Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did.
Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?
The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic).
Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism.
Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).
The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven.
Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest.
But overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God. These idols were originally in the physical form of pious people. Case in point, Christian "worship" Jesus via Trinity concept invention and, Buddhist worship Buddha idol. It is the job of these later messengers/prophets to remind these ignorant people to worship one true God, some of them have book/kitab/suhuf/scripture from God as guidance. Muslim believe Quran is the last and the only uncorrupted holy scripture remaining.
For muslim, however, Jesus (or most likely Buddha as well), is just another messengers/prophets from the long list of messengers/prophets than ended in Muhammad.
Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another.
In Jewish tradition it is well known that they are waiting for three prophets at the the time of Jesus (Messiah) arrival, but denied all of them including Muhammad the last one.
Another fun facts, in the science of human genetic it has yhr concept of mythocondrial eve [1]. This is the proof that we human all come and originated from a single parent, regardless of races.
(op, i just realized you might be mentioning things other's believe, and it might not be an opinion of your own. In this case, I'm sorry if i came as too blunt, its just that i come from a background of religious extremist and i'm particularly picky about some things. I can remove it if you wish, but I'd rather take the criticism.)
This reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong . Its a classic categorization mistake. Its not exactly wrong (its also not right, mind you...), its just non-constructive and almost not worthy of a reply. But since this is a discussion forum, I'll bite.
It judges others on their "ignorance", while embracing it. It talks about religious "narratives" and compares it to belief in the "one true capital G god" (the "real" truthy truth). Meaning it puts one set of beliefs (subjective experiences) above all others, and seems completely unaware of the contradiction while doing so.
It also misunderstands the concept of a mitochondrial Eve. She was not the first, and not the only one alive at the time, she was just the one whose direct lineage survived. Before her there were others. The name "Eve" is doing a lot of work here...
> Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another.
You mean that $HOLY_BOOK also has a description of the prophecy of the One True Prophet Bob? It must be true, because I'm pretty sure it is.
There's also your point about monotheism.
> overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God.
Being someone with a certain admiration for the scientific method, i'm inclined to point out that as far as the history of religion goes (and please correct me about this statement), monotheism seems to be a more recent development (I'm pretty sure hn has people far more qualified than me to add substance here).
My impression is that it's mostly Western secular interpretation while the largest branch of Buddhism and the most predominant in Asia currently is Mahayana where Buddha, or rather Buddhas (as it has many others besides Siddhartha Gautama), are seen as omnipotent spiritual beings with supernatural powers, who are accessible through prayer after apparent death of their human form, which seems close to our traditional concept of deities.
To be fair, it is entirely incorrect about almost everything. I say almost because it deals in dogma, which is usually not even worth discussing, but the other smaller part is "not even wrong".
Care to correct what is/are wrong? By mentioning something are incorrect do not make them incorrect without proof, and the points must be based on the primary scriptures and religious references not whimsical feeling and anecdotal references. I'm merely stating the facts that I gathered and understood based on my acquired knowledge. Admittedly, I can be wrong on these matters but not until it's proven.
While waiting for your forthcoming answers, allow me to guess one of the contentions, if I may. Based on my comments, it will be that the Jews were awaiting for these three prophesized prophets at the time of Jesus arrival based originally on the Old Testament. Based on the Quran and muslim tradition, the two of them are Jesus the Messiah (literally Christ or Christos in Greek, or the Annointed One in English), and the other is "prophet similar to Moses" namely the final messenger/prophet Muhammad.
These are the verses from the Bible New Testament recording that the Jews around the time of Jesus arrival were actively waiting for these three prophesized prophets [1].
"(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
(20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No."
Based on Jewish scripture and also the Old Testament (Deutronomy 18), the latter or the third prophesized prophet is similar in profiles and characters to Moses [2].
Muhammad fits this very description like a glove, since both Moses and Muhammad are very similar.
They both:
1) triumphed over their enemies
2) performed migration/exodus/hijrah
3) died not in the birthplace
4) died natural deaths
5) got married
6) had children
7) led their people
8) established new laws (Sharia)
9) engaged in warfare
10) became prophet at around 40 years old, etc
It's not very clear from the New Testament but in the original Jewish scripture the verse mentioned "brethren of the Israelites" - as a reference to Muhammad, who is a descendant of Ishmael (brother of Isaac/ancestor of Israelites). Please note that from the Torah part of the Tanakh, the provided interpretation of the word "brethren" is from fellow Israelites (but not the verse itself) [3].
The Dead Dea Scrolls version of these verses provided by the following translations [4]. Interestingly there are 30 physical copies of the Deuteronomy in the collection, and apparently it is one of the very popular chapters hidden inside the caves of Qumran.
"(18) I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.
(19) It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him"
Fun facts, Muhammad is an illiterate person, he cannot read and only recite the Quran exactly as conveyed verbatim to him from the God via the the archangel Gabriel.
Another fun facts, every chapters in the Quran (except Surah At-Tawbah) begin in the God's name or Bismillah ("In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful").
