What was first monotheistic religion?

[questionmark]

The first true monotheistic religion was Christianity. No other major religious tradition prior to that practiced monotheism.

Why am I not surprised that you would spout that uninformed crap?

[Arbitran]

Why am I not surprised that you would spout that uninformed crap?

I am aware that there are many religions (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, the religion of Akhenaten, etc.) which have been labeled "monotheistic". The first truly monotheistic religion was Christianity. If you studied history you would know. Don't call me "misinformed" when you can't even state your own position.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well there were other gods that existed in the Judaic pantheon (thus the whole "you will have no other Gods then I" commandment) none of them were worshipped as part of a "true" Judaic ritual practice (look at all the mentions of people "falling" into Baal worship).

Atanism didn't deny the existence of other gods, just that the Atan/Aten was the best one.

Even Zoroanstrianism had two powerful entities but only one was worshipped.

All that said, if you're denying Judaism as a monotheistic religion, on the same grounds you'll have to deny Christianity - Satan exists and can be worshipped like Baal was. Thus there isn't a single deity in the theology.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Wearer of Hats

[Arbitran]

Well there were other gods that existed in the Judaic pantheon (thus the whole "you will have no other Gods then I" commandment) none of them were worshipped as part of a "true" Judaic ritual practice (look at all the mentions of people "falling" into Baal worship).

Atanism didn't deny the existence of other gods, just that the Atan/Aten was the best one.

Even Zoroanstrianism had two powerful entities but only one was worshipped.

All that said, if you're denying Judaism as a monotheistic religion, on the same grounds you'll have to deny Christianity - Satan exists and can be worshipped like Baal was. Thus there isn't a single deity in the theology.

I suppose you are correct. For example, the Trinitarian doctrine must have at least three deity figures. Perhaps there hasn't been a true monotheistic religion yet.

Well-spotted, Wearer of Hats.

[questionmark]

I suppose you are correct. For example, the Trinitarian doctrine must have at least three deity figures. Perhaps there hasn't been a true monotheistic religion yet.

Well-spotted, Wearer of Hats.

I would tend to doubt that, but somebody who evidently has no idea about religions, to the point to claim that Christianism is the only monarchistic religion would not know that, but there is at least one religion whose article of faith is: There is no God but God.

That would fit it quite well.

[kmt_sesh]

I would tend to doubt that, but somebody who evidently has no idea about religions, to the point to claim that Christianism is the only monarchistic religion would not know that, but there is at least one religion whose article of faith is: There is no God but God.

That would fit it quite well.

I thought Arbitran's statement rather odd, myself. After all, Christianity began as a minor sect of Judaism, and the Jewish God and the Christian God are one and the same (Yahweh). And there is no doubting that Judaism became monotheistic before Christianity.

But in point of fact, contrary to earlier comments, Akhenaten's Atenism did end up becoming monotheistic, and this was centuries before the rise of the Hebrews. That the majority of the Egyptian population probably wasn't as devout to the Aten as Akhenaten was is beside the point--king and court by the later years of Akhenaten's reign were permitted to worship only the Aten. Akhenaten's prayer "Great Hymn to the Aten" makes it clear that he believed there was no other god.

Edit: Point of clarification.

Edited April 8, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[Arbitran]

I would tend to doubt that, but somebody who evidently has no idea about religions, to the point to claim that Christianism is the only monarchistic religion would not know that, but there is at least one religion whose article of faith is: There is no God but God.

That would fit it quite well.

You see, this is why I don't like to look at your posts: I can't make out a single intelligible thought in it.

Oh yes, because Christianity must be monotheistic because it claims to be. It isn't. They have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These cannot collectively be one deity: they are three.

[Arbitran]

I thought Arbitran's statement rather odd, myself. After all, Christianity began as a minor sect of Judaism, and the Jewish God and the Christian God are one and the same (Yahweh). And there is no doubting that Judaism became monotheistic before Christianity.

But in point of fact, contrary to earlier comments, Akhenaten's Atenism did end up becoming monotheistic, and this was centuries before the rise of the Hebrews. That the majority of the Egyptian population probably wasn't as devout to the Aten as Akhenaten was is beside the point--king and court by the later years of Akhenaten's reign were permitted to worship only the Aten. Akhenaten's prayer "Great Hymn to the Aten" makes it clear that he believed there was no other god.

