Meat "By faith, Abraham," and the Life of THE 'Patriarch,' to...Uh Oh!

[Mark C]

There is a man in Scripture whose name is so synonymous with patriarchy that he is often referred to by the specific article, 'The...'

His life and story is a study of what the word "faith" literally means.

And it begins in the regular reading this week with a parsha entitled "Lekh Lekha," ("get thee OUT," from the Hebrew). The fact that a 75 year-old guy hears Yahuah, takes his family and goods, and simply GOES, is but the first example of that that means.

This midrash, however, goes even deeper, and in the process explores some of the reasons why "the law is done away with," which never, ever appears in Scripture anyway, is one of the Biggest Lies in all history.

And, yes, among other things, it even debunks the rejection surrounding what Yah Himself said was His sign forever of an everlasting covenant between "every male" among his descendants, whether born directly of his seed or not: circumcision. At the very least, since He makes it so clear, there is food for thought here.

It will offend some. And that is why it's linked here, in a thread for those who choose to hear. But it will also, I hope, clarify why context, and the specifics of just "what did he know, and WHEN did he know it," are so important. Because the fact that Abraham had more than one wife, which so much of 'the church' hates almost as much as the rest of his obedience to YHVH, is at the heart of why Abraham's faith ('emunah') remains the primary example of what that word means.

Mark Call – Parsha “Lekh Lekha” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa

Join Mark Call of Shabbat Shalom Mesa fellowship for a two-part look at parsha ‘Lekh Lekha’ (Genesis chapters 12through 17) and the first installment of the life of one of THE most impo…

hebrewnationonline.com

Parsha “Lekh Lekha” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa | Come out of her, My people…

 

[TheSeeker]

Say, would you perhaps have any links to Abraham concerning his supposed phallic and sun worship?

 

[Mark C]

Say, would you perhaps have any links to Abraham concerning his supposed phallic and sun worship?

No, honestly it sounds like BS to me. (There are lots of rabbinic sources you can find on-line, I'm sure, that will probably say just the opposite. Destroying his daddy's idols, and so on.)

Anything extra-Biblical is just that.

 

[TheSeeker]

No, honestly it sounds like BS to me. (There are lots of rabbinic sources you can find on-line, I'm sure, that will probably say just the opposite. Destroying his daddy's idols, and so on.)

Anything extra-Biblical is just that.

I've been looking into this, and not only Abraham but also figures like Jacob who erected or placed stones, and I forgot who it was now who created the "stonehenge" in which Saul was consecrated as king. But many different sources, not only rabbinic, refer to these acts having been derived from phallic worship from other cultures, as the standing stone is seen as a phallus. But what I'm trying to deduce is if indeed the Hebrews used a phallic symbol for God or not, and if so, then is the command against idol worship a command against using the phallus to worship a false god?

 

[FollowingHim]

But what I'm trying to deduce is if indeed the Hebrews used a phallic symbol for God or not

Phallic symbols are referenced all through scripture - Asherah poles - and universally condemned. So no, they did not use a phallic symbol for God, at least not when worshiping him as commanded.

Stones as physical markers of sites are however mentioned frequently, mostly as boundary markers, but also in the case of Jacob to record the location of a specific event. This is very practical - even in relatively recent times milestones were used to record the distance to different locations. A stone has historically been used when a permanent record of a location is required, because it doesn't rot like the little wooden survey pegs we tend to use today for that purpose. I'm pretty sure you'll find every time a single stone is set up in scripture, it is simply a location marker.

Altars were made of multiple stones so looked nothing like a phallus.

I forgot who it was now who created the "stonehenge" in which Saul was consecrated as king

No idea what you're talking about there, you're working from some odd source material.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I've been looking into this, and not only Abraham but also figures like Jacob who erected or placed stones, and I forgot who it was now who created the "stonehenge" in which Saul was consecrated as king. But many different sources, not only rabbinic, refer to these acts having been derived from phallic worship from other cultures, as the standing stone is seen as a phallus. But what I'm trying to deduce is if indeed the Hebrews used a phallic symbol for God or not, and if so, then is the command against idol worship a command against using the phallus to worship a false god?