Another extra fun facts, Moses by far is the most frequently mentioned name in the Quran (136), and Jesus or Isa appeared only 25 times. Please note that Isa is the actual Aramaic/Arabic name of Jesus since letter J is the a medieval Latin invention not present in ancient or modern Greek. But if we include Jesus other names referred in the Quran in addition to Isa, namely Ibn Maryam (son of Maryam) and Al-Masih (The Messiah or Christ), it will be tied second with Abraham at 69.
Probably also build-in indoctrination from early on.
And the zeitgeist at that time was probably also that the richer people were only able to spend time of doing religious things; richer = more influence
Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism.
Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
> Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
Good point. There are many "local versions" of Mary, for example, in Latin America. All of them display unique traits indicative of "synchretization" (sp?) of say african Orishas, probably dating back to the time of the slave trade.
Haitian "voodoo" is the result of combining African religious beliefs with Catholicism by slaves they could continue to practice their religion in secret. A similar process happened with Christianity in Japan after it was outlawed - it took on the appearance of local Shinto and Buddhist practice.
> the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention)
The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.
Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
>So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.
I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity.
>Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice.
I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
You can use words however you like, of course, but others may struggle to understand your perspective if your usage is novel and/or strained. General consensus is the early modern period of theological development in Christian history began in the 1500s.
> To an outsider there is little if any difference
Fine, but… two people could be sitting at similar looking computers, one playing Minesweeper while the other is doing chemical engineering in MATLAB. There are objective differences in those human activities. If someone insisted they are doing pseudo-same-thing, it would be fair to say that’s a stretch and tends toward missing the point. But I do (maybe) understand what you mean: inculturation was a real phenomenon as Christianity spread Eastward and Westward.
I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade.
But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.
Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity.
Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes.
Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.
The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century.
I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world.
But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”.
It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing.
I don't think you have ancient Israel quite right here. Much of the old testament assumes that Yahweh is the god of Israel, and that other nations have their own gods. The idea of one most powerful god took time to develop.
> but there’s a reason it swept the world.
Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did.
Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?
The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic).
Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism.
Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).
The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven.
Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest.
But overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God. These idols were originally in the physical form of pious people. Case in point, Christian "worship" Jesus via Trinity concept invention and, Buddhist worship Buddha idol. It is the job of these later messengers/prophets to remind these ignorant people to worship one true God, some of them have book/kitab/suhuf/scripture from God as guidance. Muslim believe Quran is the last and the only uncorrupted holy scripture remaining.
For muslim, however, Jesus (or most likely Buddha as well), is just another messengers/prophets from the long list of messengers/prophets than ended in Muhammad.
Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another.
In Jewish tradition it is well known that they are waiting for three prophets at the the time of Jesus (Messiah) arrival, but denied all of them including Muhammad the last one.
Another fun facts, in the science of human genetic it has yhr concept of mythocondrial eve [1]. This is the proof that we human all come and originated from a single parent, regardless of races.
[1] Mitochondrial Eve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
(op, i just realized you might be mentioning things other's believe, and it might not be an opinion of your own. In this case, I'm sorry if i came as too blunt, its just that i come from a background of religious extremist and i'm particularly picky about some things. I can remove it if you wish, but I'd rather take the criticism.)
This reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong . Its a classic categorization mistake. Its not exactly wrong (its also not right, mind you...), its just non-constructive and almost not worthy of a reply. But since this is a discussion forum, I'll bite.
It judges others on their "ignorance", while embracing it. It talks about religious "narratives" and compares it to belief in the "one true capital G god" (the "real" truthy truth). Meaning it puts one set of beliefs (subjective experiences) above all others, and seems completely unaware of the contradiction while doing so.
It also misunderstands the concept of a mitochondrial Eve. She was not the first, and not the only one alive at the time, she was just the one whose direct lineage survived. Before her there were others. The name "Eve" is doing a lot of work here...
> Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another.
You mean that $HOLY_BOOK also has a description of the prophecy of the One True Prophet Bob? It must be true, because I'm pretty sure it is.
There's also your point about monotheism.
> overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God.
Being someone with a certain admiration for the scientific method, i'm inclined to point out that as far as the history of religion goes (and please correct me about this statement), monotheism seems to be a more recent development (I'm pretty sure hn has people far more qualified than me to add substance here).
Buddhists do not usually worship the Buddha like God. Buddhists revere him as wise teacher, especially in modern times.
My impression is that it's mostly Western secular interpretation while the largest branch of Buddhism and the most predominant in Asia currently is Mahayana where Buddha, or rather Buddhas (as it has many others besides Siddhartha Gautama), are seen as omnipotent spiritual beings with supernatural powers, who are accessible through prayer after apparent death of their human form, which seems close to our traditional concept of deities.
This is entirely incorrect about Jewish belief.
To be fair, it is entirely incorrect about almost everything. I say almost because it deals in dogma, which is usually not even worth discussing, but the other smaller part is "not even wrong".