Edit: Point of clarification.

You may well be correct. Is suppose that as a religion itself, regardless of its popularity, Atenism would have been monotheistic. You make an excellent point kmt_sesh.

The Hebrew deities and the Christian deities could not be further from each other though, I'm afraid. Judaism, in the form it has taken for the past few millennia, is essentially henotheistic: they worship a single deity, while accepting the existence of others. It was formerly polytheistic--as is most evident in the Hebrew word most used for "God" in the Torah, elohim: meaning gods.

As I have said, Christianity (at least in its Trinitarian form) is polytheistic--having three distinct deities.

[+DieChecker]

The first true monotheistic religion was Christianity. No other major religious tradition prior to that practiced monotheism.

Difinitiavely said.

I am aware that there are many religions (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, the religion of Akhenaten, etc.) which have been labeled "monotheistic". The first truly monotheistic religion was Christianity. If you studied history you would know. Don't call me "misinformed" when you can't even state your own position.

Definatively said.

I suppose you are correct. For example, the Trinitarian doctrine must have at least three deity figures. Perhaps there hasn't been a true monotheistic religion yet.

Well-spotted, Wearer of Hats.

Wow! Flipped those DEFINATIVE statements completely in, what... minutes??

You see, this is why I don't like to look at your posts: I can't make out a single intelligible thought in it.

Oh yes, because Christianity must be monotheistic because it claims to be. It isn't. They have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These cannot collectively be one deity: they are three.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Aspects of the same God, just as you might be a father, an employee and a tax payer. God is quite able to multi-task enough to handle it.

You may well be correct. Is suppose that as a religion itself, regardless of its popularity, Atenism would have been monotheistic. You make an excellent point kmt_sesh.

The Hebrew deities and the Christian deities could not be further from each other though, I'm afraid. Judaism, in the form it has taken for the past few millennia, is essentially henotheistic: they worship a single deity, while accepting the existence of others. It was formerly polytheistic--as is most evident in the Hebrew word most used for "God" in the Torah, elohim: meaning gods.

As I have said, Christianity (at least in its Trinitarian form) is polytheistic--having three distinct deities.

I'm going to agree that the Early Hebrew writings do seem to allow for other Gods if you read it with an open mind. Telling your people to worship no other gods implies that there are other gods to worship. Also in Kings and Chronicles, it constantly is going on about how even the Kings were putting up idols to the Baals and other foreign gods.

[Arbitran]

Difinitiavely said.

Definatively said.

Wow! Flipped those DEFINATIVE statements completely in, what... minutes??

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Aspects of the same God, just as you might be a father, an employee and a tax payer. God is quite able to multi-task enough to handle it.

I'm going to agree that the Early Hebrew writings do seem to allow for other Gods if you read it with an open mind. Telling your people to worship no other gods implies that there are other gods to worship. Also in Kings and Chronicles, it constantly is going on about how even the Kings were putting up idols to the Baals and other foreign gods.

It was quite perceptive of Wearer of Hats and kmt_sesh in their posts, yes. I admit when I haven't considered all of the data. My original statement was slightly premature.

I don't care how great a "multi-tasker" God is: no one can be a father and his own son. It's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

As much as Christians like to try to make three gods into one, it can't be done. And their pathetic attempts to do so serve only as entertainment to we who recognize the absurdity of it all.

[kmt_sesh]

I was raised Roman Catholic and had to go through all of the religious schooling all Roman Catholic kids experience. I no longer practice the faith but understand it well. Christians do not view the Trinity as three different deities but as aspects of one God. God can indeed exist as his own son: Jesus was both the son of God and an aspect of God when he walked the earth, as the teaching goes. Jesus was God in mortal form, in other words. It's complicated and sounds odd to those not familiar with Christianity, and of course in the earliest days of the Church this was hotly debated among the bishops before the New Testament was canonized. The main question was: Was Jesus merely mortal or was he divine? Most agreed, of course, on Jesus' divinity.

Bear in mind this philosophical concept was not developed from outside the faith. It was developed, explored, and internalized by Christians for Christians. This isn't really a gray area to most of us who were raised Christian, and certainly not to Roman Catholics (from which all other versions of Christianity sprang). No legitimate Catholic would view the Trinity as three different and separate deities, nor would any legitimate Catholic view the religion as polytheistic. The mere idea would be heretical. Ask a priest.