You have stumbled upon some bad information. Can you list your sources for this? I’m pretty sure we can debunk them quite quickly.

 

[Mark C]

Stones as physical markers of sites are however mentioned frequently, mostly as boundary markers, but also in the case of Jacob to record the location of a specific event. This is very practical - even in relatively recent times milestones were used to record the distance to different locations.

Anybody who's hiked out West knows that cairns are still common on wilderness trails, and for practical reasons: they're easy to put up from local rock, easy to see, and last for years, or more.

And the fact that HaSatan ("TheAdversary") is a plagiarist is hardly new. Far, FAR too much of 'modern religion' makes that clear. But Samuel is correct; what Yahuah condemns He is consistent, and quite clear, about.

 

[TheSeeker]

Phallic symbols are referenced all through scripture - Asherah poles - and universally condemned. So no, they did not use a phallic symbol for God, at least not when worshiping him as commanded.

Stones as physical markers of sites are however mentioned frequently, mostly as boundary markers, but also in the case of Jacob to record the location of a specific event. This is very practical - even in relatively recent times milestones were used to record the distance to different locations. A stone has historically been used when a permanent record of a location is required, because it doesn't rot like the little wooden survey pegs we tend to use today for that purpose. I'm pretty sure you'll find every time a single stone is set up in scripture, it is simply a location marker.

Altars were made of multiple stones so looked nothing like a phallus.

No idea what you're talking about there, you're working from some odd source material.

My source material is not odd, search the Pillars of Gilgal, re the "stonehenge"

 

[TheSeeker]

I must be clear in that I am not saying God is changing His law, nor am I condoning idol worship. But as I research, as I am unafraid to do, I come across different meanings and interpretations in the older languages and in the symbolism used by ancient peoples. I recognize that many things may not be true, but in the same light, many other things are true. Many early cultures were obsessed with fertility, usually when it came to farming. Some cultures worshipped false gods (basically Noah's descendants who became deified), while others, even pagan-styled cultures, worshipped only one god, attributing everything in creation to that god. It would be many years before the Hebrews came into being as a nation, from after the Flood. Noah would have taught the correct worship while his descendants like Gilgamesh taught the incorrect worship. At the scattering of people at the destruction of Babel, many different languages were spoken and thus the same stories became recounted differently. But what you see, in many of these early cultures, is this focus on fertility and I wonder, seeing that a virile man is fertile, did they not use the phallic symbol for God as well? I say this in no disrespect as that it a part of out bodies that God made. Now, many cultures erected stones or logs as these symbols. Some worshipped them as idols, but some also used it symbolically to worship God, just as we see the cross and think of Jesus today. Now hence my original question, did the ancients like Abraham not have these influences too?

Anybody who's hiked out West knows that cairns are still common on wilderness trails, and for practical reasons: they're easy to put up from local rock, easy to see, and last for years, or more.

And the fact that HaSatan ("TheAdversary") is a plagiarist is hardly new. Far, FAR too much of 'modern religion' makes that clear. But Samuel is correct; what Yahuah condemns He is consistent, and quite clear, about.

 

[TheSeeker]

If your goal is to debunk what I say, then you miss the point of discussion

You have stumbled upon some bad information. Can you list your sources for this? I’m pretty sure we can debunk them quite quickly.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If your goal is to debunk what I say, then you miss the point of discussion

If you think wild speculations won’t be debunked then you miss the point of discussion.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now hence my original question, did the ancients like Abraham not have these influences too?

You haven’t even proven these influences existed or how prevalent they were. Considering how opposed God’s Laws are to worshipping peeps, I am highly skeptical that any of the righteous Patriarchs erected phallic idols and used them in worship. We certainly aren’t told so in scripture and so cannot add it in.

 

[steve]

You haven’t even proven these influences existed or how prevalent they were.

That doesn’t need to be proven, obelisks have long been accepted as having been used as a phallic symbol.

Having one in St Peter’s Square (and many similar locations) shows proof that some of modern religion has been corrupted, but doesn’t provide any proof that the ancients were perverted.

