QUOTE
One culture blending pieces of one of another culture's deities into the image of one of their own does not mean that the two were all of a sudden completely merged. Certainly from a historical perspective that would just not work. Isis and Venus for instance originated in very different contexts, for very different purposes. It is ok that other cultures would blend them for ease of worship or other reasons; if it works for them it works. But they should never historically be seen as the same goddess.
Greeting thisisnotmyname. I do believe we have consensus between each other except for a few points. Indeed each goddess and god had local origins that were quite specific to their locality, culture, and experience. It will be exaggerating to say but not far off the mark that every hill and every village had their own version of a Baal or a Venus or whatever divinity was most popular in their area under whatever name.
Where our views diverge is that these independent tribes and even the villages and cities within the tribes, did not independently derive the concept of divinity just on their own, without any knowledge that a neighboring town did not have their own goddesses. We have to understand that many of the divinities were thought to reside on a certain hill or temple, and thus they were not viewed always as universal or omnipotent as we might view our divinities today. Since they could not be in all places at one time and to solve what they viewed as an issue they then developed their own version of Baal or Venus. I am not saying there is no other divinities besides Baal or Venus but just using them as an example.
What is more important is where did the notion of divinity, gods and goddesses, develop? It had to be farther back in antiquity, before written record, and the memory of them was carried over through the oral tradition. In time the memory that perhaps they were universal was forgotten so each village developed a localized version. Later as cultures began to merge so did their divinities until they became to be seen as the same again.
This of course does not take into account that one who worshiped other divinities outside of nature worship all did see the sun god as the same 'world over' for lack of a better term. This does not also take into account how divinity itself was developed, there are many theories, some claim it was through the process of respecting elders, and in turn respecting ancestors and believing they were still with us in spirit, then in time deifying them. There are other theories as well but there are no records.
QUOTE
Clovis,
One thing about the Pagan Gods is that depending on what culture is telling the story it does appear at times to change. Isis in some stories was thought to be the mother. There are other names she is called by, Artemis, Diana, Cerridwen, Melusine, Demeter. So has many many other names as well but in the end she is the Goddess
QUOTE
I do not agree with you that the Goddess is a Wiccan conception, while the Goddess has many names her Altar's have been dated back to 165-156 BCE.
Isis is one of her more popular names shes is an Egyptian deity which makes her very old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religionStories have been told of Witchcraft has early has 700 B.C.E. Even though many of the tales are fictional, you must remember that most tales of fiction are based on certain facts. Witches typically worshiped the mother Goddess. I have read Acradia or Gospel of the Witches all the way thought yet but here is a quote from it.
norwood is right in that the concept of 'the goddess' is not a modern invention. It goes back as far maybe as the various Venus figures (including Willendorf) even though the concept of Venus had not been developed. We might never know the exact context which they were created, if they were localized, but many represent fertility.
QUOTE
Recently, two very ancient stone objects (between 200,000 and 300,000 years old) have been interpreted as attempts at representing females. One, the Venus of Berekhat Ram was discovered on the Golan Heights, the other, the Venus of Tan-Tan in Morocco. Both pieces remain controversial. In any case, both are at best very cursorily and marginally carved, at worst simply natural, their anthropomorphic appearance being coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurinesThese might be the earliest sign of them though that is in dispute. Either way it might also be controversial and not substantiated through proven scholarship but I believe the very first sentient humans worshiped something. Be if God or gods and goddesses it is not a stretch to then believe that as mankind spread that they took with them these earliest memories and every god and goddesses since then have just been replays of the original. Archetype in the truest sense of the word.
That is just a theory but one that has come full circle in the way many view 'the goddess' today as one all encompassing energy of the feminine and all that that entails. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted many times including through the most modern feminist movement. The goddess is elusive, her history, her mystery, her meaning, and her being.
My interest, especially from a scholastic viewpoint, first arose within me in mentioning of Artemis of the Ephisians in the Bible in the Acts 19. We can only imagine what people saw when they came from afar and witnessed this wonder of the world. Did they just see a localized goddess or was she something more. Most likely they saw Diana as the huntress and not just a generic concept of 'the goddess' but even so there is nothing generic about it even if they did see more.
Many view our Holy Spirit as a representation of the goddess and I have looked into it and even the dove she is represented as is a symbol of a goddess. I do not for a second view the Spirit as a goddess though but do realize that is a theory some hold. Regardless though when the men of Acts began to spread the Word and the Spirit a great commotion arose that they were blaspheming Artemis of the Ephisians. This was after two years of Paul and others into their ministry within the region.
At first it was the craftsmen who made images of Diana who saw a decline in business that became dissatisfied and turned a very strong vocal crowd against those of the Word. It is true too that one who follows the Word should not follow the goddess but that does not mean those of the Word should attack the goddess or those who worship her. Our witness and our Spirit without words should stand the test and if others choose the Word so be it and if they remain with the goddess so be it. We should not allow the worship of another within our temples but the world at large is not our temple nor should be viewed as such. This is not my example but the example of the first Israelites who destroyed pagan worship within their own territory. This is the example of the first Christians who did not blaspheme the goddess. Just as the charges against them of this were not true we should strive for that example as well towards all other belief systems.
QUOTE
Acts 19:35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, "Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? 36Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess.