammoton is both masculine/feminine, singular and plural. After creation,"The Bride" is Olahm H'Asaiah, or Shekinah. The concept implies that there is a spirit cause and consciousness behind the universe depicted as masculine, and a mechanistic body or form (all matter and energy in the universe) depicted as feminine. This theology is fiercely monotheistic though, so anything that exists is repeatedly identified as a part of the singular Deity.
Ikr Judaism and christian. Christian I didn't know they got it
@@TheDragonshadow1231 many christians don't really look at the Bible but the mythology has origins that are thousands of years old. Christianity and Islam are both built on a Jewish framework and rely on Jewish ideas.
Thanks for this. I do believe Asherah is The Lord God's lover. I watched your segment over on Myth Vision about God being in a body. Excellent! Also he has a lover .. Asherah. They have had children. They would be angels to you. They are also in bodies. Unknown to all. Asherah still exists as does Yahweh. Her name is just not Asherah in 2023 because she and Yahweh and move in and out of bodies over time. The devil (satan) is also a child of Yahweh and Asherah and they have had to deal with him. Broke their hearts. Just like it would break any parents heart to have to deal firmly with an unruly son. They have a son born at the top (I can't emphasise enough. HE IS NOT JESUS.) who will restore the world and turn the world to peace. "The Sun God". A popular God to worship back in the day before ... Roman orthodoxy... which is how I label Christianity. In this current generation they will reveal themselves and the "Son" will be like the priest explaining Yahweh and history. What happened with satan etc. Where they are from. All kinds of things. Atlantis, Troy, if they existed and if so what is their story. The world before history. He gets it all straight from Yahweh and Asherah. He just calls Asherah... mom and Yahweh dad. They are a family. Angels too. Very sexual people and into life and happiness and joy. Love the Arts, Sciences and Music. Of course none of what I am writing here is scholarly. But I am not trying to deceive. its just when it comes to the real story of God. No one book exists to explains things correctly. The devil simply wouldn't allow any truth of God to exist unless it was twisted in some way. See how Asherah is being portrayed. That's what the devil would do. Smear her as much as he could. Yahweh too. He's not the God of Mt Sinai. He doesn't work that way. He's not the God of the great flood. He is much more patient than that. He also doesn't really want worship as its traditionally viewed by current religions. But a proper respect of course is do him because of who he is.
@@jesusisoursavior2288 I was there once too. Thinking I needed Jesus to be saved. No longer. Yahweh will save me without the need for Jesus.
The ancient Hebrews were once Polytheists, hence Asherah, but it was inspired by Canaanite Polytheism (among other beliefs from the surrounding cultures, like Zoroastrianism and the Sumerian "Enuma Elish", because to those ancient peoples having a Stronger Society/Community with Health, Power, and Wealth was a Sign of "Having a Stronger God"; so many smaller neighboring cultures would often Adopt One Another's Beliefs & Stories [in the HOPES of it Strengthening Their People]). The pantheon of Canaanite Polytheism was headed by 'El', with his consort being Asherah (and with whom they had 70 children, each of which was given a Plot of Land [and/or a 'People' & Culture] Over Which They Were To Rule ~ Yahweh is believed to possibly have originally been one of those Children or Asherah & El, who ruled over the Israelites). Even though there were FAR More Than Just 70 Lands and 70 People-Groups, but most of the people of that time & place (the Canaanites and Neighbors particularly) couldn't really even begin to comprehend that. Under those beliefs, the ancient Hebrews eventually became Henotheists, no longer Revering 'El' or any of the Other 'Gods' More than Yahweh but Still Believing in them, until ultimately they began shifting more toward Monotheism in which they pronounced their Disbelief in those other 'Gods' and subsequently set about trying to expunge Their [Now Newly-Shameful] Past-Beliefs, to have them be gradually outmoded and/or edited bit by bit (but not Entirely Eradicated).
