'11-12-07, 03:34 Oldskeptic	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: Agrippina wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Well, you worship Mohammed, too. Although you deny it. See how it works? There is a difference between reverence for a human prophet and the worship of a single absolute god. It's pretty weird to just override this distinction by complaining that Muslims deny what you've decided to ascribe to them. Huh??? I worship chocolate, but very little else. You worship Mohammed. Although you deny it. Since you worship chocolate as well, this makes you a polytheist. (Actually, I was trying to see how you liked it if the tables were turned on you, but I guess it went past you. The point is that Muslims do not worship Muhammad as a god. They simply revere him as the final and ultimate prophet. Believing that someone is an infallible and perfect human being does not necessarily equate with believing that he is a god. It's an important distinction in a discussion of their monotheism). Agrippina wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Because they make a distinction between a prophet and an ayatollah? One would imagine. That's the same excuse that Christians make about Jesus. Which is why they invented a "Trinity." Your ignorance is really showing here. Neither a prophet nor an ayatollah is considered a god in the Muslim religion. Muhammad is not said to be consubstantial with Allah, as Jesus is with the Father in Christianity. Muhammad is not said to be a god. Muslims are monotheists. My bold. Islam includes mandatory belief in angels, jinn, and Satan. Hardly monotheism.
'11-12-07, 05:19 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten Oldskeptic wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Agrippina wrote: Huh??? I worship chocolate, but very little else. You worship Mohammed. Although you deny it. Since you worship chocolate as well, this makes you a polytheist. (Actually, I was trying to see how you liked it if the tables were turned on you, but I guess it went past you. The point is that Muslims do not worship Muhammad as a god. They simply revere him as the final and ultimate prophet. Believing that someone is an infallible and perfect human being does not necessarily equate with believing that he is a god. It's an important distinction in a discussion of their monotheism). Agrippina wrote: That's the same excuse that Christians make about Jesus. Which is why they invented a "Trinity." Your ignorance is really showing here. Neither a prophet nor an ayatollah is considered a god in the Muslim religion. Muhammad is not said to be consubstantial with Allah, as Jesus is with the Father in Christianity. Muhammad is not said to be a god. Muslims are monotheists. My bold. Islam includes mandatory belief in angels, jinn, and Satan. Hardly monotheism. New thread.
'11-12-07, 11:55 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: As there exists no definitive date for the Hebrews settling in Canaan, the "storage for several hundred years" problem is resolved by accepting the Hebrews as a quasi-nomadic people (with an oral tradition) before they finally put down roots. Again, rubbish. The archaeology has already been referred to that shows that the same people living in the bronze age villages were living there in the early iron age. The continuity of settlement excludes the quasi-nomadic propaganda. Thousands of settlements have been surveyed. I'm sure the settlements have been adequately surveyed, spin, but the Bronze Agers and Iron Agers of Palestine could just as well've been the so-called Canaanites. If the Hebrews were a nomadic Shasu people having limited interminglings with the Canaanites, then I'm not sure what you'd expect to find. In their Genesis myth, the Hebrews are emphatically not the Canaanites—"cursed be Canaan!" If this was indeed their oral tradition, then they weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine, and settled there later, in the first millenium BC. You keep telling yourself that. It doesn't match what we know. It's just vain speculation. Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: You don't want to do this, and that's your prerogative, but your "evidence" to the contrary (their sedentary festivals) comes from the bible, which you seem to trust selectively depending on when it suits your case. This is funny. Institutions the Hebrews project into a fictitious wandering past show them to have actually been sedentary and now you're playing the anti-literalist card, preferring the stories of the biblical traditions rather than their institutions.. What's funny (well, not really) is that you're still willing to draw out this chicken-or-egg question. (The egg always come first. The protochicken can lay a chicken egg, but the egg can only reflect what it contains. A protochicken egg will produce a protochicken, never a chicken. ) Moses de la Montagne wrote: If you concede that they borrowed myths from their neighbors, why deny that they borrowed calendrical themes? We know the exodus didn't happen. We know that the plaguefest didn't happen, so we know that the institution of the passover is an artifice in the context given in Exodus, yet they have to deal with the existence of the passover, as they do with their other institutions. The sabbath constrains Gen 1's creation. And they set up their tents in the desert, though the tents are for harvest. These institutions which have come down to them have been written into an invented past, but into a past that is consistently inappropriate for the institutions. They have been mythologized because they are the backbone of their culture. They are inventing aetiologies for what they have. The stories came after the institutions. Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: The joke is that the stories assume the institutions. They also assume the historical truth of the exodus. Read what you want from them. You assume they assume historical truth. Of course they don't. Beside the fact that historical truth is a modern folly, you just don't know what the writers actually thought about the exodus.