I stress again that Christianity emerged from Judaism. And well before Christianity, Judaism had become definitively monotheistic. This certainly was not the case for all of the history of Judaism, and indeed monotheism in Judaism doesn't seem to have taken solid form till the post-exilic period, but by the period of Late Antiquity monotheism was most certainly the rule for Judaism. Christianity took it from there. Had it not been for certain circumstances, in fact, Christianity may have remained one of the minor sects of Judaism that eventually died out, as happened with the Zealots and Essenes. Christians of the earliest times certainly didn't take the monotheistic Yahweh and turn him into a polytheistic deity.

Earlier you mentioned the Hebrew term elohim, Arbitran. You're correct that this can refer to more than one god, but in most cases in the Old Testament it does not. The meaning of elohim and whether it is plural or singular is determined by grammatical contexts in the Hebrew language. I'm struggling to think of an English parallel and for some reason the only thing that comes to mind is "pants." I know, it's a silly example, but the hour is late and it's all I can think of at the moment. In any case, although this is plural in form, it still refers to only one thing.

[Arbitran]

I was raised Roman Catholic and had to go through all of the religious schooling all Roman Catholic kids experience. I no longer practice the faith but understand it well. Christians do not view the Trinity as three different deities but as aspects of one God. God can indeed exist as his own son: Jesus was both the son of God and an aspect of God when he walked the earth, as the teaching goes. Jesus was God in mortal form, in other words. It's complicated and sounds odd to those not familiar with Christianity, and of course in the earliest days of the Church this was hotly debated among the bishops before the New Testament was canonized. The main question was: Was Jesus merely mortal or was he divine? Most agreed, of course, on Jesus' divinity.

Bear in mind this philosophical concept was not developed from outside the faith. It was developed, explored, and internalized by Christians for Christians. This isn't really a gray area to most of us who were raised Christian, and certainly not to Roman Catholics (from which all other versions of Christianity sprang). No legitimate Catholic would view the Trinity as three different and separate deities, nor would any legitimate Catholic view the religion as polytheistic. The mere idea would be heretical. Ask a priest.

I stress again that Christianity emerged from Judaism. And well before Christianity, Judaism had become definitively monotheistic. This certainly was not the case for all of the history of Judaism, and indeed monotheism in Judaism doesn't seem to have taken solid form till the post-exilic period, but by the period of Late Antiquity monotheism was most certainly the rule for Judaism. Christianity took it from there. Had it not been for certain circumstances, in fact, Christianity may have remained one of the minor sects of Judaism that eventually died out, as happened with the Zealots and Essenes. Christians of the earliest times certainly didn't take the monotheistic Yahweh and turn him into a polytheistic deity.

Earlier you mentioned the Hebrew term elohim, Arbitran. You're correct that this can refer to more than one god, but in most cases in the Old Testament it does not. The meaning of elohim and whether it is plural or singular is determined by grammatical contexts in the Hebrew language. I'm struggling to think of an English parallel and for some reason the only thing that comes to mind is "pants." I know, it's a silly example, but the hour is late and it's all I can think of at the moment. In any case, although this is plural in form, it still refers to only one thing.

As a note, I will firstly mention that I actually speak Hebrew: elohim does not, at any time, refer to a single deity. The -im is the masculine plural suffix. Indeed, much of Hebrew can be read only based on grammatical context, however there is no context to make a singular word out of elohim. There are a few scant examples of a singular variant appearing (el or eloah), however elohim is the primary word used. I was raised a Christian as well: Roman Catholic on my father's side, and Presbyterian on my mother's side. One of the first notions that made me question my faith was the abject absurdity of the "three-gods-in-one" farce. As I'm sure you all know by now, I am currently an atheist Hindu--with smatterings of Buddhism, as the teachings of Buddha do not conflict with the principles of Hinduism.

[questionmark]

You see, this is why I don't like to look at your posts: I can't make out a single intelligible thought in it.

Oh yes, because Christianity must be monotheistic because it claims to be. It isn't. They have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These cannot collectively be one deity: they are three.

Where we see again what you know about religions to claim that there never was a monotheistic religion or that Christianism is the only one. The whole article of faith would be: There is no God but God and Mohammad is his prophet. And that, BTW, is another minor sect of Judaism.