You say that your writing here isn't scholarly, and that you aren't trying to deceive. Nor is mine, and nor am I. This is just the way I see things, the way I understand it as being the Most-Likely Probability based on the known-evidence. In my opinion, 'when it comes to the real story of God', no one book exists to explain things correctly Purely Because there is No Real 'God' and people invented their own "Gods" as well as their own "Deceptive God-Like" Villains. The idea that *//"The devil simply wouldn't allow any truth of God to exist unless it was twisted in some way."//* ...I would have to refer to as absurd and/or nonsensical. As Who/What Created the Character Called "Satan/The Devil" in the First Place?!? Besides, the entire point of 'satan' wasn't originally to deceive for Evil, the idea that the character was a Deceptive Villain was purely a Christian Invention, the character of 'satan' was pretty much Only Ever an Argumentative Person... someone who acted, in essence, akin to what we might refer to in modern-terms as a "Prosecution Attorney" (but a Rather Poor One). The idea of an Evil Anti-God Villain called the Devil, just like the idea of a Fiery Hell of Eternal Torment, is largely based mainly on Christian Literary FICTION (such as those from the 1500s and 1600s CE, like Faust, Paradise Lost, and Dante's Inferno).
@@TechySeven I am learning there is much to learn about God. Asherah and El. See I haven't learned too much about El. I don't think Lucifer was always bad. I do think he turned bad. I don't believe in hell. I agree it is a Christian invention. Interesting stuff.
@@rjpearsonIV "Lucifer" was also only ever used One Single Time in the Bible, if I recall correctly, in a passage in the Book of Isaiah... and it said something like "Oh, how you have fallen, oh Lucifer"
And I know there are at least 2 fairly-reasonable interpretations:
1) If I recall, the Scholarly View is that 'Lucifer' in that context was referring to Some Ancient King... I think Cyrus or something, and/or a King of Tyre, who Seemed to Turn to Evil. A Human/Mortal, not some Spiritual Entity.
2) There's another interpretation that involves the word "lucifer" itself, which was typically a word used to refer to "Morning Star" (eg. Venus in the Morning Sky). The people of the time & place of the Author of Isaiah, Seemed to Genuinely Believe that Actual Stars Could Fall from the Sky. And, furthermore, in their location on the Earth there was a specific period of time in which Venus (because of its peculiar Orbital-Rate Around the Sun) would Literally No Longer Be Visible in Their Part of the Sky for a certain significant amount of time.
Lucifer isn't once used to refer to "Satan/The Devil" anywhere in the Bible.
Sorry, I really like to dive into discussion of these issues... heh 😅
@@TechySeven💯💯💯OMG that was a amazing read. Yes and people forget that men were called gods and lords back then. So to think they were actual immortal gods is just plain silly. People dying for the idolization of men religion/cultism’s that no longer exist is insane and sad. Nothing in this universe lives forever as things come and go.
Humans are the only creatures that believe this crap.
The ONLY wife that YHWH God has is the Church - i.e. His [spiritual] wife. The New Testament is another witness that the Law of Mosheh (Moses) was written before 7 B.C. God doesn't have anyone beside Him (Isa. 44:6-8).
It is Mormon scholars with an agenda that want to produce a theory on how their Scriptures can be true. They are not true. God only used Hebrew & Aramaic to spread His Message.
So, Yahwe wants to grab the Church's "coconuts"? He wants to plunge his fingers deep into the Church's oily "latchkey"? He wants the Church to open its "garden" and take himself inside and have his way with it?
Why did you hide her?
Both of you are saying the same thing and that's the problem. The Bible does not attest to Ashera being God's wife but other beliefs and traditions of the same time do. IP said the same thing he just states correctly by the way that this has no bearing on what Christians believe because we see those beliefs as competing beliefs. Your issue is you want to push the Gods wife's belief as the exclusive belief that was then edited instead of a competing belief the reason you have to do that is because the Bible's interpretation is the largest surviving belief set from that era. In short the belief system that doesn't have God married to Ashera won. So you must go on trying to convince of an edit to those scriptures. So neither of you are denying the other sides existence it's just you who have the burden of explaining why it should be considered as the truth. beliefs with similar people groups in close proximity to each other conquering and being conquered by each intermarrying and trading with each other who shared knowledge via oral tradition for most of their history of course we have competing and overlapping beliefs of similarly named and described God's. But as IP points out the Bible literally tells us that there were times when even the children of Israel incorrectly (as far as the Biblical God was concerned) worshipped other Gods alongside the God The Bible also many times literally refers to those gods as the gods of the other nations. So you're not really refuting his point or Biblical beliefs here. You're more or less confirming our beliefs if anything.
