Dr. Kreeft is responsible for my conversion after exchanging a few e-mails with me; the Holy Spirit used Him to draw me in, and I am eternally grateful. God bless you, Dr. Kreeft, you continue to inspire me ten years later!
Feels so good! I'm about to go where nobody goes and you're about to be where nobody's been, and it's about to seem impossibly real. And it feels so good! It feels so good! ............IT FEELS SO GOOD!!! POLYTHEISTIC REMNANTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE The significance of the original gods of the Israelites, particularly the supreme deity El ‘Elyon’ (Most High), is evident in their very identity: The name “Israel” originates from the Hebrew word Yisra’el (יִשְׂרָאֵל), which derives from the verb sarah (שָׂרָה), meaning “to contend” or “to rule,” and the name 'El' (אֵל), referring to the Canaanite god El. Yisra’el translates as: “El Will Rule.” Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים, romanized: ʾĔlōhīm: [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]), the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (ʾĔlōah), is a Hebrew word meaning “gods” or “godhood”. Remnants of polytheism can still be found in the early Hebrew Bible, especially within the use of plural language, as seen in several key passages. In Genesis 1.26, God says: “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” Who is the “Us” here? Again, in Genesis 3.22: “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.’” And in Genesis 11.7 (The Tower of Babel): “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” In Isaiah 6.8, we find another example of this plural usage: “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’” These passages provide insight into the vestiges of a polytheistic worldview, where divine plurality, perhaps referencing a council of gods or heavenly beings, remains present within the language of the text. Critiquing the “Royal We” Hypothesis: Some scholars argue that God’s use of plural pronouns like “Us” in Genesis reflects the so-called “royal we” - a majestic plural used by monarchs and rulers to convey authority. However, this explanation is anachronistic, projecting a medieval European linguistic construct onto ancient Hebrew texts. The “Royal We” is a product of human kingship, not divine beings, and does not align with the cultural or linguistic context of the ancient Near East. Alternatively, some Christian apologists claim that these plural pronouns are a reference to the Trinity - God speaking to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. However, this view imposes later Christian theology onto much older Hebrew scriptures, and there is no textual evidence to support such an interpretation in the ancient context. Instead, the plural language is a theme found in other biblical texts suggesting that early Israelite religion was more polytheistic in nature before evolving into strict monotheism. Divine Council Psalm 82.1-7 (NKJV): God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” Psalm 82.1-7 (NRSVUE) God has taken his place in the divine council; In the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Here, we encounter a clear depiction of a divine council, or Hebrew: בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים,’Bene Ha-Elohim’ (sons of God), a concept mentioned repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible. This council is composed of heavenly beings who hold court with the Most High. A popular example of this appears in Job 1.6, where the divine council assembles, and ‘the adversary’ (ha-satan) appears among them: “One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (NRSVUE) “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (KJV) This assembly of divine beings is typically translated as ‘sons of God’ (Bene Ha-Elohim), though some translations, like the NIV, render it as ‘angels.’ However, this is technically a poor translation, since the Hebrew word for 'angels' is ‘malakhim’, meaning ‘messengers,’ which is distinct from the ‘Bene Ha-Elohim.’ The term 'malakhim' (מלאכים) appears frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) when referring to angelic beings. In the War Scroll (1QM), 1QM 12.7-9 states: “For the God of Israel has called out a sword against all the nations, and by the hand of those who try his strength shall the malakhim of destruction battle; the war shall continue until the annihilation of all the enemy armies. The ‘angels’ (malakhim) of destruction shall move forward, striking down those who plot evil and wickedness.” (1QM 12.7-9) However, the beings portrayed as a divine council of powerful entities are not mere messengers but hold authority in the heavenly court, as reflected in Psalm 82.1,6-8, where they are judged by God (Elohim). Though these beings are called children of the ‘Most High’ (Elyon), they are condemned to die like mortals, reflecting Yahweh’s supremacy over all other divine entities. The ESV also uses ‘sons of God,’ which is a literal translation of ‘Bene Ha-Elohim.’ ‘God’ (Elohim) has taken his place in the ‘Divine Council’ (adat-el); in the midst of the ‘gods’ (elohim) he holds judgment: I say, “You are ‘gods’ (elohim), children of the ‘Most High’ (Elyon), all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Rise up, O ‘God’ (Elohim), judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you! (NRSVUE) Here they are called the ‘council’ (adat) rather than ‘sons’ (bene) of El/Elohim, but it’s just a different name for the same group of heavenly beings - that they are heavenly and not mortals is clear in the curse Yahweh throws at them: Though they are sons of Elyon, nevertheless they will die like mortals. In the ancient world, every nation had a god. Yahweh was the god of Israel, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Melqart was the god of Tyre, Baal was the god of Ugarit, etc. Here, Yahweh is declaring the other gods dead. This is a reversal of the situation in Deuteronomy 32.8-9, in which Yahweh receives Israel as inheritance from the Most High, his superior ‘El.’: When the ‘Most High’ (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided ‘humankind’ (Bene Adam), he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the ‘gods’ (elohim); the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSVUE) Some interpret this verse as referring to mortals rather than a divine council, but this view is poorly supported. John Day, in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, asserts that the reading ‘sons of God’ (Bene Ha-Elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin, and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambr. Or. 939. This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the Masoretic Text’s ‘sons of Israel’ (Bene Yisra’el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase ‘sons of God’. Deuteronomy 32.8-9 Comparative Translation NRSVUE (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) Deuteronomy 32.8-9 When the ‘Most High’ (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided ‘humankind’ (Bene Adam), he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the ‘gods’ (elohim); the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutj) Deuteronomy 32.8-9 (DSS, 4QDeutj) When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'elohim). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance. Greek Septuagint LXX (Septuagint with “Sons of God” Translation) Deuteronomy 32.8-9 (LXX, bny 'elohim) When the Most High divided the nations, as he dispersed the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the sons of God (huioi theou); but the Lord’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.
Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be seventy nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also seventy in number. This emerges from the table of nations in Genesis 10, where there are seventy nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were seventy guardian angels of the nations. Not incidentally At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of the ‘seventy sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (sbm bn atrt, KTU). Since Asherah was El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were seventy in number. Mark S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism The number of gods perhaps survives in the later Jewish notion of the seventy angels, on for each of the world’s putatively seventy peoples (1 Enoch 89.59, 90.22-25; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Deut 32.8, bT. Shabbat 88b; Sukkah 55b). From the Qumran fragments: an early passage where the name “El Elyon” is exclusively used: Genesis 14.18-20 (DSS, 4QGenh) 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; and he was the priest of El Elyon. 19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram by ‘El Elyon, Creator of heaven and earth,’ 20 and blessed be El Elyon, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. El/Elohim/Elyon is the original god of Israel. It’s even in the name: Isra’el. El was also the chief deity in Ugarit. Ugarit was a city to the north of Israel, which was abandoned before the nation of Israel was even built, at the end of the Bronze Age. The language is closely related to Israel’s, academics always learn Biblical Hebrew before learning Ugaritic, and their religion has many similar features as well, only they are polytheistic. Scholars say that Israelite religion and Ugaritic religion both have a common West Semitic ancestor. The leading theory is that Yahweh worship originated in the south around Edom, then he is grafted onto the Israelite pantheon headed by El and Asherah, eventually becoming recognized as the Most High and synonymous with El (hence inscriptions like “Yahweh and his Asherah” found at Kuntillet Ajrud and the biblical mentions of her idols in Israel, particularly in the temple). The “sons of God” are a vestigial pantheon that the simulacra, Yahweh absorbs from the gods, especially El & Baal, when they merge. John Day on Yahweh’s Origins Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised about where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3,7). There has been an increasing tendency to locate Mt Sinai and Kadesh in N.W. Arabia rather than the Sinai Peninsula itself. The former view, long held by German scholars, has been supported by evidence of a civilization in the Hejaz area in N.W. Arabia (Midian) in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. Also, the epithet ‘Yahweh of Teman’ in one of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions fits in with this. References to the Shasu Yahweh in Egyptian texts alongside the Shasu Seir may also be cited in support. Connection to El Several epithets of El found in Genesis - such as El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Bethel, and El-Elyon - can be traced back to the worship of the Canaanite god El. Scholars like Eissfeldt have noted parallels between the promises made to the Hebrew patriarchs and those given by El to figures like Keret and Aquat in Ugaritic texts. Although the patriarchal narratives are not considered historical, they likely reflect aspects of pre-monarchic Hebrew religion, with later texts overlaying earlier traditions. The name “Israel” itself, meaning “El will rule,” attested on the 13th-century BCE Merneptah Stele, underscores El’s early significance. Additionally, before the monarchy, theophoric names incorporating ‘El’ were common, while explicitly Yahwistic names were rare - apart from a few, such as Joshua. El’s Influence on Yahweh Though El and Yahweh were initially separate deities, their eventual merging raises questions about how El influenced Yahweh’s portrayal. John Day outlines several key points. For instance, El was known as the “Father of Years” in Ugaritic texts, a title reflecting his status as an aged deity, often depicted with grey hair. This imagery carries over to Yahweh in passages like Job 36.26 and Psalm 102.25, where Yahweh is referred to as El, and in Job 10.5, where he is called Eloah. Daniel 7.9 further connects Yahweh to El’s age-related traits, depicting him as the “Ancient of Days” alongside the “one like a son of man” - a figure Day identifies with Baal, El’s son. Moreover, El’s wisdom is another trait transferred to Yahweh, reflected in texts like Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28. Yahweh’s Appropriation of El’s Creator Role It is clear that Yahweh’s identity as a creator was influenced by El. Genesis 14.19,22 refers to El Elyon, “creator (qoneh) of heaven and earth,” while Deuteronomy 32.6 echoes this with “Is not he your father, who created you (qaneka)?” The verb qnh, used outside the Bible, highlights El’s role as a creator. These passages show Yahweh’s assimilation of El’s creative language and traits. The name ‘Elkanah’ (elqana), meaning “God [El] has created,” further reflects El’s early influence on Israelite religion (1 Sam. 1.1). This connection between El and Yahweh is reinforced by Deuteronomy 32.8-9, which refers to the “sons of God,” drawing from the idea of the seventy sons of El in Canaanite religion. El and Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible Not every instance of “El” in the Hebrew Bible necessarily refers to Yahweh’s Canaanite predecessor. Over time, El simply became a generic term for ‘God’ in many parts of the Old Testament. For example, Yahweh’s title as a “jealous God” (el qanna) is distinctively Yahwistic and has little to do with the Canaanite El. Similarly, many occurrences of El reflect a general reference to God, rather than a connection to the Canaanite pantheon. Some scholars, like John Day, suggest Eden or Paradise may have originated from El’s throne at the ‘source of the waters.’ Other aspects of the El cult, such as his consort Asherah and ‘bull imagery’ (the golden calf), were adopted by many Israelites but later rejected by the Hebrew Bible. Footnote: The inclusion of “Lord” in some translations (like the MT) was a later addition, while the DSS and Septuagint retain the more original reading of El Elyon without YHWH. This reflects a time before Israelite religion fully transitioned to monotheism, where Yahweh was considered the only god. As we unravel the traces of polytheism within the Bible, we are confronted with a broader question: if the conception of God evolved over time, can we still rely on the Bible as a source of divine truth? In the next section, we will investigate how these revelations, combined with scientific and philosophical critique, challenge the traditional belief in God’s existence. Key sources: • Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000). • Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2002).