'11-12-07, 18:33 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Again, rubbish. The archaeology has already been referred to that shows that the same people living in the bronze age villages were living there in the early iron age. The continuity of settlement excludes the quasi-nomadic propaganda. Thousands of settlements have been surveyed. I'm sure the settlements have been adequately surveyed, spin, but the Bronze Agers and Iron Agers of Palestine could just as well've been the so-called Canaanites. If the Hebrews were a nomadic Shasu people having limited interminglings with the Canaanites, then I'm not sure what you'd expect to find. In their Genesis myth, the Hebrews are emphatically not the Canaanites—"cursed be Canaan!" If this was indeed their oral tradition, then they weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine, and settled there later, in the first millenium BC. You keep telling yourself that. It doesn't match what we know. It's just vain speculation. It matches that the people who inhabited Palestine from the Bronze to the Iron Age were the same people. It matches that the Shasu were a nomadic people from Egypt. It matches that the bible has a myth about a departure from Egypt and, after a wandering period, an eventual settlement in the land of Canaan. One can speculate that the Shasu weren't the Hebrews of the biblical story, but it would still be just that: speculation. There's, like, some thin data here open to a variety of interpretation. spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: If you concede that they borrowed myths from their neighbors, why deny that they borrowed calendrical themes? We know the exodus didn't happen. We know that the plaguefest didn't happen, so we know that the institution of the passover is an artifice in the context given in Exodus, yet they have to deal with the existence of the passover, as they do with their other institutions. The sabbath constrains Gen 1's creation. And they set up their tents in the desert, though the tents are for harvest. These institutions which have come down to them have been written into an invented past, but into a past that is consistently inappropriate for the institutions. That's a singular way to read it. There's still the fact that they had a myth about leaving Egypt. If they had consistently been in Palestine since forever, why wouldn't the myth be about a holy possession from the beginning of time? Why have Abraham peek in, find it inhabited by Canaanites, and be given a promise that his own people would inhabit it later? And why the exodus myth? These don't seem to be the stories of a long-settled people. If the writing of the bible was a compilation of oral traditions undertaken after they had finally settled, then the interjecting of local festivals can just as well be a later development. Myth of nomads → settlement of the land → influence of agricultural lifestyle on myth. The past can be inappropriate for the institutions, or the institutions can be inappropriate for the past.