No, no, IP is saying that ʾĂšērā and Yahwe were _never_ husband and wife, period, while McClellan and various scholars say otherwise.
Was YHWH not in actual fact Baal?
Why do pronounce the God of the bible YHWH strangely?
So the name of god is supposed to be sacred, that’s also why he’s says the sacred name instead of yahway.
Adonai is master in Hebrew,
Kinda like a religious “N-word”
Why was Satan hanging out in Heaven debating with God about Job? I thought Satan was cast out of Heaven?
Compare bible translations verses.
[System of Things] vs [End of the Age]
[Morning Star] vs [Bright Morning Star]
I do realize how a word or phrases changes the meaning. I used the King James Bible that's where I learned God's name. Psalms 83:18 unless you use a revised King James Bible. Matthew 20:18
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the [system of things].”
Jesus is the Bright Morning Star. Jesus said I would be with his disciples until the end of the age.
Matthew 28:20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the [end of the age].”
The end of the age was
2012 it was The Transit of Venus and Jesus is the Bright morning star. Revelation 22:16 “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you about these things for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David and the [bright morning star].’”
Jesus shows up in Jerusalem when he is 12 years old. He shows up 18 years later and throws out the money changers. So 2012 + 18 years 2030. But right after when the 8th King is ruling the earth.
I use bible hub for most translations and New World Translation.
Here's the Dragon. Revelation 13:11
This is why the beast like a lamb started speaking like a dragon.
Satan is a morning star who was hurled to the earth. The morning star of 1874 The Transit of Venus. Who gathered the nations for the Great War of 1914.
Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven, [morning star], son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Isiah 14:12
How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.
Satan was a title meaning something more like Adversary or Opponent until later in the Hebrew Bible. Someone who argued the other side simply to make sure things were done correctly. A modern term that I find amusingly apt is devil's advocate
So maybe God created man in his own image in Genesis 1:27 is referencing male being created in the image of Yahweh and female after Asherah. Also in Genesis 2:24 Adam uses himself as the primary example of " a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Adam's father is Yahweh and Asherah as his mother?
just so?
InspiringPhilosophy? More like UninspiringPhilosophy.
InsipidPedantry
Antanine is Ywyh?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The trinity is three gods.
This is so wrong. So many people can explain how wrong it is, with evidence. I know you won't stop because you know what you are doing, just know it does not look good when you give unfounded information.
Does pre- Deuteronomistic literature has something positive to say about the Goddess. If not then this is an argument from silence.
We know the bible is a product of the Yahweh-only group that according to bible was a small minority.
I think IP can agree with you that the worship of Asherah was normative but unless you can show how the prophets before the reforms were seeing her worship positively it's not a strong argument.
Consensuses don't exist unless they are 95% they should be called majority opinions which is always less normative. Image if 30% of the historians doubted the Holocaust.
If the prophets don't agree with their followers, what the Hell 🔥🔥🔥 is the point of them?
It is so hard to listen to him. My gosh.
He is so condescending. Of course Inspiring Philosophy knows the bible didn't exist at the time as we know it now. He is saying what a orthodox Jew or a follower of God of the time like one of the Prophets would believe. We have so called Christian people who have a theology that isn't biblical too.
He gives so many half truths and doesn't understand the Bible in any meaningful way. He sounds smart I will give him that. He can fool people but if you know your stuff this guy isn't going to make you lose any sleep.
Earth hast a big Problem
Imagine spending your entire life, dedicated to biblical scholarly pursuits in an academic light, only to embrace whole heartedly everything surrounding the Christian theology that seeks to deny Christ.
Biblical Scholarship and Ancient Near-East Studies, IF and/or When NOT being irrationally Biased toward a Religious-Belief... has continually, slowly but steadily, discredited and disputed Most "Theology" more and more. As the Evidence just results in that, all on its own, because Theology is typically about little more than Making Post-Hoc Excuses in Defense of A Type/Version of A Religious Belief via Convenient Interpretation and/or Convenient Re-Interpretation.
Don't become like Manasseh.
"Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts. He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger."
"He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the Lord had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever. I will not again make the feet of the Israelites wander from the land I gave their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.” But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites."
2 Kings 21