[Arbitran]

Where we see again what you know about religions to claim that there never was a monotheistic religion or that Christianism is the only one. The whole article of faith would be: There is no God but God and Mohammad is his prophet. And that, BTW, is another minor sect of Judaism.

I still see no intelligible thoughts being conveyed through these words. Either rephrase, or don't write at all. It might be worth discussing with you if you can learn how to put ideas in your sentences.

[Arbitran]

Well, thank you, nice that you at least are capable of detecting that much, I would not have expected it after you try to preach to us about religions and seemingly don't know much more than what they told you in Sunday class. But keep on, you are really fun (though I suspect that you think big things about yourself).

What do you suspect that I think of myself? Again, your sentences are very indescriptive.

I have utterly discredited every trace of absurdity that was told me in Sunday class when I was a Christian; I take it you haven't?

I haven't been preaching anything, either; until you started aimlessly posting your nonsensical sentences here, I was simply trying to have an intelligent conversation with Wearer of Hats and kmt_sesh about the origins of monotheistic religion.

Please be so kind as to visit a library, and let us resume our discussion.

[questionmark]

What do you suspect that I think of myself? Again, your sentences are very indescriptive.

I have utterly discredited every trace of absurdity that was told me in Sunday class when I was a Christian; I take it you haven't?

I haven't been preaching anything, either; until you started aimlessly posting your nonsensical sentences here, I was simply trying to have an intelligent conversation with Wearer of Hats and kmt_sesh about the origins of monotheistic religion.

Please be so kind as to visit a library, and let us resume our discussion.

No, you were trying to tell me first that there was no true monotheistic religion, when in fact there is at least one that is fanatically monotheistic, which happens to be Islam. And sorry, as descendants of Jews (notice I identify myself as agnostic) I did not go to Sunday School, so I can’t know what they told you there.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation you must not only have (assumed) intelligence but also knowledge. Which in your case seems to be severely lacking (but then you got a few uncles who train you to compensate for that, if I am not mistaken).

[Arbitran]

No, you were trying to tell me first that there was no true monotheistic religion, when in fact there is at least one that is fanatically monotheistic, which happens to be Islam. And sorry, as descendants of Jews (notice I identify myself as agnostic) I did not go to Sunday School, so I can’t know what they told you there.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation you must not only have (assumed) intelligence but also knowledge. Which in your case seems to be severely lacking (but then you got a few uncles who train you to compensate for that, if I am not mistaken).

Yes, that was what I had thought at first. Then Wearer of Hats and kmt_sesh, through intelligent conversation pointed out a few examples which have shown that my original thought was mistaken. I had not considered Atenism a truly monotheistic religion. I still do not accept that Judaism was originally monotheistic.

I do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic either. So yes, perhaps Islam is monotheistic. If it weren't for kmt_sesh pointing out the religion of Aten, I would probably have to say that Islam may have been the first true monotheistic faith. However, as I have of course been discussing it with kmt_sesh and Wearer of Hats: this is not the case.

As for your insinuation that I am unintelligent... Well, you can believe whatever you want. I personally like to think that after forty years of research (and, might I add, my capacity to write coherent English sentences) I know a thing or two. But then, you probably think that Sarah Palin is an intelligent and learned person...

I don't know anything about your beliefs of course (my attempts at humor have been known to be scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb; feel free).

[questionmark]

Yes, that was what I had thought at first. Then Wearer of Hats and kmt_sesh, through intelligent conversation pointed out a few examples which have shown that my original thought was mistaken. I had not considered Atenism a truly monotheistic religion. I still do not accept that Judaism was originally monotheistic.

I do not believe that Christianity is monotheistic either. So yes, perhaps Islam is monotheistic. If it weren't for kmt_sesh pointing out the religion of Aten, I would probably have to say that Islam may have been the first true monotheistic faith. However, as I have of course been discussing it with kmt_sesh and Wearer of Hats: this is not the case.

As for your insinuation that I am unintelligent... Well, you can believe whatever you want. I personally like to think that after forty years of research (and, might I add, my capacity to write coherent English sentences) I know a thing or two. But then, you probably think that Sarah Palin is an intelligent and learned person...

I don't know anything about your beliefs of course (my attempts at humor have been known to be scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb; feel free).

You know, why don't you take a deep breath and then read again what you posted there. I don't think that you meant to put all that there.