EXTRABIBLICAL: ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORY Archaeological evidence and historical texts provide key insights into the origins and development of Yahweh worship, tracing it to southern Canaanite, Midianite, and Edomite groups before its absorption into Israelite religion. Yahweh and the Shasu Nomads The association of Yahweh with the Shasu nomads primarily comes from Egyptian sources, which are some of the earliest references to Yahweh outside the Bible. • Amenhotep III’s Inscription (14th century BCE): Egyptian records mention a group of Shasu nomads referred to as the “Shasu of Yhw(h)”, indicating an early recognition of Yahweh as a deity associated with these nomadic people. The Soleb Inscription, from the reign of Amenhotep III, is considered one of the earliest extra-biblical references to Yahweh, placing him in the region of Edom or Midian (Levy, Shasu Nomads and Yahweh, 1990). • Ramesses II’s Topographical Lists (13th century BCE): Later, under Pharaoh Ramesses II, Yahweh is again mentioned in Egyptian records. The “Land of the Shasu of Yhw(h)” is listed as a geographic location in the southern Levant, reinforcing the connection between the Shasu nomads and early Yahweh worship (Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003). Scholars such as John Day argue that the Shasu brought the worship of Yahweh from the southern desert regions into Canaan, where it was gradually incorporated into the Israelite religious framework (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 2000). This theory aligns with the descriptions of Yahweh as a warrior god in the oldest biblical texts, such as the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and Habakkuk 3, where Yahweh is portrayed as a storm god originating from the south. Theophoric Names and Yahweh’s Spread The theophoric use of Yahweh’s name - Yahu or Yaho - appears in Amorite and Egyptian names dating back to the Late Bronze Age. This suggests that Yahweh was already a known deity in the region before being adopted by the Israelites (Smith, The Early History of God, 2002). Inscriptions like those found at Kuntillet Ajrud further support the theory that Yahweh was worshiped alongside other Canaanite deities, including Asherah, who may have been considered Yahweh’s consort at the time. Southern Origins of Yahwism Linguistic studies and biblical texts further suggest that Yahweh’s cult originated in the southern regions of Canaan, particularly among the Midianites and Edomites. Mark S. Smith points out that the oldest layers of Israelite religion likely involved Yahweh being integrated into the Canaanite pantheon, where "El" was the chief deity (Smith, The Early History of God). This syncretic worship can be seen in passages like Deuteronomy 32.8-9, where Yahweh is given Israel as his portion, but El ‘Elyon’ (Most High) is described as the original deity dividing the nations. The merging of El and Yahweh in the biblical narrative illustrates a theological evolution. Over time, Yahweh was elevated from a regional god to the national deity of Israel, absorbing many of El’s characteristics, such as creator and supreme judge. This process is evidenced by the remnants of polytheism found in texts like Psalm 82, where Yahweh stands among other gods. Political and Religious Consolidation The political rise of the kingdom of Judah played a significant role in the spread and consolidation of Yahweh worship. The reigns of kings like Hezekiah and Josiah were marked by religious reforms that sought to centralize worship around Yahweh alone, eliminating local shrines to Baal, Asherah, and other Canaanite deities (Dever, Did God Have a Wife?). These reforms were part of the broader Deuteronomistic movement, which pushed for exclusive worship of Yahweh, as seen in texts like Deuteronomy 12, which mandates a single place of worship for Yahweh. This process of religious centralization was accelerated by the Assyrian destruction of Israel in 722 BCE, which spurred a theological crisis for the Israelites. Many saw the downfall of the northern kingdom as divine punishment for their polytheistic practices, and this led to a renewed emphasis on strict Yahwism in the southern kingdom of Judah. The Role of the Babylonian Exile The Babylonian Exile (587 BCE) was another key moment in the development of Yahweh’s monotheistic worship. During their exile, the Israelites came into contact with Zoroastrian monotheism, which worshiped the supreme god Ahura Mazda. William G. Dever argues that concepts such as cosmic dualism, eschatology, and angelology in post-Exilic Jewish texts were likely influenced by Zoroastrian beliefs (Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 2005). This exposure to Persian monotheism influenced Jewish theology, particularly in the writings of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55), where Yahweh is portrayed as the one true universal god, responsible for both creation and the ordering of the cosmos (Isaiah 45.7). The development of Satan as a distinct adversarial figure in later Jewish and Christian texts may also have roots in Zoroastrian ideas of cosmic conflict between good and evil (Smith, The Early History of God). Archaeological Evidence of Yahweh’s Evolution Archaeology continues to uncover evidence of Israel’s religious transition from polytheism to monotheism. Excavations have revealed artifacts, including inscriptions and figurines, that depict a gradual shift in the worship of deities like Asherah and Baal toward the exclusive worship of Yahweh (Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed). One of the most significant finds is the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions, which depict Yahweh alongside Asherah, reflecting an earlier stage of Israelite religion where Yahweh was part of a pantheon. The Israelites commonly used theophoric names incorporating 'El,' while Yahwistic names were rarely used, further illustrating that the transition to exclusive Yahwism was gradual and took place over centuries. John Day notes that even in the period of the kings, Yahweh was likely worshiped in different forms, depending on the region and local religious practices. The evidence from archaeology, Egyptian records, and biblical texts paints a picture of Yahweh as a deity who emerged from the southern Levant, likely among the Shasu nomads and Midianite tribes. His worship spread into Israelite religion, where he was initially one god among many. Over time, Yahweh absorbed the characteristics of El and became the dominant deity in the evolving monotheistic framework of Israelite religion. The transformation of Yahweh from a local warrior god to the supreme creator and moral authority was shaped by political, social, and theological developments across centuries, influenced by external cultures like the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. As we’ve explored, the history and archaeology surrounding Yahweh’s origins offer valuable insights into the development of his worship. However, in addition to the extrabiblical evidence, the Hebrew Bible itself contains traces of an even earlier religious context. In the next section, we’ll delve into these polytheistic remnants within the Hebrew scriptures, which reveal a more intricate theological evolution. Key Sources: • Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000). • Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2002). • Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001). • Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (2005). • Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003).
