Live data from Hacker News

What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

newyorker.com

21–25 of 25 posts

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#21
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects…

> Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later. Good point. There are many "local versions" of Mary, for example, in Latin America. All of them display unique traits ind…

Haitian "voodoo" is the result of combining African religious beliefs with Catholicism by slaves they could continue to practice their religion in secret. A similar process happened with Christianity in Japan after it was outlawed - it took on the appearance of local Shinto and Buddhist practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Vodou

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? E…

>So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the…

> I consider it "modern"

You can use words however you like, of course, but others may struggle to understand your perspective if your usage is novel and/or strained. General consensus is the early modern period of theological development in Christian history began in the 1500s.

> To an outsider there is little if any difference

Fine, but… two people could be sitting at similar looking computers, one playing Minesweeper while the other is doing chemical engineering in MATLAB. There are objective differences in those human activities. If someone insisted they are doing pseudo-same-thing, it would be fair to say that’s a stretch and tends toward missing the point. But I do (maybe) understand what you mean: inculturation was a real phenomenon as Christianity spread Eastward and Westward.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

This is entirely incorrect about Jewish belief.

Care to correct what is/are wrong? By mentioning something are incorrect do not make them incorrect without proof, and the points must be based on the primary scriptures and religious references not whimsical feeling and anecdotal references. I'm merely stating the facts that I gathered and understood based on my acquired knowledge. Admittedly, I can be wrong on these matters but not until it's proven.

While waiting for your forthcoming answers, allow me to guess one of the contentions, if I may. Based on my comments, it will be that the Jews were awaiting for these three prophesized prophets at the time of Jesus arrival based originally on the Old Testament. Based on the Quran and muslim tradition, the two of them are Jesus the Messiah (literally Christ or Christos in Greek, or the Annointed One in English), and the other is "prophet similar to Moses" namely the final messenger/prophet Muhammad.

These are the verses from the Bible New Testament recording that the Jews around the time of Jesus arrival were actively waiting for these three prophesized prophets [1].

"(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

(20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No."

Based on Jewish scripture and also the Old Testament (Deutronomy 18), the latter or the third prophesized prophet is similar in profiles and characters to Moses [2].

Muhammad fits this very description like a glove, since both Moses and Muhammad are very similar.

They both:

1) triumphed over their enemies 2) performed migration/exodus/hijrah 3) died not in the birthplace 4) died natural deaths 5) got married 6) had children 7) led their people 8) established new laws (Sharia) 9) engaged in warfare 10) became prophet at around 40 years old, etc

It's not very clear from the New Testament but in the original Jewish scripture the verse mentioned "brethren of the Israelites" - as a reference to Muhammad, who is a descendant of Ishmael (brother of Isaac/ancestor of Israelites). Please note that from the Torah part of the Tanakh, the provided interpretation of the word "brethren" is from fellow Israelites (but not the verse itself) [3].

The Dead Dea Scrolls version of these verses provided by the following translations [4]. Interestingly there are 30 physical copies of the Deuteronomy in the collection, and apparently it is one of the very popular chapters hidden inside the caves of Qumran.

"(18) I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.

(19) It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him"

Fun facts, Muhammad is an illiterate person, he cannot read and only recite the Quran exactly as conveyed verbatim to him from the God via the the archangel Gabriel.

Another fun facts, every chapters in the Quran (except Surah At-Tawbah) begin in the God's name or Bismillah ("In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful").

Another extra fun facts, Moses by far is the most frequently mentioned name in the Quran (136), and Jesus or Isa appeared only 25 times. Please note that Isa is the actual Aramaic/Arabic name of Jesus since letter J is the a medieval Latin invention not present in ancient or modern Greek. But if we include Jesus other names referred in the Quran in addition to Isa, namely Ibn Maryam (son of Maryam) and Al-Masih (The Messiah or Christ), it will be tied second with Abraham at 69.

[1] John 1:19-21:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%3A19-2...

[2] Deuteronomy (18:15–18)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%201...

[3] Deuteronomy 18:15:

https://tanakh.info/dt18-15

[4] Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Translations:

https://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2018.htm

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#25
post #8

> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?

I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade. But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and…

Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity.

Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes.

Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.

Post reply on HN