As for coherent English sentences, for your benefit I will try to dumb my English down a little. Not easy for me, but I will try.

[Arbitran]

This is no longer a discussion: neither one of us is presenting any intelligent ideas.

[badeskov]

This is no longer a discussion: neither one of us is presenting any intelligent ideas.

Ideas? You have presented your ideas, they have been countered and questions asked - yet you have to defend anything that you have stated. Maybe the day when you start being able to defend your ideas and actually provide some references there might be a common ground for discussion. Until then, well, you are by all means of respect not exactly coming across as knowledgeable at all.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

Ideas? You have presented your ideas, they have been countered and questions asked - yet you have to defend anything that you have stated. Maybe the day when you start being able to defend your ideas and actually provide some references there might be a common ground for discussion. Until then, well, you are by all means of respect not exactly coming across as knowledgeable at all.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I have defended my theses--you people simply deny them under the most absurd of biases. If you actually read the ancient texts it would be clear. That is, read the ancient texts without bias--if you can do that. I grant you, it is difficult, but not impossible.

Your best refutation of my theses is: "no it isn't", or the like. Please present evidence in order for me to think that you have any more information that I have. I am presently compiling a series of links to pertinent passages for you people.

[badeskov]

I have defended my theses

They are not theses. They are unsubstantiated ideas. And, no, you have not defended them as in that case you would have sourced credible references. You have not done anything even remotely close to that. You have been peddling your ideas and avoided any substantiation. If I missed your substantiation, I apologize, but please do link to it then.

--you people simply deny them under the most absurd of biases.

Nonsense. You claim, you substantiate. The only bias on display here is that of a request for substantiation, one you have utterly failed to meet.

If you actually read the ancient texts it would be clear. That is, read the ancient texts without bias--if you can do that. I grant you, it is difficult, but not impossible.

Your best refutation of my theses is: "no it isn't", or the like. Please present evidence in order for me to think that you have any more information that I have. I am presently compiling a series of links to pertinent passages for you people.

You present your evidence. So far various scientific translations are pretty much in agreement and it isn't with you.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

They are not theses. They are unsubstantiated ideas. And, no, you have not defended them as in that case you would have sourced credible references. You have not done anything even remotely close to that. You have been peddling your ideas and avoided any substantiation. If I missed your substantiation, I apologize, but please do link to it then.

Nonsense. You claim, you substantiate. The only bias on display here is that of a request for substantiation, one you have utterly failed to meet.

You present your evidence. So far various scientific translations are pretty much in agreement and it isn't with you.

Cheers,

Badeskov

They are theses; as much as you people want to argue that they're not. I have forty years' worth of evidence stored up--it is simply beyond my current capacity to write it all down here on the forums (I'm compiling it all in books for a reason). I have explained all this already.

There are myriad translations which the West has tried to make of the Hindu texts: none of them are absolutely correct all the way through. Some are more accurate on the whole than others.

It is clear though that what you insist is "heavens" is in fact "outer space" or "the universe". The ancient Hindu texts are meant to be read in a scientific and historical context; not a mythological or religious one.

[badeskov]

They are theses; as much as you people want to argue that they're not. I have forty years' worth of evidence stored up--it is simply beyond my current capacity to write it all down here on the forums (I'm compiling it all in books for a reason). I have explained all this already.

There are myriad translations which the West has tried to make of the Hindu texts: none of them are absolutely correct all the way through. Some are more accurate on the whole than others.

It is clear though that what you insist is "heavens" is in fact "outer space" or "the universe". The ancient Hindu texts are meant to be read in a scientific and historical context; not a mythological or religious one.

By all means of respect, but as long as you cannot substantiate your claims here you have no theses. Your petty excuse that you are writing everything into a book holds no water whatsoever. Either you can substantiate your claims or you cannot - so far you have demonstrated no ability to do so. And thus your claims hold no validity. The fact that you cannot even substantiate a small subset of your claims is pretty damning.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

By all means of respect, but as long as you cannot substantiate your claims here you have no theses. Your petty excuse that you are writing everything into a book holds no water whatsoever. Either you can substantiate your claims or you cannot - so far you have demonstrated no ability to do so. And thus your claims hold no validity. The fact that you cannot even substantiate a small subset of your claims is pretty damning.

Cheers,

Badeskov

This conversation has not lasted long enough for me to discuss much evidence yet.