DOUBTING GOD'S EXISTENCE AFTER RESEARCH Based on extensive research, concluding that God is not real is a rational response to the inconsistencies and flaws in the scriptures, as well as the lack of empirical evidence supporting divine intervention, as described in Abrahamic religious traditions. God is a human invention. This perspective is supported by inconsistencies, anachronisms, and contradictions within the Christian Bible, Hebrew Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah, and Quran. Furthermore, scientific advancements, archaeological discoveries, and historical scholarship have consistently undermined the claims made by these texts. Below are several key reasons why: 1. Flat Earth Cosmology The Bible, like many ancient texts, reflects the cosmological views of its time, including the idea of a flat earth. Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th-century Christian monk, promoted this concept in his work Topographia Christiana, which drew on biblical cosmology. While certain passages, such as Isaiah 40.22 (“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”), are often cited as evidence of a more spherical view, this “circle” could refer to a flat disk rather than a globe. Moreover, the depiction of “four corners of the earth” in Revelation 7.1 reinforces this flat-earth view. The absence of any advanced cosmological understanding in the Bible stands in contrast to modern scientific knowledge about the shape and structure of the earth. 2. Incompatible Prophecies The Bible contains multiple prophecies that are incompatible with one another. For instance, the Messiah is described as both a human descendant of David (e.g., Isaiah 11.1-3, Jeremiah 23.5) and as a divine figure (e.g., Isaiah 9.6, which refers to the Messiah as “Mighty God”). John 1.1-14 goes further by identifying Jesus as the divine “Word” who became flesh, creating tension between the Jewish and Christian messianic expectations. Moreover, there are discrepancies regarding Jesus’ birthplace. Micah 5.2 prophesies that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, yet Matthew 2.23 implies that Jesus was from Nazareth, even referencing a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene - though no such prophecy exists in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have pointed out the difficulties in reconciling these conflicting prophecies and their later interpretations. 3. Historical Inaccuracies Biblical accounts often contradict historical and archaeological evidence. The conquest of Jericho, described in Joshua 6, is one such example. Archaeological excavations conducted by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s revealed that Jericho’s walls had been destroyed centuries before the alleged Israelite conquest, undermining the biblical timeline. Similarly, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, recounted in Genesis 19, lacks substantial archaeological corroboration. Excavations near the Dead Sea have not uncovered definitive evidence that these cities existed or were destroyed in the manner described. Archaeologist William G. Dever, who specializes in Israelite history, has argued that many of these stories are etiological myths rather than historical accounts. 4. Anthropomorphic God The Bible portrays God with distinctly human-like qualities, including emotions such as anger (Psalm 78.21), jealousy (Exodus 20.5), and regret (Genesis 6.6, 1 Samuel 15.35). These anthropomorphic descriptions are at odds with later theological views that depict God as an incorporeal, transcendent being, as developed in the works of theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides. This shift from a personal, relatable deity to an abstract, distant one highlights the evolving nature of God’s portrayal across the ages. The God who “walks” in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3.8) contrasts sharply with the unknowable and infinite deity later embraced in Christian and Jewish thought. 5. Lack of Empirical Evidence Despite millennia of belief, there remains no empirical evidence to support the existence of God or the supernatural events described in scripture. Prominent thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have pointed out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet none has been forthcoming. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that religious claims about God’s intervention in the world should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis. The absence of observable, verifiable phenomena supporting divine intervention casts further doubt on the validity of religious claims. Scholarly Perspectives Scholars from various fields, including archaeology, history, and biblical studies, have questioned the Bible’s reliability and its portrayal of God. Some key contributions include: • Julius Wellhausen and his documentary hypothesis, which proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is a composite work drawn from four distinct sources (J, E, P, and D) written by different authors over centuries. Wellhausen’s theory highlights the literary development of the Bible and explains many of its inconsistencies. • Martin Noth and The Deuteronomistic History, which argues that much of the historical narrative from Deuteronomy to Kings was composed during the Babylonian exile. Noth’s work further suggests that the biblical writers had theological agendas that shaped their interpretation of Israel’s history. • Archaeological findings by scholars like Israel Finkelstein have questioned the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Finkelstein’s work, detailed in The Bible Unearthed, suggests that many of the events described in the Bible were either exaggerated or invented to forge a national identity for the Israelites. Consequences of Non-Belief While belief in God may offer comfort or moral guidance, a non-theistic worldview grounded in rational inquiry provides its own benefits: 1. Scientific Progress: Without the need for supernatural explanations, humanity has been able to make incredible advancements in understanding the natural world. The scientific method, driven by empirical observation and testing, has led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and our understanding of the cosmos. Carl Sagan’s works, including Cosmos, emphasize the importance of skepticism and evidence-based inquiry in driving scientific progress. 2. Ethical Frameworks: Secular ethics, such as humanism and utilitarianism, offer a rational basis for moral decision-making. Humanism, for example, emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals, promoting compassion and justice without relying on divine command. Utilitarianism, as developed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, providing a pragmatic approach to ethical dilemmas. 3. Personal Autonomy: Without the constraints of divine authority, individuals are free to make choices based on reason and personal responsibility. Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche explored the implications of living in a “godless” world, arguing that embracing personal freedom and responsibility allows for a more authentic and meaningful existence. As we’ve explored the origins of biblical texts, their polytheistic remnants, and the challenges posed by modern scholarship, it becomes clear that the Bible cannot be taken as literal or infallible truth. Instead, it reflects the changing views of a people grappling with their understanding of the divine. While this realization may shake the foundations of faith for some, it opens the door to new perspectives. Rather than relying on ancient dogmas, we can embrace a world governed by reason, empathy, and humanistic values. In this pursuit, we find that life’s meaning and morality are ours to shape, free from the constraints of the past. Key Sources: • Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1883). • Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History (1943). • Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001). • Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (2006). • Sagan, Carl. Cosmos (1980).
Peter Kreeft is like (and I mean this in the best possible) a wise old anthropomorphic tortoise out of a child’s novel who gives the dejected protagonist the hope he needs to carry on. God bless you, Dr. Kreeft for all the work you have and continue to do for Him and the great intellectual tradition of Western Civilization.
Totally agree! I would add Jimmy Akin to that list. Though I have to say, his new speech, dropping the "ing" and saying dudnt instead of doesn't is hard to listen to. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does. Clearly, it's my problem to get over, not his. He is free to speak any way that he would like. So go ahead, add him to the list! He is truly a gifted man when it comes to intelligence. So what if he has a new speech problem! (Ha, couldn't resist!)🤗
God lets us experience sorrow in order to maximize our joy. What a profound thought just moments into their conversation. I could listen to Dr. Kreeft all day.
“There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of life. "Live, then, and be happy, beloved children of my heart, and never forget, that until the day God will deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is contained in these two words, 'Wait and Hope.” - The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
Interesting... does this mean that the devil exists only so that there can be a god? Like, where there is light there has to be dark, yin and yang etc... But if so, God only exists so that there can be a devil and is therefore responsible for his existence. God created the devil.
Protestant here who's loved your recent slate of guests. Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are always good to listen to, and I'm a big Chosen fan so I enjoyed Jonathan Roumie too. Keep up the good work!
@@orionxtc1119 He's wrong about MANY things...that's why I could careless about philosophy. He's more of a theologian and believes God is Jesus and Christianity and Hell is real. Naive
I am female. I just finished a Bible study lesson in Matthew chapter 9. It was very powerful. Then I came to this podcast and found myself laughing hysterically at the discussion of vanity. As I am 69 years old and physical reality is now taking over, I have struggled with that. I have handed it over to Jesus. He will fix it (vanity and self-loathing) when it’s time is due. But I had to laugh at the synchronicity of this discussion as the exemplification of my vanity, just, moments before hearing it, had taken place! God is great! He has a tremendously wonderful sense of humor! God is GOOD!!
I am going through really bad depression due to childhood trauma and now having no income, going to different interviews with no answers. My significant other doesn't hug me, kiss me or even talk to me when he comes home. All i can do is smile at him and pray for the best. This conversation is the sweetest, most simple ways of looking into life. I thank God everyday to be alive another day even though it hurts to go through the cycles. I thank God for having people like you and your guests to have these incredible, wholesome yet human conversations that i wish i can have with my loved ones. I'm just lucky i have my therapist to talk to and try to help me out of this cave. Thank you for your conversations, it helps me that i'm not alone in some sense. 🙏
@@akira797 You should not cohabit with people who aren't your spouse, it is a serious sin. It is better to become married asap. I hope your therapist is a good Catholic because otherwise they can send you the wrong way
If you are a fan of Pints to Aquinas because every now and then, there’s a conversation that allows you to become a fly on a wall in a room where two old friends are meeting to chat over a cup of coffee, this episode is for you.
I can listen to Dr. Peter Kreeft all day..He influenced me to look into Catholicism deeply, so that i could understand thoroughly. Much love and appreciation..
This is an amazing conversation. I’ve woken up at 3am so I look through utube. Am I guided to listen to this . I’m going through a bad time at the moment in my life . I ask God to help me with this struggle and for some reason I wake up and chose randomly for something to listen to so I can go back to sleep . Wow !!!
Like me, I was baptised Catholic as a baby. When going to mass, the priest told me, "Then your Catholic, you just need confirmation. And I did last Easter st age 60.
1:10:10 Some of the best advice I’ve received was along these lines. It was from a friend with Cerebral Palsy. We’d just gotten to a bar and sat down ready to order drinks. We hadn’t had anything to drink yet. We were both sober. Yet, the bouncer told the bartender to flag my friend and not serve him, because he walked in with a gait (remember, he has cerebral palsy). I was so angry for him and wanted to give the bouncer a piece of my mind. My friend remained perfectly calm, and insisted I sit down, get myself something to drink, and we go on with our night. He wasn’t upset. He was used to people making wrong assumptions about him. His advice was this: “you can’t live life trying to police stupid people” - Mr. Kreeft is right on. That wisdom drives away bitterness & disappointment in dealing with other people!
@@AquinasBased I wouldn’t say he was stupid. I also wouldn’t say he made an educated guess. In my opinion, to make an educated guess, you need more info than the way a person walks. He didn’t stop us to talk or try to determine if we could carry on a conversation that was coherent. He never got close enough to see if we smelled like alcohol. He barely even greeted us, before jumping to the wrong conclusion and acting upon it. Was he stupid? I prefer not to label ppl that way. But did he act in stupidity, or ignorance, or haste? Absolutely. That’s the point I was making. There is peace in accepting you can’t police people’s stupid behaviors or actions.
