Hvad tror Jøderne ang. Gud JHVH?
THE FAITH OF ISRAEL
.... (everlasting) mountains as witnesses (e.g., Mic. 6:2) . It seems improbable that this is simply poetic language with nothing concrete behind it. Much more probable is the assumption that the heavenly court of Yahweh included the whole host of powers in heaven and earth.
The ambiguity between such a conception and that of polytheism is one which many in Israel did not escape. Yet the difference is much more phenomenal.
In normative Yahwism these powers were left undefined and not clearly distinguished from one another. Not one of them received any special attention. None were to be worshiped or provided with temple, altar, or cultus.
Yahweh alone is the source of all power, authority, and creativity.
All other heavenly beings owe their existence and functioning solely to him. They possess no independent validity and thus are not the focus of religious attention.
It is a dangerous waste of time to give them heed, when all direction of life, of history, and of nature is in the hands of Yahweh, who demands exclusive worship.
Israel's solution of the problem of the one in relation to the many was thus an intense, unswerving monolatry, any deviation from which was rebellion and idolatry.
During the last century the German scholar Max Miiller invented the term "henotheism," which since that time has been widely used to designate the faith of early Israel.
It means the worship of one god who is confined to one geographical area, yet an exclusive worship which does not deny the existence of other gods.
The value of this term is that it prevents the interpretation of Israel's faith in terms of a philosophical monism.
Yet actually it is an exceedingly poor term because it does not do justice to the cosmic power and rulership of Yahweh and to the complete devaluation of all other superhuman powers.
Furthermore, it is impossible to trace a development in the Old Testament from "henotheism" to "monotheism"; indeed, if one were forced to contest the issue he might argue that the movement was in precisely the reverse direction, since the composition of the divine assembly undeniably grew more complex and syncretistic with the passing centuries.
Either the whole of the Old Testament is "henotheistic" or else none of it is. Even Second Isaiah was no "monotheist" in the Unitarian sense, for he believed in the heavenly host (i.e., the stars) as superhuman beings created and appointed to their work by Yahweh.
On the other hand, the term "monotheism" places the emphasis upon that unique and astonishing feature of Israelite faith: the unity of all power and authority in Yahweh, who is so exalted that even the heavenly powers are called upon to praise him (cf. Pss. 103:20-21;148:1-6), and who if he wills can destroy these powers (Ps. 82) .
____________________
Yet at no point in the Bible can "monotheism" be applied in a Unitarian or
Greek monistic sense.
The word must be defined by the actual phenomena in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for it is intended, to designate that which these three religions have in common over against all other religions.
_______________
That is the transcendence of one God over nature and history; who is the giver and sustainer of all life; who is without sexuality or mythology; whose holiness does not permit images to be made of him; whose jealousy does not allow any worship except that directed to him alone; and whose superiority over all powers in the host of heaven and earth, including demons and false gods, is such as to make him completely unique and sui generis.* 4 *
If we are deprived of the use of "monotheism" for describing the faith of Israel in even its early stages, then we shall experience considerable difficulty in finding the exact point at which it can be used.
The divine world grew steadily more complex in conception, including the elaboration of a considerable mythology of angels and demons in later Judaism.
In the New Testament it is affirmed that God the Father as the ultimate
authority in the universe has exalted Christ to his right hand and put all
things, including the angels and host of heaven, in subjection to him (cf. Heb. 1-2) .
Such heavenly powers are to receive no independent worship, for this would spoil the "simplicity that is in Christ" (cf. Col. 2:18) .
There is yet another realm of the superhuman, however, composed of Satan together with the principalities and powers of darkness against which we wrestle (cf., e.g., Eph. 6:12), though the victory is assured through Christ.
The attitude of the apostle Paul toward the pagan deities indicates that one cannot force a philosophical monism on him any more than on the Israelite of old.
In I Cor. 10:19-21 the existence of such deities is not altogether denied; they are simply degraded to the rank of demons.
With the development of the host of Satan there was no longer any need to conceive of the gods as members of Yahweh's assembly with whom he was displeased, as in Ps. 82. If their existence was not completely ignored, one might, if (fortsættes lidt efter denne indskudte bemærkning).......
**The greatest defense of the use of the term "mono- theism" in this sense for even the earliest religion of the nation of Israel is that of W. F. Albright,
From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1940), chs. iv-v; cf. also his Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1942), p. 116.
THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE
...... pressed, assume them to be members of Satan's host. It is surely obvious that no dictionary ever intended to exclude early Christianity from its definition of monotheism in favor of an abstract monism as conceived in later philosophy. Indeed, the trinitarian Christian has always and will ever resist the attempt so to exclude it. 35
Yet we must beware that such a discussion as the foregoing does not lead us to a betrayal of the real nature of biblical faith. The significance of the latter does not lie in a developing human conception of deity or in an "ethical monotheism/'
_________________________________________
It is a confessional proclamation of the sovereignty of God and of his saving acts in man's behalf, a proclamation which demands of its hearers that they make a decision as to where they stand in relation to this sovereignty.
For God is to be known not in the first instance as the power in nature's rhythmic cycle, nor as the absolute of metaphysical speculation, but as the "Lord" who "chose" Israel for himself and as the "Father" of our "Lord" Jesus Christ.
D. The Being of God. 1. The God Who Acts.
The dominant impression given by the Old Testament about God is the concreteness, defi- niteness, and energy of his being. His ever- present power is to be seen and felt in all move- ment of nature and history. His dynamic mov- ing vigor stands in complete contrast to the Greek "unmoved Mover," to the ...............
http://archive.org/stream/interpretersbibl028041mbp/interpretersbibl028041mbp_djvu.txt
______________________________________________________
Descartes, (although through a different methodology), ultimately proves the existence of this Aristotelian God, on the level of ideas, not beings. (det er dig sebl; og dog?)
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, he is reacting against the Aristotelian theories he was taught throughout the course of his education.
Where Aristotle was an empiricist, abstracting the essence of things from their occurrence in the world, Descartes believed that the ideas and knowledge of things was innate, and that once one grasped such an idea, then one should look for instances of it in the world.
(et paradoks Romerne kap. 1; “ .. thi det, som man kan vide om Gud, er åbenbart iblandt dem; Gud har jo åbenbaret dem det. Thi hans usynlige Væsen, både hans evige Kraft og Guddommelighed, skues fra Verdens Skabelse af, idet det forstås af hans Gerninger …”, men det er jo ”kun” Guds åbenbarelser)
_________________________
In developing this, particularly how to determine the truth of an idea, he offers proofs for the existence of God.
He feels that he must prove that God exists in order to be certain that his clear and distinct perceptions are true.
These perceptions or ideas can be caused by other ideas, but there must be something more than an idea that is the cause of all ideas.
Descartes eventually deduces, that this something more is an infinite being and that this infinite being is God.
In the end, each philosopher concludes that there exists an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover.
There is a first cause to the universe for Aristotle and a first ccause of an idea for Descartes that guarantees the existence of the universe: for both, this first cause must necessarily be God.
___________________________________
Aristotle’s first science
The Metaphysics is Aristotle’s quest to discover the first science and/or its object.
This is a result of the belief that all men hold: “that what we call ‘wisdom’ is concerned with the
first causes and principles” (981b27-9).
In searching for knowledge of these first causes and principles, Aristotle’s first science emerges.
The supreme science, which is superior to any subordinate science, is the one which knows that for the sake of which each thing must be done, and this is the good in each case and, in general, the highest good in the whole of nature . . . it is evident that the name which is sought applies to the same science; for it is this science which must investigatethe first principles and causes, and the good or final cause is one of the causes (982b5-11).
_______________________________________________
It is therefore necessary to acquire knowledge of the first causes to attain this first supreme science.
Aristotle is searching for the first causes of things that exist, or beings, but the term “being” is used in many senses.
However, Aristotle claims that they are all related to one principle: some are called “being” because they are substances; some because they are in the process of becoming substances; some because they are destructions or privations or qualities of substances; others because they create substances or things related to substances (1003b5-10).
In each case, “being” is related to “substance,” which implies that the first science must somehow be a study of substances. Also, it is not only a study of being, but also whatever belongs to being.
____________________________________________________
In most sciences, each “is concerned mainly with that which is first . . . Accordingly, if this is a substance, it is of substances that the philosopher should posses the principles and the causes” (1003b16-9).
Since the principles and highest causes are being sought after, Aristotle says that they must belong to some nature in virtue of itself: “If, then, also those who were seeking the elements of things were seeking these principles, these elements too must be elements of being, not accidentally, but qua being. Accordingly, it is of being qua being that we too, must find the first causes” (1003a26-32).
Therefore, according to Aristotle, “it belongs to one science to investigate being qua being and whatever belongs to it qua being, and that the same science investigates not only substances, but also whatever belongs to substances” (1005a13-8).
This first science he develops is motivated by a desire for wisdom. This requires a pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge: to have knowledge of something, one must have knowledge of the first causes, “for we say that we understand each thing when we think
http://www.xavier.edu/classics/documents/Theses/Ross.pdf
De er bestemt ikke dumme disse philosoffer.
