Getting more into this topic, as it is one of the major things that distinguishes paganism from Judaism. Judaism started as a project to do away with all this context. This was to do away with and prevent the founding of new cults. It didn't start as monotheism but one temple ism
Monolatry doesn't filly describe it either, as it isn't just the worship of one God, but in one place, in one way, with one priesthood. This was very unusual, the only thing prior that even approached this was Akhenaten, he may have had this in mind for his new capital city.
It effectively locked the vast majority of people from even worshiping yahweh most of the time. And even if they went to Jerusalem to do so they mainly served the role of buying a sacrificial animal and handing it to the priests. Who often sold the animals in the first place.
Jews were also supposed to send tithes to the Temple even if they lived far off and may never see the thing. The Torah's D(Deuternomist) source, makes it very clear that only one place of worship is to exist, in Jerusalem. Though this is contradicted all over the text.
The Shema in Deuteronomy is taken to be the core statement of faith in Judaism. "Hear o Israel the lord your God is one lord." It literally says Yahweh your God is one Yahweh. Think about that. It's not saying there is one God, but one Yahweh.
The reason for this is that at the time, there wasn't just one Yahweh. We have archeological evidence for Yahweh of Teman, Yahweh of Samaria, in the old testament Absalom even swears by Yahweh of Hebron. There were Yahweh cults all over the place.
Tel Arad, Bethel, Shiloh, Samaria, across the Jordan even. There's a ton of evidence within the old testament for this too. There were different priesthoods and different cults to Yahweh. In the book of Judges one of the ways of worshiping him was virgins dancing in vineyards.
In traditional religion, the different cults are treated as different gods in some respects even if they are cults dedicated to the same God. This probably sounds contradictory but it isn't really. It's all about context.
How is the God worshiped in the cult, how do worshipers view the God, what aspects are emphasized, why is the God worshiped? These are the questions to ask.
Take Jupiter of the Capitol and Jupiter Tonans(thunderer). Both are Jupiter and yet they were invoked like separate entities, even said to have a kind of rivalry. When the Romans talked of Gods they'd often say the Jupiter here, or the Mars there.
Lateran Jupiter isn't Capitoline Jupiter. Different places, different contexts. Capitoline Jupiter is the protective deity of the Roman state, Jupiter Tonans is a weather deity. Different aspects of Jupiter, effectively. Grabovian Jupiter is different too, the patron of that city
The old testament fixation on doing away with idolatry is really about making sure there is but one cult and no new ones or uncontrolled ones may exist. An idol in itself is a key to a cult, especially in am ancient near eastern context.
Recall that Jacob and his retinue and family buried all their idols. There's even a place where they did so. And how Jacob's wife stole her father Laban's idols and sat on them do ge could not find them. This story is really a type expressing what the writers wanted people to do.
Individual small idols like that allowed people to have their own personal worship. They were the basis of household cults, back then anyone could have their own mini temple on a shelf or in an alcove in their house, and did. I too have my own altars at home. Here's one.
The Torah makes clear the writers want total centralization of worship. Many times it says not to make offerings yourself any place, a priest must do it for you. Even though in the actual stories people make offerings on their own all the time.
Banning idols completely was to make sure worship was totally focused in one place, Jerusalem. Standing stones, which actually were worshiped as idols, are also forbidden for this reason, even though the patriarchs(Jacob at Bethel) worshiped them.
In 2 Kings, king Hezekiah of Judah is said to have suppressed all the other shrines to Yahweh, and the high places. An envoy from Assyria mocks him, asking the king why he expects Yahweh will protect him when the king destroyed so many of the God's shrines.
His grandson Josiah destroyed Bethel, a much older Yahweh temple site than Jerusalem, and killed its priests on the altar before burning them and scattering their ashes to defile the place. This is presented as a good thing in 2 Kings but if you pay attention it really wasn't.
Anyway, to show you what I really mean I figure I need to use some more contemporary examples. You find this exact thing I have talked about today in Catholicism. It's the most pagan about it though the papists themselves will try and deny this.
Our Lady of the Pillar. Patron of Zaragoza, Spain. This is the Mary who appeared to St. James atop a pillar. I should not, the specific idols are called by these titles. The history of the idols and their consecrations are key to their cults.
When you hear about miracles they are typically associated with a specific relic or idol. Which works miracles by power within it, the original idol is always more holy too. There are other Our Lady of the Pillar idols but they are not this particular one.