Hands down one of the most influential "podcasts" ive ever heard. What profound wisdom sits in 3 hours. I will be back and rewatch whole thing. This gave me so many things to look up 😅
The first real apologetics book I ever read was Peter Kreeft’s Christianity for Modern Pagans and it reshaped my whole life. He’s one of my favorite people in this world. Thanks for so many interviews with him that are never the same interview!
I was recently thinking something similar to Dr. Kreeft's point about protestants and purgatory (around 1:34). Protestants are pretty quick to talk about sanctification, the lifelong process of being formed into the image of Christ which is to be completed, to our holyness, at death. The hangup with understanding purgatory (besides the "pop-culture" depictions of it) is that we protestants don't speak latin. It comes from the word 'purgation,' as in 'the purging of.' Clearly there's no raising to holiness without the casting off of sin; there's no refining by fire without burning off the dross. Sanctification and purgation are two sides of a single coin. Best regards, Grant
A slogan of the father who's kids I babysat many years ago was "perfume and paints makes a girl what she ain'ts. " It was seared into my subconscious. When I wear makeup, I use the lightest hand. I have very little color naturally.
Some of Matt’s questions remind me of the Seinfeld episode where George is taking care of a senior citizen as a part of a program and the guys positive attitude to life makes George crazy and he starts asking all these questions like how can you be so happy when you’re so old etc.
I truly don’t understand the desire to remain young. I’m 31 years old right now. I have absolutely no desire to remain young. With each passing day I’m one day closer to meeting my Creator as long as I don’t mess it up. My aging will be the physical reminder of this. It seems like one of the greatest blessings I could hope for.
I love Peter's analogy! Courage is when you are a hobbit, and you have the strength to be surrounded by orcs, lol. I'm paraphrasing yet, he bought up a good point that we can have insane courage. Sometimes we just have to do what we have to do. Love it. Great show, I'm really enjoying this while working. Subscribed.
I thought it not possible to love and respect Dr. Kreeft more than I already do, and then he mentions the very obscure, incredible SF author Cordwainer Smith . . .
I love this. I remember being enamored as a kid that things exist and I was wondered why no one was talking about it. Turns out, people have been thinking and talking about it for centuries
Back to handwriting essays and research in the library with actual books. Write the notes and the work in computer free libraries. Like back in the day lol
It sounds like Peter and Matt were talking about the same Twilight Zone episode, "A Nice Place to Visit". Its also not St. Peter, but a being named Pip who he erroneously thinks is his Guardian Angel, but of course, the big wham line is, "Heaven? Whatever gave you the idea you were in Heaven, Mr. Valentine? This IS the other place!"
Former Calvinist. Augustine is a great gateway to reach those coming from that background, being the most revered of the Church Fathers due to his perceived proximity to their notion of Justification by Faith and Predestination. Once drawn into Augustine, I began to wonder, was he not saved? Yet he has all of these other beliefs I would normally have thought incompatible with Christianity as I knew it? Surely he was as were others before the Reformation. Augustine is a great wedge to open the door to conversation because he is typically "assumed to have been of the elect" by Calvinists.
I wear makeup when I perform on stage so people can see my facial expressions from the crowd. I like to tell the stories of the lyrics with my face so I don’t want anyone to miss what story I’m telling.
I wish I was in the room to ask questions. As a protestant, I about fell out of my chair over some of the flippant comments much as if a protestant said the eucharist wasn't actually a big deal. I love my Catholic siblings so I always seek encounters to explore dialogue. Much like when his mother put to bed he and his father's arguments of purgatory. I find Eastern theology much easier to square with my own in general. Catholics see some things beautifully and others, it feels like someone whom you love who gets drunk often. You feel confused how they can reconcile the choices.
Budweiser was sold to InBev in July 2008, as part of the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch, for approximately $70 per share. The deal was finalized in October 2008, creating AB InBev.
A horror movie that scared me so much as a kid was The Langoliers. Psychologically it’s a mystery thriller however when they show what the bad things are the end the movie loses its fear factor as it looks very cheesy.
Great Philosophy: Here is one of mine: What can one learn from a dog? A dog cannot remember yesterday's dinner, she cannot imagine tomorrow's dinner, but she greatly enjoys today's dinner from the moment that she starts to smell it.
Holy smokes! Kreeft is smokin' with the apologetics. I shouldn't be surprised. I guess what astounds me is the unmitigated faith, and the forthrightness, skill, incredible memory, cultural awareness, and ability to boil everything, and I mean EVERYTHING down to the most simple explanations. His will and his gifts are obviously plumb lined with G-d's will. Brilliant.
1:22:40 I had an idea for how to end it as a very short story. John panics after seeing both versions of his daughter, runs to Gary's house and tells him the situation. John's panicking and Gary's a bit freaked out too, so he steps out of the room for a minute. When he returns he is noticeably calmer, though still tired. John is very relieved at the sight of him and appologises to Gary for having to wake him. Gary is tired but takes it in stride, walks back to John's house, asks where he sleeps, and then walks into John's bedroom. He then shakes someone who is lying on the bed, saying quietly, "John, your daughter needs you." A second John rises hastily from the bed and looks around at the first John. They share a nod of acknowledgement but otherwise awkwardly avoid each other as they both make their way to the daughter's room again. The First John pokes his head under the sheets, the Second under the bed where a second bed lies, and they both get the daughter to calm down. Gary departs, his job complete.
I usually wear more makeup when I am struggling and trying to hide it. I don't have a good poker face naturally. But my husband prefers full makeup over no makeup. What about women grooming their face? Especially with hair removal. Best thing is, you can become a Dominican if she passes first. I tell my husband I would want to be a nun if I were widowed.
Yes Budweis is a city in Tchechia. But this is its German name because it was part of the Austrin empire. And there was a time in early 19th century when the Tchech language nearly vanished. It was revived largely because of German speaking romantics who wanted to preserve the Tchech language.. The Chech name is Budovice. And of course Tchech Budweiser beer is better than American beer.
FYI - the Budweiser beer in the Czech Republic is not related at all to the American Budweiser. I've heard that Anheuser-Busch tried to buy the Czech Budweiser some decades ago but the Czechs refused. Good for them. IMO the Czechs make the best beer in the world - even better than German beer.
Dr. Kreeft is responsible for my conversion after exchanging a few e-mails with me; the Holy Spirit used Him to draw me in, and I am eternally grateful. God bless you, Dr. Kreeft, you continue to inspire me ten years later!
Feels so good!
I'm about to go where nobody goes
and you're about to be where nobody's been,
and it's about to seem impossibly real.
And it feels so good! It feels so good!
............IT FEELS SO GOOD!!!
POLYTHEISTIC REMNANTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
The significance of the original gods of the Israelites, particularly the supreme deity El ‘Elyon’ (Most High), is evident in their very identity:
The name “Israel” originates from the Hebrew word Yisra’el (יִשְׂרָאֵל), which derives from the verb sarah (שָׂרָה), meaning “to contend” or “to rule,” and the name 'El' (אֵל), referring to the Canaanite god El.
Yisra’el translates as: “El Will Rule.”
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים, romanized: ʾĔlōhīm: [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]), the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (ʾĔlōah), is a Hebrew word meaning “gods” or “godhood”.
Remnants of polytheism can still be found in the early Hebrew Bible, especially within the use of plural language, as seen in several key passages.
In Genesis 1.26, God says: “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”
Who is the “Us” here?
Again, in Genesis 3.22: “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.’”
And in Genesis 11.7 (The Tower of Babel): “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
In Isaiah 6.8, we find another example of this plural usage: “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’”
These passages provide insight into the vestiges of a polytheistic worldview, where divine plurality, perhaps referencing a council of gods or heavenly beings, remains present within the language of the text.
Critiquing the “Royal We” Hypothesis:
Some scholars argue that God’s use of plural pronouns like “Us” in Genesis reflects the so-called “royal we” - a majestic plural used by monarchs and rulers to convey authority. However, this explanation is anachronistic, projecting a medieval European linguistic construct onto ancient Hebrew texts. The “Royal We” is a product of human kingship, not divine beings, and does not align with the cultural or linguistic context of the ancient Near East.
Alternatively, some Christian apologists claim that these plural pronouns are a reference to the Trinity - God speaking to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. However, this view imposes later Christian theology onto much older Hebrew scriptures, and there is no textual evidence to support such an interpretation in the ancient context.
Instead, the plural language is a theme found in other biblical texts suggesting that early Israelite religion was more polytheistic in nature before evolving into strict monotheism.
Divine Council
Psalm 82.1-7 (NKJV):
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.
They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
Psalm 82.1-7 (NRSVUE)
God has taken his place in the divine council;
In the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
Here, we encounter a clear depiction of a divine council, or Hebrew: בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים,’Bene Ha-Elohim’ (sons of God), a concept mentioned repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible. This council is composed of heavenly beings who hold court with the Most High. A popular example of this appears in Job 1.6, where the divine council assembles, and ‘the adversary’ (ha-satan) appears among them:
“One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (NRSVUE)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (KJV)
This assembly of divine beings is typically translated as ‘sons of God’ (Bene Ha-Elohim), though some translations, like the NIV, render it as ‘angels.’ However, this is technically a poor translation, since the Hebrew word for 'angels' is ‘malakhim’, meaning ‘messengers,’ which is distinct from the ‘Bene Ha-Elohim.’