'11-12-07, 21:49 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: I'm sure the settlements have been adequately surveyed, spin, but the Bronze Agers and Iron Agers of Palestine could just as well've been the so-called Canaanites. If the Hebrews were a nomadic Shasu people having limited interminglings with the Canaanites, then I'm not sure what you'd expect to find. In their Genesis myth, the Hebrews are emphatically not the Canaanites—"cursed be Canaan!" If this was indeed their oral tradition, then they weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine, and settled there later, in the first millenium BC. You keep telling yourself that. It doesn't match what we know. It's just vain speculation. It matches that the people who inhabited Palestine from the Bronze to the Iron Age were the same people. It matches that the Shasu were a nomadic people from Egypt. It matches that the bible has a myth about a departure from Egypt and, after a wandering period, an eventual settlement in the land of Canaan. One can speculate that the Shasu weren't the Hebrews of the biblical story, but it would still be just that: speculation. There's, like, some thin data here open to a variety of interpretation. And what have the Shasu got to do with anything? Aren't you just shooting into the dark and wasting bullets? There was no conquest, as the archaeology indicates--you know, no destruction levels or changes in physical culture--, so you've got no reason to be where you are. Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: If you concede that they borrowed myths from their neighbors, why deny that they borrowed calendrical themes? We know the exodus didn't happen. We know that the plaguefest didn't happen, so we know that the institution of the passover is an artifice in the context given in Exodus, yet they have to deal with the existence of the passover, as they do with their other institutions. The sabbath constrains Gen 1's creation. And they set up their tents in the desert, though the tents are for harvest. These institutions which have come down to them have been written into an invented past, but into a past that is consistently inappropriate for the institutions. That's a singular way to read it. There's still the fact that they had a myth about leaving Egypt. If they had consistently been in Palestine since forever, why wouldn't the myth be about a holy possession from the beginning of time? Why have Abraham peek in, find it inhabited by Canaanites, and be given a promise that his own people would inhabit it later? And why the exodus myth? Umm, are we going around in circles? The exodus story reflects an Egyptian projection onto the Jews in Egypt following the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The Egyptians linked the Jews to the people that they ejected, ie the Hyksos. That's because the Hyksos went off in the direction the Jews came from. The Jews took that on board as fact and reshaped it. The holy possession (and empty land) is post-exilic rhetoric to justify the retaking of Jerusalem from the people of the land that they were now estranged from through the exile. Abraham as a figure is quite interesting because he gets relatively little attention in the prophets as compared with Jacob, indicating that the Jacob stories were much more established in the culture, a fair sign of the relative lateness of interest in Abraham. Moses de la Montagne wrote: These don't seem to be the stories of a long-settled people. If the writing of the bible was a compilation of oral traditions undertaken after they had finally settled, then the interjecting of local festivals can just as well be a later development. Myth of nomads → settlement of the land → influence of agricultural lifestyle on myth. The past can be inappropriate for the institutions, or the institutions can be inappropriate for the past. The creation account is based on an institution, as is the passover story from Exodus. The institutions existed before the stories of the past.
'11-12-08, 20:37 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: And what have the Shasu got to do with anything? Aren't you just shooting into the dark and wasting bullets? There was no conquest, as the archaeology indicates--you know, no destruction levels or changes in physical culture--, so you've got no reason to be where you are. But I haven't argued for a conquest. If they were nomads who began moving in Canaanite circles, soaking up Canaanite influences and whoring with their gods, their settlement in Canaan would not be all too disruptive. The myths, of course, would be expected to take incidents of friction between the natives and the immigrants, and to lionize the Hebrew perspective. spin wrote: The exodus story reflects an Egyptian projection onto the Jews in Egypt following the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The Egyptians linked the Jews to the people that they ejected, ie the Hyksos. That's because the Hyksos went off in the direction the Jews came from. The Jews took that on board as fact and reshaped it. What is this, though, other than what you accuse me of engaging in? Vain speculation. Maybe they took an Egyptian fancy "on board as fact and reshaped it." Or maybe some Egyptian theosophist gave them a bit of Atenism in the fourteenth century. Each of them seems as probable as the other. spin wrote: The holy possession (and empty land) is post-exilic rhetoric to justify the retaking of Jerusalem from the people of the land that they were now estranged from through the exile. Because your reading of the text is the definitive one? If, in your scenario, it was indeed a retaking of what was previously already theirs, why would they mythologize an event in recent memory as an exodus narrative from long ago? Why would it have them taking land that wasn't theirs but had only been promised them in the days of Abraham? That's rhetoric to justify a settling, not a retaking. spin wrote: Umm, are we going around in circles? Yes. I believe that was resolved pages ago. For how long you want to persist in these circles, I'm not sure. We have different versions of things based on biblical texts (the dates and interpretation of which we dispute). It doesn't seem too productive to rehash specifics only to keep coming back to that same point. Again, I can only second this: Destroyer wrote: I really don't think that it matters much how anyone interprets ancient history and beliefs. There will always be room for interpretations that suit one's own bias. We just go with the flow that suits us; and if there is no Arbiter/God who can conclusively demonstrate what actually happened, then we simply continue to go with our separate convictions.