Conjecture is not a good starting point for a reasonable discussion @TheSeeker
My question would be what is the point of such conjecture? Impugning the reputation of some of the patriarchs because “they might have” is undeserved. I believe it’s called slander.

 

[TheSeeker]

That doesn’t need to be proven, obelisks have long been accepted as having been used as a phallic symbol.

Having one in St Peter’s Square (and many similar locations) shows proof that some of modern religion has been corrupted, but doesn’t provide any proof that the ancients were perverted.

Conjecture is not a good starting point for a reasonable discussion @TheSeeker
My question would be what is the point of such conjecture? Impugning the reputation of some of the patriarchs because “they might have” is undeserved. I believe it’s called slander.

I appreciate your reply, but I am not slandering anyone. I admire our patriarchs, they were responsible for the world we have today and I honour them for it. But as we laymen are more exposed to an increasing amount of resources on our faith, these questions arise and if you call it conjecture, so be it, at least it will either lead to a proof or denial of said conjecture. Either way, it does not subtract from our forefathers, it just helps us better understand what went on then.

Peace and love

 

[TheSeeker]

If I thought these were wild speculations, I would not have posted them. Your remark that you sought to debunk what I said was arrogant. You pretend to be wise and know the answers but that leaves you in a position to be humbled. I have not claimed I've been right, I merely seek the truth. But if you come to me seeking to put what I say down, you are no more than a pharisee

 

[TheSeeker]

You haven’t even proven these influences existed or how prevalent they were. Considering how opposed God’s Laws are to worshipping peeps, I am highly skeptical that any of the righteous Patriarchs erected phallic idols and used them in worship. We certainly aren’t told so in scripture and so cannot add it in.

Please see the below excerpt from "Religions of Antiquity by C. Staniland Wake:

"The identification of Hermes or Mercury with Priapus is confirmed by the offices which the latter deity fulfilled. One of the most important was that of protector of gardens and orchards, and probably this was the original office performed by Hermes in his character of a "god of the country." 56 Figures set up as charms to protect the produce of the ground would, in course of time, be used not only for this purpose, but also to mark the boundaries of the land protected, and these offices being divided, two deities would finally be formed out of one. The Greek Hermes was connected also with the Egyptian Khem, and no less, if we may judge from the symbols used in his worship, with the Hebrew EIoah. This, in the history of the Hebrew patriarchs, we are told that when Jacob entered into a covenant with his father-in-law Laban, a pillar was set up, and a heap of stones made, 57 and Laban said to Jacob, "Behold this heap and behold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me and thee; this heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shall not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me for harm." We have here the Hermae and Hermean heap, used by the Greeks as landmarks, and placed by them on the public roads.

In the Iinga of India we have another instance of the use of the pillar-symbol. The form of this symbol is sufficiently expressive of the idea which it embodies--an idea which is more explicitly shown when the Linga and the Yoni are, as is usually the case among the worshippers of the Hindu Siva, combined to form the Lingam. The stone figure is not, however, itself a god, but only representative of a spirit 58 who is thought to be able to satisfy the yearning for children so characteristic of many primitive peoples this probably having been its original object, and the source of its use as an amulet for the protection of children against the influence of the evil eye. In course of time, however, when other property came to be coveted equally with offspring, the power to give this property would naturally be referred to the primitive phallic spirit, and hence he became, not merely the protector, as we have seen, of the produce of the fields and the guardian of boundaries, but also the god of wealth and traffic, and even the patron of thieves, as was the case with the Mercury of the Romans.

The Hebrew patriarchs desired large flocks as well as numerous descendants, and hence the symbolical pillar was peculiarly fitted for their religious rites. It is related even of Abraham, the traditional founder of the Hebrew people, that he "planted a grove (eshel) 59 in Beersheba, and called there on the name of Jehovah, the everlasting Elohim." 60 From the phallic character of the "grove" (ashera,) said to have been in the House of Jehovah, and from the evident connection between the two words, we must suppose that the eshel of Abraham also had a phallic reference. 61 Most probably the so-called "grove " of the earlier patriarch, though it may have been of wood, and the stone "bethel" of Jacob, had the same form, and were simply the betylus, 62 the primitive symbol of deity among all Semitic and many Hamitic peoples.