The term 'malakhim' (מלאכים) appears frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) when referring to angelic beings. In the War Scroll (1QM), 1QM 12.7-9 states:
“For the God of Israel has called out a sword against all the nations, and by the hand of those who try his strength shall the malakhim of destruction battle; the war shall continue until the annihilation of all the enemy armies. The ‘angels’ (malakhim) of destruction shall move forward, striking down those who plot evil and wickedness.” (1QM 12.7-9)
However, the beings portrayed as a divine council of powerful entities are not mere messengers but hold authority in the heavenly court, as reflected in Psalm 82.1,6-8, where they are judged by God (Elohim). Though these beings are called children of the ‘Most High’ (Elyon), they are condemned to die like mortals, reflecting Yahweh’s supremacy over all other divine entities. The ESV also uses ‘sons of God,’ which is a literal translation of ‘Bene Ha-Elohim.’
‘God’ (Elohim) has taken his place in the ‘Divine Council’ (adat-el); in the midst of the ‘gods’ (elohim) he holds judgment:
I say, “You are ‘gods’ (elohim), children of the ‘Most High’ (Elyon), all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Rise up, O ‘God’ (Elohim), judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you! (NRSVUE)
Here they are called the ‘council’ (adat) rather than ‘sons’ (bene) of El/Elohim, but it’s just a different name for the same group of heavenly beings - that they are heavenly and not mortals is clear in the curse Yahweh throws at them: Though they are sons of Elyon, nevertheless they will die like mortals.
In the ancient world, every nation had a god. Yahweh was the god of Israel, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Melqart was the god of Tyre, Baal was the god of Ugarit, etc. Here, Yahweh is declaring the other gods dead.
This is a reversal of the situation in Deuteronomy 32.8-9, in which Yahweh receives Israel as inheritance from the Most High, his superior ‘El.’:
When the ‘Most High’ (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided ‘humankind’ (Bene Adam), he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the ‘gods’ (elohim); the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSVUE)
Some interpret this verse as referring to mortals rather than a divine council, but this view is poorly supported. John Day, in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, asserts that the reading ‘sons of God’ (Bene Ha-Elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin, and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambr. Or. 939. This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the Masoretic Text’s ‘sons of Israel’ (Bene Yisra’el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase ‘sons of God’.
Deuteronomy 32.8-9 Comparative Translation
NRSVUE (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)
Deuteronomy 32.8-9 When the ‘Most High’ (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided ‘humankind’ (Bene Adam), he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the ‘gods’ (elohim); the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.
Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutj)
Deuteronomy 32.8-9 (DSS, 4QDeutj) When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'elohim). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance.
Greek Septuagint LXX (Septuagint with “Sons of God” Translation)
Deuteronomy 32.8-9 (LXX, bny 'elohim) When the Most High divided the nations, as he dispersed the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the sons of God (huioi theou); but the Lord’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.
Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be seventy nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also seventy in number. This emerges from the table of nations in Genesis 10, where there are seventy nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were seventy guardian angels of the nations.
Not incidentally
At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of the ‘seventy sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (sbm bn atrt, KTU). Since Asherah was El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were seventy in number.
Mark S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism
The number of gods perhaps survives in the later Jewish notion of the seventy angels, on for each of the world’s putatively seventy peoples (1 Enoch 89.59, 90.22-25; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Deut 32.8, bT. Shabbat 88b; Sukkah 55b).
From the Qumran fragments: an early passage where the name “El Elyon” is exclusively used:
Genesis 14.18-20 (DSS, 4QGenh)
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; and he was the priest of El Elyon.
19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram by ‘El Elyon, Creator of heaven and earth,’
20 and blessed be El Elyon, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
El/Elohim/Elyon is the original god of Israel. It’s even in the name: Isra’el. El was also the chief deity in Ugarit. Ugarit was a city to the north of Israel, which was abandoned before the nation of Israel was even built, at the end of the Bronze Age. The language is closely related to Israel’s, academics always learn Biblical Hebrew before learning Ugaritic, and their religion has many similar features as well, only they are polytheistic. Scholars say that Israelite religion and Ugaritic religion both have a common West Semitic ancestor.
The leading theory is that Yahweh worship originated in the south around Edom, then he is grafted onto the Israelite pantheon headed by El and Asherah, eventually becoming recognized as the Most High and synonymous with El (hence inscriptions like “Yahweh and his Asherah” found at Kuntillet Ajrud and the biblical mentions of her idols in Israel, particularly in the temple). The “sons of God” are a vestigial pantheon that the simulacra, Yahweh absorbs from the gods, especially El & Baal, when they merge.
John Day on Yahweh’s Origins
Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised about where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3,7). There has been an increasing tendency to locate Mt Sinai and Kadesh in N.W. Arabia rather than the Sinai Peninsula itself. The former view, long held by German scholars, has been supported by evidence of a civilization in the Hejaz area in N.W. Arabia (Midian) in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. Also, the epithet ‘Yahweh of Teman’ in one of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions fits in with this. References to the Shasu Yahweh in Egyptian texts alongside the Shasu Seir may also be cited in support.
Connection to El
Several epithets of El found in Genesis - such as El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Bethel, and El-Elyon - can be traced back to the worship of the Canaanite god El. Scholars like Eissfeldt have noted parallels between the promises made to the Hebrew patriarchs and those given by El to figures like Keret and Aquat in Ugaritic texts. Although the patriarchal narratives are not considered historical, they likely reflect aspects of pre-monarchic Hebrew religion, with later texts overlaying earlier traditions. The name “Israel” itself, meaning “El will rule,” attested on the 13th-century BCE Merneptah Stele, underscores El’s early significance. Additionally, before the monarchy, theophoric names incorporating ‘El’ were common, while explicitly Yahwistic names were rare - apart from a few, such as Joshua.
El’s Influence on Yahweh
Though El and Yahweh were initially separate deities, their eventual merging raises questions about how El influenced Yahweh’s portrayal. John Day outlines several key points. For instance, El was known as the “Father of Years” in Ugaritic texts, a title reflecting his status as an aged deity, often depicted with grey hair. This imagery carries over to Yahweh in passages like Job 36.26 and Psalm 102.25, where Yahweh is referred to as El, and in Job 10.5, where he is called Eloah. Daniel 7.9 further connects Yahweh to El’s age-related traits, depicting him as the “Ancient of Days” alongside the “one like a son of man” - a figure Day identifies with Baal, El’s son. Moreover, El’s wisdom is another trait transferred to Yahweh, reflected in texts like Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28.
Yahweh’s Appropriation of El’s Creator Role
It is clear that Yahweh’s identity as a creator was influenced by El. Genesis 14.19,22 refers to El Elyon, “creator (qoneh) of heaven and earth,” while Deuteronomy 32.6 echoes this with “Is not he your father, who created you (qaneka)?” The verb qnh, used outside the Bible, highlights El’s role as a creator. These passages show Yahweh’s assimilation of El’s creative language and traits. The name ‘Elkanah’ (elqana), meaning “God [El] has created,” further reflects El’s early influence on Israelite religion (1 Sam. 1.1). This connection between El and Yahweh is reinforced by Deuteronomy 32.8-9, which refers to the “sons of God,” drawing from the idea of the seventy sons of El in Canaanite religion.
El and Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible
Not every instance of “El” in the Hebrew Bible necessarily refers to Yahweh’s Canaanite predecessor. Over time, El simply became a generic term for ‘God’ in many parts of the Old Testament. For example, Yahweh’s title as a “jealous God” (el qanna) is distinctively Yahwistic and has little to do with the Canaanite El. Similarly, many occurrences of El reflect a general reference to God, rather than a connection to the Canaanite pantheon.
Some scholars, like John Day, suggest Eden or Paradise may have originated from El’s throne at the ‘source of the waters.’ Other aspects of the El cult, such as his consort Asherah and ‘bull imagery’ (the golden calf), were adopted by many Israelites but later rejected by the Hebrew Bible.
Footnote:
The inclusion of “Lord” in some translations (like the MT) was a later addition, while the DSS and Septuagint retain the more original reading of El Elyon without YHWH. This reflects a time before Israelite religion fully transitioned to monotheism, where Yahweh was considered the only god.
As we unravel the traces of polytheism within the Bible, we are confronted with a broader question: if the conception of God evolved over time, can we still rely on the Bible as a source of divine truth? In the next section, we will investigate how these revelations, combined with scientific and philosophical critique, challenge the traditional belief in God’s existence.
Key sources:
• Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000).
• Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2002).
EXTRABIBLICAL: ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORY
Archaeological evidence and historical texts provide key insights into the origins and development of Yahweh worship, tracing it to southern Canaanite, Midianite, and Edomite groups before its absorption into Israelite religion.
Yahweh and the Shasu Nomads
The association of Yahweh with the Shasu nomads primarily comes from Egyptian sources, which are some of the earliest references to Yahweh outside the Bible.
• Amenhotep III’s Inscription (14th century BCE): Egyptian records mention a group of Shasu nomads referred to as the “Shasu of Yhw(h)”, indicating an early recognition of Yahweh as a deity associated with these nomadic people. The Soleb Inscription, from the reign of Amenhotep III, is considered one of the earliest extra-biblical references to Yahweh, placing him in the region of Edom or Midian (Levy, Shasu Nomads and Yahweh, 1990).