'11-12-08, 21:24 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: And what have the Shasu got to do with anything? Aren't you just shooting into the dark and wasting bullets? There was no conquest, as the archaeology indicates--you know, no destruction levels or changes in physical culture--, so you've got no reason to be where you are. But I haven't argued for a conquest. If they were nomads... Nomads like the people who continued dwelling in villages from the late bronze to iron age?? Moses de la Montagne wrote: ...who began moving in Canaanite circles, soaking up Canaanite influences and whoring with their gods, their settlement in Canaan would not be all too disruptive. The myths, of course, would be expected to take incidents of friction between the natives and the immigrants, and to lionize the Hebrew perspective. spin wrote: The exodus story reflects an Egyptian projection onto the Jews in Egypt following the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The Egyptians linked the Jews to the people that they ejected, ie the Hyksos. That's because the Hyksos went off in the direction the Jews came from. The Jews took that on board as fact and reshaped it. What is this, though, other than what you accuse me of engaging in? Vain speculation. Maybe they took an Egyptian fancy "on board as fact and reshaped it." Or maybe some Egyptian theosophist gave them a bit of Atenism in the fourteenth century. Each of them seems as probable as the other. You like pushing shit uphill, we have the report cited in Josephus of the Egyptian connection of the Jews to the expulsion of the Hyksos. That is sufficient to explain the connection. What have you got? Umm.... Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: The holy possession (and empty land) is post-exilic rhetoric to justify the retaking of Jerusalem from the people of the land that they were now estranged from through the exile. Because your reading of the text is the definitive one? If, in your scenario, it was indeed a retaking of what was previously already theirs, why would they mythologize an event in recent memory as an exodus narrative from long ago? Why would it have them taking land that wasn't theirs but had only been promised them in the days of Abraham? That's rhetoric to justify a settling, not a retaking. As already indicated, they came back to dispossess those who remained there during the exile. (It was only the upper classes who were skimmed off to Babylon.) Hence the holy possession and empty land. And voila', no retaking, but hey, it was empty and promised. Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Umm, are we going around in circles? Yes. I believe that was resolved pages ago. I told you it was dead way back. You're just doing your voodoo. Moses de la Montagne wrote: For how long you want to persist in these circles, I'm not sure. Please, you clacked away at Akhenaten. That is the albatross in this discourse. Moses de la Montagne wrote: We have different versions of things based on biblical texts (the dates and interpretation of which we dispute). It doesn't seem too productive to rehash specifics only to keep coming back to that same point. Again, I can only second this: Destroyer wrote: I really don't think that it matters much how anyone interprets ancient history and beliefs. There will always be room for interpretations that suit one's own bias. We just go with the flow that suits us; and if there is no Arbiter/God who can conclusively demonstrate what actually happened, then we simply continue to go with our separate convictions. Alright, so you want to keep up this stupid Akhenaten stuff. You crap on about the Shasu and drop it when called on it. You have no response to the non-nomadic nature of the Palestinian archaeological remains and the agricultural, thus sedentary, nature of the festivals and you'll cling to a connection between the monotheism of a religion that died out centuries before the time of the earliest records of the Jews and the monotheism of the later literature of the Jews. You don't want to rehash it, because it just sounds so underwhelming when you analyse it. One puts our differences down to individual biases, but it seems to me it's not so much a matter of bias but willful desire on your part to get monotheism ultimately from Akhenaten, via some conjectured courtier who decides to piss off from Egypt and leaves the abstract notion of monotheism in the wind for 500+ years to eventually be absorbed into Judaism. Credible, isn't it?