The participation of the Hebrew patriarchs in the rites connected with the "pillar-worship" of the ancient world, renders it extremely probable that they were not strangers to the later planetary worship. Many of the old phallic symbols were associated with the new superstition; and Abraham, being a Chaldean, it is natural to suppose that he was one of its adherents. Tradition, indeed, affirms that Abraham was a great astronomer, and, at one time at least, a worshipper of the heavenly bodies--and that he and the other patriarchs continued to be affected by this superstition is shown by various incidents related in the Pentateuch. Thus, in the description given of the sacrificial covenant between Abraham and Jehovah, it is said that, after Abraham had divided the sacrificial animals, a deep sleep fell upon him as the sun was going down, and Jehovah spoke with him. "Then, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces." The happening of this event at the moment of the sun's setting reminds us of the Sabaean custom of praying to the setting sun, still practiced, according to Palgrave, among the nomads of Central Arabia"

 

[FollowingHim]

My source material is not odd, search the Pillars of Gilgal, re the "stonehenge"

Thankyou for clarifying.

I can't see why anyone would think these 12 stones were set up as pillars. Scripture says they were each small enough for one man to carry, and just unhewn stones found in the riverbed. The probability of all 12 being long enough to act as pillars is remote. I have always assumed that when it says the 12 were "set up", it means that they were heaped up into an altar, or possibly a cairn, because it's the only practical option that would make them visible. Altars were to be made using unhewn stones like this, and Elijah made one with 12 stones in 1 Kings 18:31-32. And it is recorded that Gilgal was a place for sacrifice - Saul sacrificed there in 1 Samuel 15 - so we know there was an altar there.

So scripture points to an altar. I haven't seen anything convincing to say pillars. If I've missed something, can you point me towards it please?

 

[TheSeeker]

I'm trying to find the piece I read, when I have, I will definitely send it. But on the note of Saul, and by extension, Moses, I would like to ask that, if phallism is irrelevant, then why, in Saul's case, did he demand 100 foreskins from David (from the Philistines) as a bridal price for one of his daughters, and, in Moses' case, why was circumcision the mark of the covenant between Moses and God, which, if not carried out, risked a blood sacrifice? What other reason was there for the act of circumcision that it carried such a penalty? It definitely wasn't hygiene

 

[NVIII]

symbol of deity among all Semitic and many Hamitic peoples.

The participation of the Hebrew patriarchs in the rites connected with the "pillar-worship" of the ancient world

I don't think the leap from "symbol" to "worship" is correct. God uses symbolism extensively in His creation and commanded His people to preserve that knowledge through their traditions, but He also told them not to worship those images. While other peoples may have worshipped the created things rather than the Creator, that does not mean that the Hebrews did. Actually, we do have accounts of times when they did do that, and were punished for it. Jer 3:9 comes to mind.

While we might glean a lot of understanding about the things of God from studying the symbolism He ordained in the cock through His design and instructions for the use of it, we would be off the rails if we condoned worshipping it in place of God.

 

[TheSeeker]

I don't think the leap from "symbol" to "worship" is correct. God uses symbolism extensively in His creation and commanded His people to preserve that knowledge through their traditions, but He also told them not to worship those images. While other peoples may have worshipped the created things rather than the Creator, that does not mean that the Hebrews did. Actually, we do have accounts of times when they did do that, and were punished for it. Jer 3:9 comes to mind.

While we might glean a lot of understanding about the things of God from studying the symbolism He ordained in the cock through His design and instructions for the use of it, we would be off the rails if we condoned worshipping it in place of God.

I agree that we should never worship the creation; we should only, ever worship the Creator, and I'm not seeking to discredit our patriarchs (they all had their fair share of wrongdoing, but I'm not trying to make the Bible say something that isn't true). But indeed what I am trying to do is find out how our patriarchs actually viewed God. For us today, it's very easy, given Jesus' accounts of God. But imagine coming out of, say the Chaldean culture in Abraham's case, where you grew up with a certain group think, and you acted in certain ways and recognized certain things and so on, and now, you worship the one true God. Surely one's human experience gives an insight into what one thinks resembles God.