___________________________________________________
Platoon
.... (everlasting) mountains as witnesses (e.g., Mic. 6:2) . It seems improbable that this is simply poetic language with nothing concrete behind it. Much more probable is the assumption that the heavenly court of Yahweh included the whole host of powers in heaven and earth.
The ambiguity between such a conception and that of polytheism is one which many in Israel did not escape. Yet the difference is much more phenomenal.
In normative Yahwism these powers were left undefined and not clearly distinguished from one another. Not one of them received any special attention. None were to be worshiped or provided with temple, altar, or cultus.
Yahweh alone is the source of all power, authority, and creativity.
All other heavenly beings owe their existence and functioning solely to him. They possess no independent validity and thus are not the focus of religious attention.
It is a dangerous waste of time to give them heed, when all direction of life, of history, and of nature is in the hands of Yahweh, who demands exclusive worship.
Israel's solution of the problem of the one in relation to the many was thus an intense, unswerving monolatry, any deviation from which was rebellion and idolatry.
During the last century the German scholar Max Miiller invented the term "henotheism," which since that time has been widely used to designate the faith of early Israel.
It means the worship of one god who is confined to one geographical area, yet an exclusive worship which does not deny the existence of other gods.
The value of this term is that it prevents the interpretation of Israel's faith in terms of a philosophical monism.
Yet actually it is an exceedingly poor term because it does not do justice to the cosmic power and rulership of Yahweh and to the complete devaluation of all other superhuman powers.
Furthermore, it is impossible to trace a development in the Old Testament from "henotheism" to "monotheism"; indeed, if one were forced to contest the issue he might argue that the movement was in precisely the reverse direction, since the composition of the divine assembly undeniably grew more complex and syncretistic with the passing centuries.
Either the whole of the Old Testament is "henotheistic" or else none of it is. Even Second Isaiah was no "monotheist" in the Unitarian sense, for he believed in the heavenly host (i.e., the stars) as superhuman beings created and appointed to their work by Yahweh.
On the other hand, the term "monotheism" places the emphasis upon that unique and astonishing feature of Israelite faith: the unity of all power and authority in Yahweh, who is so exalted that even the heavenly powers are called upon to praise him (cf. Pss. 103:20-21;148:1-6), and who if he wills can destroy these powers (Ps. 82) .
____________________
Yet at no point in the Bible can "monotheism" be applied in a Unitarian or
Greek monistic sense.
The word must be defined by the actual phenomena in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for it is intended, to designate that which these three religions have in common over against all other religions.
_______________
That is the transcendence of one God over nature and history; who is the giver and sustainer of all life; who is without sexuality or mythology; whose holiness does not permit images to be made of him; whose jealousy does not allow any worship except that directed to him alone; and whose superiority over all powers in the host of heaven and earth, including demons and false gods, is such as to make him completely unique and sui generis.* 4 *
If we are deprived of the use of "monotheism" for describing the faith of Israel in even its early stages, then we shall experience considerable difficulty in finding the exact point at which it can be used.
The divine world grew steadily more complex in conception, including the elaboration of a considerable mythology of angels and demons in later Judaism.
In the New Testament it is affirmed that God the Father as the ultimate
authority in the universe has exalted Christ to his right hand and put all
things, including the angels and host of heaven, in subjection to him (cf. Heb. 1-2) .
Such heavenly powers are to receive no independent worship, for this would spoil the "simplicity that is in Christ" (cf. Col. 2:18) .
There is yet another realm of the superhuman, however, composed of Satan together with the principalities and powers of darkness against which we wrestle (cf., e.g., Eph. 6:12), though the victory is assured through Christ.
The attitude of the apostle Paul toward the pagan deities indicates that one cannot force a philosophical monism on him any more than on the Israelite of old.
In I Cor. 10:19-21 the existence of such deities is not altogether denied; they are simply degraded to the rank of demons.
With the development of the host of Satan there was no longer any need to conceive of the gods as members of Yahweh's assembly with whom he was displeased, as in Ps. 82. If their existence was not completely ignored, one might, if (fortsættes lidt efter denne indskudte bemærkning).......
**The greatest defense of the use of the term "mono- theism" in this sense for even the earliest religion of the nation of Israel is that of W. F. Albright,
From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1940), chs. iv-v; cf. also his Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1942), p. 116.
THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE
...... pressed, assume them to be members of Satan's host. It is surely obvious that no dictionary ever intended to exclude early Christianity from its definition of monotheism in favor of an abstract monism as conceived in later philosophy. Indeed, the trinitarian Christian has always and will ever resist the attempt so to exclude it. 35
Yet we must beware that such a discussion as the foregoing does not lead us to a betrayal of the real nature of biblical faith. The significance of the latter does not lie in a developing human conception of deity or in an "ethical monotheism/'
_________________________________________
It is a confessional proclamation of the sovereignty of God and of his saving acts in man's behalf, a proclamation which demands of its hearers that they make a decision as to where they stand in relation to this sovereignty.
For God is to be known not in the first instance as the power in nature's rhythmic cycle, nor as the absolute of metaphysical speculation, but as the "Lord" who "chose" Israel for himself and as the "Father" of our "Lord" Jesus Christ.
D. The Being of God. 1. The God Who Acts.
The dominant impression given by the Old Testament about God is the concreteness, defi- niteness, and energy of his being. His ever- present power is to be seen and felt in all move- ment of nature and history. His dynamic mov- ing vigor stands in complete contrast to the Greek "unmoved Mover," to the ...............
http://archive.org/stream/interpretersbibl028041mbp/interpretersbibl028041mbp_djvu.txt
______________________________________________________
Descartes, (although through a different methodology), ultimately proves the existence of this Aristotelian God, on the level of ideas, not beings. (det er dig sebl; og dog?)
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, he is reacting against the Aristotelian theories he was taught throughout the course of his education.
Where Aristotle was an empiricist, abstracting the essence of things from their occurrence in the world, Descartes believed that the ideas and knowledge of things was innate, and that once one grasped such an idea, then one should look for instances of it in the world.
(et paradoks Romerne kap. 1; “ .. thi det, som man kan vide om Gud, er åbenbart iblandt dem; Gud har jo åbenbaret dem det. Thi hans usynlige Væsen, både hans evige Kraft og Guddommelighed, skues fra Verdens Skabelse af, idet det forstås af hans Gerninger …”, men det er jo ”kun” Guds åbenbarelser)
_________________________
In developing this, particularly how to determine the truth of an idea, he offers proofs for the existence of God.
He feels that he must prove that God exists in order to be certain that his clear and distinct perceptions are true.
These perceptions or ideas can be caused by other ideas, but there must be something more than an idea that is the cause of all ideas.
Descartes eventually deduces, that this something more is an infinite being and that this infinite being is God.
In the end, each philosopher concludes that there exists an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover.
There is a first cause to the universe for Aristotle and a first ccause of an idea for Descartes that guarantees the existence of the universe: for both, this first cause must necessarily be God.
___________________________________
Aristotle’s first science
The Metaphysics is Aristotle’s quest to discover the first science and/or its object.
This is a result of the belief that all men hold: “that what we call ‘wisdom’ is concerned with the
first causes and principles” (981b27-9).
In searching for knowledge of these first causes and principles, Aristotle’s first science emerges.
The supreme science, which is superior to any subordinate science, is the one which knows that for the sake of which each thing must be done, and this is the good in each case and, in general, the highest good in the whole of nature . . . it is evident that the name which is sought applies to the same science; for it is this science which must investigatethe first principles and causes, and the good or final cause is one of the causes (982b5-11).
_______________________________________________
It is therefore necessary to acquire knowledge of the first causes to attain this first supreme science.
Aristotle is searching for the first causes of things that exist, or beings, but the term “being” is used in many senses.
However, Aristotle claims that they are all related to one principle: some are called “being” because they are substances; some because they are in the process of becoming substances; some because they are destructions or privations or qualities of substances; others because they create substances or things related to substances (1003b5-10).
In each case, “being” is related to “substance,” which implies that the first science must somehow be a study of substances. Also, it is not only a study of being, but also whatever belongs to being.
____________________________________________________
In most sciences, each “is concerned mainly with that which is first . . . Accordingly, if this is a substance, it is of substances that the philosopher should posses the principles and the causes” (1003b16-9).
Since the principles and highest causes are being sought after, Aristotle says that they must belong to some nature in virtue of itself: “If, then, also those who were seeking the elements of things were seeking these principles, these elements too must be elements of being, not accidentally, but qua being. Accordingly, it is of being qua being that we too, must find the first causes” (1003a26-32).
Therefore, according to Aristotle, “it belongs to one science to investigate being qua being and whatever belongs to it qua being, and that the same science investigates not only substances, but also whatever belongs to substances” (1005a13-8).
This first science he develops is motivated by a desire for wisdom. This requires a pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge: to have knowledge of something, one must have knowledge of the first causes, “for we say that we understand each thing when we think
http://www.xavier.edu/classics/documents/Theses/Ross.pdf
De er bestemt ikke dumme disse philosoffer.
___________________________________________________
Platoon