Care to correct what is/are wrong? By mentioning something are incorrect do not make them incorrect without proof, and the points must be based on the primary scriptures and religious references not whimsical feeling and anecdotal references. I'm merely stating the facts that I gathered and understood based on my acquired knowledge. Admittedly, I can be wrong on these matters but not until it's proven.
While waiting for your forthcoming answers, allow me to guess one of the contentions, if I may. Based on my comments, it will be that the Jews were awaiting for these three prophesized prophets at the time of Jesus arrival based originally on the Old Testament. Based on the Quran and muslim tradition, the two of them are Jesus the Messiah (literally Christ or Christos in Greek, or the Annointed One in English), and the other is "prophet similar to Moses" namely the final messenger/prophet Muhammad.
These are the verses from the Bible New Testament recording that the Jews around the time of Jesus arrival were actively waiting for these three prophesized prophets [1].
"(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
(20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No."
Based on Jewish scripture and also the Old Testament (Deutronomy 18), the latter or the third prophesized prophet is similar in profiles and characters to Moses [2].
Muhammad fits this very description like a glove, since both Moses and Muhammad are very similar.
They both:
1) triumphed over their enemies 2) performed migration/exodus/hijrah 3) died not in the birthplace 4) died natural deaths 5) got married 6) had children 7) led their people 8) established new laws (Sharia) 9) engaged in warfare 10) became prophet at around 40 years old, etc
It's not very clear from the New Testament but in the original Jewish scripture the verse mentioned "brethren of the Israelites" - as a reference to Muhammad, who is a descendant of Ishmael (brother of Isaac/ancestor of Israelites). Please note that from the Torah part of the Tanakh, the provided interpretation of the word "brethren" is from fellow Israelites (but not the verse itself) [3].
The Dead Dea Scrolls version of these verses provided by the following translations [4]. Interestingly there are 30 physical copies of the Deuteronomy in the collection, and apparently it is one of the very popular chapters hidden inside the caves of Qumran.
"(18) I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.
(19) It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him"
Fun facts, Muhammad is an illiterate person, he cannot read and only recite the Quran exactly as conveyed verbatim to him from the God via the the archangel Gabriel.
Another fun facts, every chapters in the Quran (except Surah At-Tawbah) begin in the God's name or Bismillah ("In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful").
Another extra fun facts, Moses by far is the most frequently mentioned name in the Quran (136), and Jesus or Isa appeared only 25 times. Please note that Isa is the actual Aramaic/Arabic name of Jesus since letter J is the a medieval Latin invention not present in ancient or modern Greek. But if we include Jesus other names referred in the Quran in addition to Isa, namely Ibn Maryam (son of Maryam) and Al-Masih (The Messiah or Christ), it will be tied second with Abraham at 69.
[1] John 1:19-21:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201%3A19-2...
[2] Deuteronomy (18:15–18)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%201...
[3] Deuteronomy 18:15:
https://tanakh.info/dt18-15
[4] Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Translations:
https://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2018.htm
You do not understand science and mitochondrial eve, or Y-chromosonal Adam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_a_fixed_...
In American English, 'Adam' and 'atom' are pronounced the same.
Probably also build-in indoctrination from early on.
And the zeitgeist at that time was probably also that the richer people were only able to spend time of doing religious things; richer = more influence
Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism.
Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
> Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
Good point. There are many "local versions" of Mary, for example, in Latin America. All of them display unique traits indicative of "synchretization" (sp?) of say african Orishas, probably dating back to the time of the slave trade.
Haitian "voodoo" is the result of combining African religious beliefs with Catholicism by slaves they could continue to practice their religion in secret. A similar process happened with Christianity in Japan after it was outlawed - it took on the appearance of local Shinto and Buddhist practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Vodou
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan
> the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention)
The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.
Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
>So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.
I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity.
>Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice.
I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
> I consider it "modern"
You can use words however you like, of course, but others may struggle to understand your perspective if your usage is novel and/or strained. General consensus is the early modern period of theological development in Christian history began in the 1500s.
> To an outsider there is little if any difference
Fine, but… two people could be sitting at similar looking computers, one playing Minesweeper while the other is doing chemical engineering in MATLAB. There are objective differences in those human activities. If someone insisted they are doing pseudo-same-thing, it would be fair to say that’s a stretch and tends toward missing the point. But I do (maybe) understand what you mean: inculturation was a real phenomenon as Christianity spread Eastward and Westward.
I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade.
But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.
Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity.
Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes.
Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.
The class of research invalidated by a famous tweet:
> cars have windows and can move. houses have windows and can’t move. so it’s not the windows that make the car go, it’s something else entirely
The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century.
I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world.
But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”.
It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing.
We just really like taxonomies.
I don't think you have ancient Israel quite right here. Much of the old testament assumes that Yahweh is the god of Israel, and that other nations have their own gods. The idea of one most powerful god took time to develop.
https://archive.is/tLk1S