• Ramesses II’s Topographical Lists (13th century BCE): Later, under Pharaoh Ramesses II, Yahweh is again mentioned in Egyptian records. The “Land of the Shasu of Yhw(h)” is listed as a geographic location in the southern Levant, reinforcing the connection between the Shasu nomads and early Yahweh worship (Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003).
Scholars such as John Day argue that the Shasu brought the worship of Yahweh from the southern desert regions into Canaan, where it was gradually incorporated into the Israelite religious framework (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 2000). This theory aligns with the descriptions of Yahweh as a warrior god in the oldest biblical texts, such as the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and Habakkuk 3, where Yahweh is portrayed as a storm god originating from the south.
Theophoric Names and Yahweh’s Spread
The theophoric use of Yahweh’s name - Yahu or Yaho - appears in Amorite and Egyptian names dating back to the Late Bronze Age. This suggests that Yahweh was already a known deity in the region before being adopted by the Israelites (Smith, The Early History of God, 2002). Inscriptions like those found at Kuntillet Ajrud further support the theory that Yahweh was worshiped alongside other Canaanite deities, including Asherah, who may have been considered Yahweh’s consort at the time.
Southern Origins of Yahwism
Linguistic studies and biblical texts further suggest that Yahweh’s cult originated in the southern regions of Canaan, particularly among the Midianites and Edomites. Mark S. Smith points out that the oldest layers of Israelite religion likely involved Yahweh being integrated into the Canaanite pantheon, where "El" was the chief deity (Smith, The Early History of God). This syncretic worship can be seen in passages like Deuteronomy 32.8-9, where Yahweh is given Israel as his portion, but El ‘Elyon’ (Most High) is described as the original deity dividing the nations.
The merging of El and Yahweh in the biblical narrative illustrates a theological evolution. Over time, Yahweh was elevated from a regional god to the national deity of Israel, absorbing many of El’s characteristics, such as creator and supreme judge. This process is evidenced by the remnants of polytheism found in texts like Psalm 82, where Yahweh stands among other gods.
Political and Religious Consolidation
The political rise of the kingdom of Judah played a significant role in the spread and consolidation of Yahweh worship. The reigns of kings like Hezekiah and Josiah were marked by religious reforms that sought to centralize worship around Yahweh alone, eliminating local shrines to Baal, Asherah, and other Canaanite deities (Dever, Did God Have a Wife?). These reforms were part of the broader Deuteronomistic movement, which pushed for exclusive worship of Yahweh, as seen in texts like Deuteronomy 12, which mandates a single place of worship for Yahweh.
This process of religious centralization was accelerated by the Assyrian destruction of Israel in 722 BCE, which spurred a theological crisis for the Israelites. Many saw the downfall of the northern kingdom as divine punishment for their polytheistic practices, and this led to a renewed emphasis on strict Yahwism in the southern kingdom of Judah.
The Role of the Babylonian Exile
The Babylonian Exile (587 BCE) was another key moment in the development of Yahweh’s monotheistic worship. During their exile, the Israelites came into contact with Zoroastrian monotheism, which worshiped the supreme god Ahura Mazda. William G. Dever argues that concepts such as cosmic dualism, eschatology, and angelology in post-Exilic Jewish texts were likely influenced by Zoroastrian beliefs (Dever, Did God Have a Wife?, 2005).
This exposure to Persian monotheism influenced Jewish theology, particularly in the writings of Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55), where Yahweh is portrayed as the one true universal god, responsible for both creation and the ordering of the cosmos (Isaiah 45.7). The development of Satan as a distinct adversarial figure in later Jewish and Christian texts may also have roots in Zoroastrian ideas of cosmic conflict between good and evil (Smith, The Early History of God).
Archaeological Evidence of Yahweh’s Evolution
Archaeology continues to uncover evidence of Israel’s religious transition from polytheism to monotheism. Excavations have revealed artifacts, including inscriptions and figurines, that depict a gradual shift in the worship of deities like Asherah and Baal toward the exclusive worship of Yahweh (Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed). One of the most significant finds is the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions, which depict Yahweh alongside Asherah, reflecting an earlier stage of Israelite religion where Yahweh was part of a pantheon.
The Israelites commonly used theophoric names incorporating 'El,' while Yahwistic names were rarely used, further illustrating that the transition to exclusive Yahwism was gradual and took place over centuries. John Day notes that even in the period of the kings, Yahweh was likely worshiped in different forms, depending on the region and local religious practices.
The evidence from archaeology, Egyptian records, and biblical texts paints a picture of Yahweh as a deity who emerged from the southern Levant, likely among the Shasu nomads and Midianite tribes. His worship spread into Israelite religion, where he was initially one god among many. Over time, Yahweh absorbed the characteristics of El and became the dominant deity in the evolving monotheistic framework of Israelite religion. The transformation of Yahweh from a local warrior god to the supreme creator and moral authority was shaped by political, social, and theological developments across centuries, influenced by external cultures like the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.
As we’ve explored, the history and archaeology surrounding Yahweh’s origins offer valuable insights into the development of his worship. However, in addition to the extrabiblical evidence, the Hebrew Bible itself contains traces of an even earlier religious context. In the next section, we’ll delve into these polytheistic remnants within the Hebrew scriptures, which reveal a more intricate theological evolution.
Key Sources:
• Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000).
• Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2002).
• Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001).
• Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (2005).
• Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003).
DOUBTING GOD'S EXISTENCE AFTER RESEARCH
Based on extensive research, concluding that God is not real is a rational response to the inconsistencies and flaws in the scriptures, as well as the lack of empirical evidence supporting divine intervention, as described in Abrahamic religious traditions. God is a human invention. This perspective is supported by inconsistencies, anachronisms, and contradictions within the Christian Bible, Hebrew Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah, and Quran. Furthermore, scientific advancements, archaeological discoveries, and historical scholarship have consistently undermined the claims made by these texts. Below are several key reasons why:
1. Flat Earth Cosmology
The Bible, like many ancient texts, reflects the cosmological views of its time, including the idea of a flat earth. Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th-century Christian monk, promoted this concept in his work Topographia Christiana, which drew on biblical cosmology. While certain passages, such as Isaiah 40.22 (“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”), are often cited as evidence of a more spherical view, this “circle” could refer to a flat disk rather than a globe. Moreover, the depiction of “four corners of the earth” in Revelation 7.1 reinforces this flat-earth view. The absence of any advanced cosmological understanding in the Bible stands in contrast to modern scientific knowledge about the shape and structure of the earth.
2. Incompatible Prophecies
The Bible contains multiple prophecies that are incompatible with one another. For instance, the Messiah is described as both a human descendant of David (e.g., Isaiah 11.1-3, Jeremiah 23.5) and as a divine figure (e.g., Isaiah 9.6, which refers to the Messiah as “Mighty God”). John 1.1-14 goes further by identifying Jesus as the divine “Word” who became flesh, creating tension between the Jewish and Christian messianic expectations.
Moreover, there are discrepancies regarding Jesus’ birthplace. Micah 5.2 prophesies that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, yet Matthew 2.23 implies that Jesus was from Nazareth, even referencing a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene - though no such prophecy exists in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have pointed out the difficulties in reconciling these conflicting prophecies and their later interpretations.
3. Historical Inaccuracies
Biblical accounts often contradict historical and archaeological evidence. The conquest of Jericho, described in Joshua 6, is one such example. Archaeological excavations conducted by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s revealed that Jericho’s walls had been destroyed centuries before the alleged Israelite conquest, undermining the biblical timeline. Similarly, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, recounted in Genesis 19, lacks substantial archaeological corroboration. Excavations near the Dead Sea have not uncovered definitive evidence that these cities existed or were destroyed in the manner described. Archaeologist William G. Dever, who specializes in Israelite history, has argued that many of these stories are etiological myths rather than historical accounts.
4. Anthropomorphic God
The Bible portrays God with distinctly human-like qualities, including emotions such as anger (Psalm 78.21), jealousy (Exodus 20.5), and regret (Genesis 6.6, 1 Samuel 15.35). These anthropomorphic descriptions are at odds with later theological views that depict God as an incorporeal, transcendent being, as developed in the works of theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides. This shift from a personal, relatable deity to an abstract, distant one highlights the evolving nature of God’s portrayal across the ages. The God who “walks” in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3.8) contrasts sharply with the unknowable and infinite deity later embraced in Christian and Jewish thought.
5. Lack of Empirical Evidence
Despite millennia of belief, there remains no empirical evidence to support the existence of God or the supernatural events described in scripture. Prominent thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have pointed out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet none has been forthcoming. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that religious claims about God’s intervention in the world should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis. The absence of observable, verifiable phenomena supporting divine intervention casts further doubt on the validity of religious claims.
Scholarly Perspectives
Scholars from various fields, including archaeology, history, and biblical studies, have questioned the Bible’s reliability and its portrayal of God. Some key contributions include:
• Julius Wellhausen and his documentary hypothesis, which proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is a composite work drawn from four distinct sources (J, E, P, and D) written by different authors over centuries. Wellhausen’s theory highlights the literary development of the Bible and explains many of its inconsistencies.
• Martin Noth and The Deuteronomistic History, which argues that much of the historical narrative from Deuteronomy to Kings was composed during the Babylonian exile. Noth’s work further suggests that the biblical writers had theological agendas that shaped their interpretation of Israel’s history.