Our Lady of the Hens. This particular idol is to commemorate an event in Pagani, Italy, where a mudslide destroyed a decrepit church on a mountain and carried bits of it down to the town. A painted panel of Mary was carried in the mudslide and later dug up by chickens.
Several miracles were associated with the painting, and a local cult grew up around this story. Its said that the priest was warned by a visionary that Mary would leave the church on the mountain if it wasn't repaired. He didn't listen and the mudslide happened.
Our Lady of Fatima. The manifestation of Mary associated with the apparitions and events at Fatima and the prophecies associated with it. One of these prophecies stipulates the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Virgin of Guadalupe, the Marian apparition in that place in Mexico. Worshipped as the patron of Mexico.
The Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is worship of Mary's heart full of compassion and love and faith.
With so much focus on Mary, I'm neglecting Jesus. Here's the equivalent devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. There's also one where both hearts are worshipped.
The infant Jesus has his own cult and devotions, both alone and especially paired with Mary.
This is an interesting one. The Holy Child of Atocha. It's a form of the child Jesus as a traveler, and he wears the badge associated with the Santiago pilgrimage in Spain(international pilgrimage site). He is a patron of travelers and pilgrims, as well as of prisoners.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mormon theology has Jesus, the Father, and holy ghost as three separate entities.
There's also nothing about the three degrees of glory, or the plan of salvation(as fully explained) or spirit prison in the Book of Mormon. It's pretty standard Christian stuff.
These American Israelites from millennia ago are all just protestant Christians(priestcraft is commonly attacked in the book).
There's a lot about eternal damnation and the lake of fire, which isn't big in mormon theology. Brigham Young was almost a universalist.
Hiranyakashipu seems to be consistently depicted like a man. Asuras vary between being ogre like, animal like, "demon" like, something combining all those, and being human like. Even beautiful rather than ugly looking monsters. Part of the issue I think...
....is that in later development of Hinduism asuras and rakshasas got conflated. Asura was originally a general term for deity, then got a context leaning toward the "bad deities" that oppose the vedic order deities. Then they are framed as more demonic and monstrous.
Rakshasas are there in early vedic religion too, they are night stalkers, hate the sun, can change shapes and create illusions, and eat human flesh. Both appear in puranic literature and itihasa, but asura and rakshasa start to combine, it's often hard to see a difference.
It's surface level accurate. Christianity did spawn liberalism, egalitarianism, feminism. It also indirectly made communism. The western assumption ultimately is that class is determined purely by how much money you have. This has been the case since the bourgeois rose in power.
It's horrifying to most that you can't simply buy status as a brahmin. A problem this leads to though, is that society needs those roles we deem lesser or menial. Instead of telling people those roles are divinely ordained, in western society they are considered your failure.
Especially true in America where there's a lingering idea that everyone can be a rich manager or stock player. Ignore all the work that needs done, we can import Mexicans for that.
It sounds like something later Christians backdated to justify their gentile focus. The fact that we see remains of an early conflict over gentile converts and Jewish law tells me that the founders didn't teach ditching the Torah and Jewish custom, and didn't focus on gentiles
If Jesus or whoever had went around preaching this clearly we wouldn't have seen a problem with it early on.
The epistle of James is a point for point attack on Pauline ideas. We later see attempts to have it both ways
The centurion story is probably an addition to make it look like the movement was always accepting of gentiles. But then, Jesus also called a gentile woman a dog and ignored her requests for an exorcism in another example
Before the 2nd Punic War there were no marble temples or villas in Rome. In the 180s bce the first marble temple was dedicated. It wasn't until decades later the first citizen built a like mansion. The temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was a wooden structure until...
...the 80s bce. To put this on a timeline, Julius Caesar was a young man by then and this was the most important religious site in Rome. Greek style statuary came in around the same time frame, and until then most temples had clay or wood images of the gods.
Roman society in general was devoid of most arts like theater, poetry, and sculpture. No literature, they had writing but didn't write things for entertainment. The first theater ever built in Rome was after 200 bce, and the Senate had it demolished as a threat to morality.
Greek influence did far far more than the Jews at this point.
They wouldn't have considered sex to be degeneracy. Before early modernity or so, there wasn't much sense of privacy. People in medieval towns would walk naked to go bathe
People shared beds with other people, strangers or family depending on the situation. People would have sex and use the bathroom in front of other people. This only started to change 300 years ago, a bit earlier in some places. Among the wealthier first, who could afford it.
Medieval courts of say, the 11th century had dogs running around and men fighting duels to the death. 17th century palaces like Versailles had courtiers and servants alike shitting out in the open