• Archaeological findings by scholars like Israel Finkelstein have questioned the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Finkelstein’s work, detailed in The Bible Unearthed, suggests that many of the events described in the Bible were either exaggerated or invented to forge a national identity for the Israelites.
Consequences of Non-Belief
While belief in God may offer comfort or moral guidance, a non-theistic worldview grounded in rational inquiry provides its own benefits:
1. Scientific Progress: Without the need for supernatural explanations, humanity has been able to make incredible advancements in understanding the natural world. The scientific method, driven by empirical observation and testing, has led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and our understanding of the cosmos. Carl Sagan’s works, including Cosmos, emphasize the importance of skepticism and evidence-based inquiry in driving scientific progress.
2. Ethical Frameworks: Secular ethics, such as humanism and utilitarianism, offer a rational basis for moral decision-making. Humanism, for example, emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals, promoting compassion and justice without relying on divine command. Utilitarianism, as developed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, providing a pragmatic approach to ethical dilemmas.
3. Personal Autonomy: Without the constraints of divine authority, individuals are free to make choices based on reason and personal responsibility. Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche explored the implications of living in a “godless” world, arguing that embracing personal freedom and responsibility allows for a more authentic and meaningful existence.
As we’ve explored the origins of biblical texts, their polytheistic remnants, and the challenges posed by modern scholarship, it becomes clear that the Bible cannot be taken as literal or infallible truth. Instead, it reflects the changing views of a people grappling with their understanding of the divine. While this realization may shake the foundations of faith for some, it opens the door to new perspectives. Rather than relying on ancient dogmas, we can embrace a world governed by reason, empathy, and humanistic values. In this pursuit, we find that life’s meaning and morality are ours to shape, free from the constraints of the past.
Key Sources:
• Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1883).
• Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History (1943).
• Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001).
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (2006).
• Sagan, Carl. Cosmos (1980).
Peter Kreeft is like (and I mean this in the best possible) a wise old anthropomorphic tortoise out of a child’s novel who gives the dejected protagonist the hope he needs to carry on.
God bless you, Dr. Kreeft for all the work you have and continue to do for Him and the great intellectual tradition of Western Civilization.
Catholic Oogway?
Morla, The Ancient One
So true... a wise old tortoise that perennially begets hope
@@alisterrebelo9013
I think he loves surfing, so maybe Crush from Nemo.
Miriel Pastor of Vows
Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Brant Pitre, and John Bergsma are the greatest teachers of the faith in modern times.
fr
I love them all.
Joe Heschmeyer will easily make the list as well
Totally agree!
I would add Jimmy Akin to that list. Though I have to say, his new speech, dropping the "ing" and saying dudnt instead of doesn't is hard to listen to. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does. Clearly, it's my problem to get over, not his. He is free to speak any way that he would like.
So go ahead, add him to the list! He is truly a gifted man when it comes to intelligence. So what if he has a new speech problem! (Ha, couldn't resist!)🤗
Agree! Reading Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist and it's PHENOMENAL!! Best book I've read in years 🙌🏼
Peter Kreeft feels like the grandpa I never knew. So grateful for this
God lets us experience sorrow in order to maximize our joy. What a profound thought just moments into their conversation. I could listen to Dr. Kreeft all day.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly construed. I need to remember that. Chesterton is a treasure trove.
During lecture Dr. Kreeft said "If you're not getting at least splinters from the cross, you're not close enough to the cross."
“There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of life.
"Live, then, and be happy, beloved children of my heart, and never forget, that until the day God will deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is contained in these two words, 'Wait and Hope.” - The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
Interesting... does this mean that the devil exists only so that there can be a god? Like, where there is light there has to be dark, yin and yang etc... But if so, God only exists so that there can be a devil and is therefore responsible for his existence. God created the devil.
@@menandermenandros5532thank you! I can hear your heart beating! Life is intensely beautiful! ❤❤❤
Protestant here who's loved your recent slate of guests. Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are always good to listen to, and I'm a big Chosen fan so I enjoyed Jonathan Roumie too. Keep up the good work!
I'm a simple man, I see Peter Kreeft, I click.
He is wrong about cynicism.... I am cynical about many things... yet I love people generally and love God
@@orionxtc1119 He's wrong about MANY things...that's why I could careless about philosophy. He's more of a theologian and believes God is Jesus and Christianity and Hell is real. Naive
My favourite guest! God bless you dr. Kreeft!
Thank you so much Matt! I needed a conversation with Peter Kreeft right now. God bless you both!
It’s not often that a person can make me smile just by listening to him speak. You can almost feel the holiness radiating from him.
I am female. I just finished a Bible study lesson in Matthew chapter 9. It was very powerful. Then I came to this podcast and found myself laughing hysterically at the discussion of vanity. As I am 69 years old and physical reality is now taking over, I have struggled with that. I have handed it over to Jesus. He will fix it (vanity and self-loathing) when it’s time is due. But I had to laugh at the synchronicity of this discussion as the exemplification of my vanity, just, moments before hearing it, had taken place! God is great! He has a tremendously wonderful sense of humor! God is GOOD!!
I am going through really bad depression due to childhood trauma and now having no income, going to different interviews with no answers. My significant other doesn't hug me, kiss me or even talk to me when he comes home. All i can do is smile at him and pray for the best. This conversation is the sweetest, most simple ways of looking into life. I thank God everyday to be alive another day even though it hurts to go through the cycles. I thank God for having people like you and your guests to have these incredible, wholesome yet human conversations that i wish i can have with my loved ones. I'm just lucky i have my therapist to talk to and try to help me out of this cave. Thank you for your conversations, it helps me that i'm not alone in some sense. 🙏
My nightly Rosary will now have your life's improvement as an intention. God bless you. It will get better.
Thank you so much for thinking of me. God bless you @@Sharkman1963
Significant other? You mean husband right?
@AquinasBased yes my boyfriend of 4 years. But he is stressing too. I'm not mad at him. All I can do is pray for him amd hope all good things.
@@akira797 You should not cohabit with people who aren't your spouse, it is a serious sin. It is better to become married asap. I hope your therapist is a good Catholic because otherwise they can send you the wrong way
If you are a fan of Pints to Aquinas because every now and then, there’s a conversation that allows you to become a fly on a wall in a room where two old friends are meeting to chat over a cup of coffee, this episode is for you.
I can listen to Dr. Peter Kreeft all day..He influenced me to look into Catholicism deeply, so that i could understand thoroughly. Much love and appreciation..
So much profound wisdom… we can soak in this humility and gracious love . Thank you
Such an endearing soul.
Thank you for having Peter Kreeft again in your show.
Always love hearing from Peter Kreeft
It's always a great day when I get to hear these two talk.
This is an amazing conversation. I’ve woken up at 3am so I look through utube. Am I guided to listen to this . I’m going through a bad time at the moment in my life . I ask God to help me with this struggle and for some reason I wake up and chose randomly for something to listen to so I can go back to sleep . Wow !!!
Love love love every time you have Peter Kreeft!!! Thank you
Not Catholic (not yet anyways. Though, I was baptized as a baby into the Church lol) just love this show!
Like me, I was baptised Catholic as a baby. When going to mass, the priest told me, "Then your Catholic, you just need confirmation. And I did last Easter st age 60.
1:10:10 Some of the best advice I’ve received was along these lines. It was from a friend with Cerebral Palsy. We’d just gotten to a bar and sat down ready to order drinks. We hadn’t had anything to drink yet. We were both sober. Yet, the bouncer told the bartender to flag my friend and not serve him, because he walked in with a gait (remember, he has cerebral palsy). I was so angry for him and wanted to give the bouncer a piece of my mind. My friend remained perfectly calm, and insisted I sit down, get myself something to drink, and we go on with our night. He wasn’t upset. He was used to people making wrong assumptions about him. His advice was this: “you can’t live life trying to police stupid people” - Mr. Kreeft is right on. That wisdom drives away bitterness & disappointment in dealing with other people!
Is the bouncer stupid or is he just making an educated guess?
@@AquinasBased I wouldn’t say he was stupid. I also wouldn’t say he made an educated guess. In my opinion, to make an educated guess, you need more info than the way a person walks. He didn’t stop us to talk or try to determine if we could carry on a conversation that was coherent. He never got close enough to see if we smelled like alcohol. He barely even greeted us, before jumping to the wrong conclusion and acting upon it.
Was he stupid? I prefer not to label ppl that way. But did he act in stupidity, or ignorance, or haste? Absolutely. That’s the point I was making. There is peace in accepting you can’t police people’s stupid behaviors or actions.
Hands down one of the most influential "podcasts" ive ever heard. What profound wisdom sits in 3 hours. I will be back and rewatch whole thing. This gave me so many things to look up 😅
This conversation is so good, so rich in depth, wisdom, and humor.❤
My favorite guest by far
Wow, what an interview!
Loved every minute of it. My only wish would be that it went on longer.
Love Peter!! Astonishingly enjoyable. Full of the spirit of God.
The best. Love the pregnant pauses❤️🔥
Every word from this man is a gem to be treasured. What an excellent interviewer, too.... Thank you so much! I've stopped worshiping idols.
Peter Kreeft is always my favorite guest on your show.
Probably one of the best interviews you've ever done. He makes me talk out loud and say yes I completely understand that and it makes total sense
The first real apologetics book I ever read was Peter Kreeft’s Christianity for Modern Pagans and it reshaped my whole life. He’s one of my favorite people in this world. Thanks for so many interviews with him that are never the same interview!
Thank you Matt for having such amazing interviews!!!!! ❤God bless you and Dr Peter Kreeft and the your team!!
How nice to hear my hometown, Genova, being quoted by Peter! St.Catherine of Genova is a great saint!
Dr. Kreeft, I love you
I was recently thinking something similar to Dr. Kreeft's point about protestants and purgatory (around 1:34). Protestants are pretty quick to talk about sanctification, the lifelong process of being formed into the image of Christ which is to be completed, to our holyness, at death.
The hangup with understanding purgatory (besides the "pop-culture" depictions of it) is that we protestants don't speak latin. It comes from the word 'purgation,' as in 'the purging of.' Clearly there's no raising to holiness without the casting off of sin; there's no refining by fire without burning off the dross. Sanctification and purgation are two sides of a single coin.
Best regards,
Grant
Scott Hahn then Peter Kreeft? Hallelujah
The creme de la creme! We are honored.
Love Peter Kreeft! Can’t wait to listen to this
I pray I get the chance to meet Dr. Kreeft
A slogan of the father who's kids I babysat many years ago was "perfume and paints makes a girl what she ain'ts. " It was seared into my subconscious. When I wear makeup, I use the lightest hand. I have very little color naturally.
Wonderful interview
Hey Matt, could you pray for Louisiana and Mississippi? We have a tropical storm coming and it could get bad
Thank you for this, intelligence and conversations go so well together.
Peter Kreeft’s book “Back To Virtue”, after reading CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity and Abolition of Man, truly opened my eyes and lead me to Christ.
Some of Matt’s questions remind me of the Seinfeld episode where George is taking care of a senior citizen as a part of a program and the guys positive attitude to life makes George crazy and he starts asking all these questions like how can you be so happy when you’re so old etc.
More than any of Matt's guests, an episode with Peter Kreeft feels like an evening chat between two friends, as if the cameras weren't there.
I truly don’t understand the desire to remain young. I’m 31 years old right now. I have absolutely no desire to remain young. With each passing day I’m one day closer to meeting my Creator as long as I don’t mess it up. My aging will be the physical reminder of this. It seems like one of the greatest blessings I could hope for.
I absolutely adore Peter Kreeft! Simple joy!
My favorite episode yet
I love love looove peter kreeft
You can tell Matt has gotten infinitely more comfortable talking to Dr. Kreeft
I love Peter's analogy! Courage is when you are a hobbit, and you have the strength to be surrounded by orcs, lol. I'm paraphrasing yet, he bought up a good point that we can have insane courage. Sometimes we just have to do what we have to do. Love it. Great show, I'm really enjoying this while working. Subscribed.
These interviews make want to read more.
Awesome interview!
Thank you
And God bless
I thought it not possible to love and respect Dr. Kreeft more than I already do, and then he mentions the very obscure, incredible SF author Cordwainer Smith . . .
I love this. I remember being enamored as a kid that things exist and I was wondered why no one was talking about it. Turns out, people have been thinking and talking about it for centuries
I just started watching his philosophy course on the Theosu website and his philosophy lectures on Word on Fire.
❤ thank you!!
Wonderful Program
THREE HOURS OF FRADD AND KREEFT?!?!! HEEECK YEAH!
Great tie, Dr. Kreeft!
The joy I feel each time Dr Kreeft appears, .........
Back to handwriting essays and research in the library with actual books. Write the notes and the work in computer free libraries. Like back in the day lol
I’m having exams Matt, why are you doing this to me 😭
You’ll do just fine 😊
You'll be fine🙏🏼
this is more important than
I love Peter kreeft❤
It sounds like Peter and Matt were talking about the same Twilight Zone episode, "A Nice Place to Visit".
Its also not St. Peter, but a being named Pip who he erroneously thinks is his Guardian Angel, but of course, the big wham line is, "Heaven? Whatever gave you the idea you were in Heaven, Mr. Valentine? This IS the other place!"
There is so much similarity between this and the other Peter Kreeft interview. Super fun to listen to them revisiting themes.
We are in heaven already :)
You should have Peter kreeft and Jonathan pague on and discuss faith
I think the world is a mess then I watch pints with an Aquinas. And I know all is good with our Lord Jesus. Stay strong family.
I love Kreeft and have followed him now for over 20 years, but I've never heard him posit so many paradoxes.
God's always new! Amen! We will never be bored ❤🙏🙏🙏
Dr Kreeft extemporaneously suggesting the end of the horror story and it actually being scary proves his genius
Dr Kreeft LETS GOOOOO
Former Calvinist. Augustine is a great gateway to reach those coming from that background, being the most revered of the Church Fathers due to his perceived proximity to their notion of Justification by Faith and Predestination. Once drawn into Augustine, I began to wonder, was he not saved? Yet he has all of these other beliefs I would normally have thought incompatible with Christianity as I knew it? Surely he was as were others before the Reformation. Augustine is a great wedge to open the door to conversation because he is typically "assumed to have been of the elect" by Calvinists.
Is Peter Kreeft the most wonderful man alive or the most adorable man alive?
@@GumbyJumpOff Yes.
I want Matt to do a bookcase tour and how much he likes these books etc.,
I wear makeup when I perform on stage so people can see my facial expressions from the crowd. I like to tell the stories of the lyrics with my face so I don’t want anyone to miss what story I’m telling.
I wish I was in the room to ask questions. As a protestant, I about fell out of my chair over some of the flippant comments much as if a protestant said the eucharist wasn't actually a big deal. I love my Catholic siblings so I always seek encounters to explore dialogue. Much like when his mother put to bed he and his father's arguments of purgatory. I find Eastern theology much easier to square with my own in general. Catholics see some things beautifully and others, it feels like someone whom you love who gets drunk often. You feel confused how they can reconcile the choices.
Budweiser was sold to InBev in July 2008, as part of the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch, for approximately $70 per share. The deal was finalized in October 2008, creating AB InBev.
A horror movie that scared me so much as a kid was The Langoliers. Psychologically it’s a mystery thriller however when they show what the bad things are the end the movie loses its fear factor as it looks very cheesy.
Great Philosophy:
Here is one of mine: What can one learn from a dog?
A dog cannot remember yesterday's dinner, she cannot imagine tomorrow's dinner, but she greatly enjoys today's dinner from the moment that she starts to smell it.
another onee!!🙌🏻🙌🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻
Why does the future of an intense future ruled by computers doing everything terrify me?
Hell is also a mercy. If we don't want to be in the mercy of God, He has mercy on us and sends us away from him, I.e. to hell.
How come whenever I think, “I don’t have three hours for this”, it turns out to be the best three hours I could spend?
Matt, 2:59! you took a minute 😂from us
14:25 "Further Up! And Further In!" - C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle.
Holy smokes! Kreeft is smokin' with the apologetics. I shouldn't be surprised. I guess what astounds me is the unmitigated faith, and the forthrightness, skill, incredible memory, cultural awareness, and ability to boil everything, and I mean EVERYTHING down to the most simple explanations. His will and his gifts are obviously plumb lined with G-d's will. Brilliant.
Food For the Soul is wonderful.
Christianity is the greatest adventure
Matt this is a one man petition. Please invite Professor Eleonore Stump in your show. She is by far one of the greatest thomists today.
1:22:40 I had an idea for how to end it as a very short story. John panics after seeing both versions of his daughter, runs to Gary's house and tells him the situation. John's panicking and Gary's a bit freaked out too, so he steps out of the room for a minute. When he returns he is noticeably calmer, though still tired. John is very relieved at the sight of him and appologises to Gary for having to wake him. Gary is tired but takes it in stride, walks back to John's house, asks where he sleeps, and then walks into John's bedroom. He then shakes someone who is lying on the bed, saying quietly, "John, your daughter needs you." A second John rises hastily from the bed and looks around at the first John. They share a nod of acknowledgement but otherwise awkwardly avoid each other as they both make their way to the daughter's room again. The First John pokes his head under the sheets, the Second under the bed where a second bed lies, and they both get the daughter to calm down. Gary departs, his job complete.
I usually wear more makeup when I am struggling and trying to hide it. I don't have a good poker face naturally. But my husband prefers full makeup over no makeup. What about women grooming their face? Especially with hair removal. Best thing is, you can become a Dominican if she passes first. I tell my husband I would want to be a nun if I were widowed.
I enjoy wearing makeup. It does feel more put together. How is it different than wearing a nice suit that makes one feel a little more confident?
Yes Budweis is a city in Tchechia. But this is its German name because it was part of the Austrin empire. And there was a time in early 19th century when the Tchech language nearly vanished. It was revived largely because of German speaking romantics who wanted to preserve the Tchech language.. The Chech name is Budovice. And of course Tchech Budweiser beer is better than American beer.
well said, just a little correction - Czech and (České) Budějovice
Love this man
3 hours of wisdom at deaths door..when I reach 87 I chose to not think anymore...just stare
FYI - the Budweiser beer in the Czech Republic is not related at all to the American Budweiser. I've heard that Anheuser-Busch tried to buy the Czech Budweiser some decades ago but the Czechs refused. Good for them. IMO the Czechs make the best beer in the world - even better than German beer.
I appreciate your honesty about being below the poety line, do you ahvae a blog/pod that explains more