'11-12-09, 04:41 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: I told you it was dead way back. You're just doing your voodoo. No, I'm just repeating what I've been saying for pages now. I guess I could keep it up indefinitely if you feel like the repetition serves some purpose. At this point, I could probably reduce most of my contributions to the minimal task of cutting and pasting from my previous posts. spin wrote: Nomads like the people who continued dwelling in villages from the late bronze to iron age?? No. Nomads who eventually settled there following a period of some assimilation. Originally posted here: the people from the late Bronze to Iron Age would've been the Canaanites. Is the presence of the Canaanites in the land of Canaan vain speculation? Cursed be Canaan, spin! Cursed be Canaan. spin wrote: You like pushing shit uphill, we have the report cited in Josephus of the Egyptian connection of the Jews to the expulsion of the Hyksos. That is sufficient to explain the connection. A first century Jew, riffing on Jewish history centuries prior? That's sufficient to explain the connection? spin wrote: What have you got? Umm.... Well, I suppose I've got Freud, don't I? Also a Jew riffing on Jewish history. Writing considerably later than Josephus, and therefore (admittedly) more removed from the events that preceded both of their births. But having no less persuasive a theory. spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: The holy possession (and empty land) is post-exilic rhetoric to justify the retaking of Jerusalem from the people of the land that they were now estranged from through the exile. Because your reading of the text is the definitive one? If, in your scenario, it was indeed a retaking of what was previously already theirs, why would they mythologize an event in recent memory as an exodus narrative from long ago? Why would it have them taking land that wasn't theirs but had only been promised them in the days of Abraham? That's rhetoric to justify a settling, not a retaking. As already indicated, they came back to dispossess those who remained there during the exile. (It was only the upper classes who were skimmed off to Babylon.) Hence the holy possession and empty land. And voila', no retaking, but hey, it was empty and promised. In this bizarre scenario, then, they were composing legendary myths about an exodus from Egypt and a conquest of the land from Canaanites—even though they were returning from Babylon after less than a century's absence to a land that had already been their own? spin wrote: Alright, so you want to keep up this stupid Akhenaten stuff. You crap on about the Shasu and drop it when called on it. I didn't drop the Shasu; I replied to that point in my last response. If the Hebrews didn't occupy Palestine for more than a millennium, then "they were nomads who began moving in Canaanite circles, soaking up Canaanite influences and whoring with their gods. Their settlement in Canaan would not be all too disruptive." This, naturally, is not compatible with your own speculation (put forth with the forcefulness of an infallible dogmatic decree) that they had been there all along. spin wrote: You have no response to the non-nomadic nature of the Palestinian archaeological remains and the agricultural, thus sedentary, nature of the festivals … I've given a response. To suppose that a nomadic tribe settled there among the Canaanites without much relative discord doesn't contradict the archaeological record and would explain the mythology (which you, contrariwise, believe was all just cleverly concocted in the post-exilic period). As I said earlier: "the myths would be expected to take incidents of friction between the natives and the immigrants, and to lionize the Hebrew perspective." spin wrote: … and you'll cling to a connection between the monotheism of a religion that died out centuries before the time of the earliest records of the Jews and the monotheism of the later literature of the Jews. Only if you reject the notion that the Jews were the Shasu of Yahweh. You naturally brook no alternate theories such as this. spin wrote: One puts our differences down to individual biases, but it seems to me it's not so much a matter of bias but willful desire on your part to get monotheism ultimately from Akhenaten, via some conjectured courtier who decides to piss off from Egypt and leaves the abstract notion of monotheism in the wind for 500+ years to eventually be absorbed into Judaism. Credible, isn't it? About as credible that the claim that the bulk of the Torah is post-exilic. I'd say "willful desire to get monotheism ultimately from Akhenaten" roughly corresponds to the want of a better explanation coming from the other side. At this point I could flip a coin.
'11-12-09, 06:18 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: I told you it was dead way back. You're just doing your voodoo. No, I'm just repeating what I've been saying for pages now. I guess I could keep it up indefinitely if you feel like the repetition serves some purpose. At this point, I could probably reduce most of my contributions to the minimal task of cutting and pasting from my previous posts. As I said, doing your voodoo, trying to get your zombie to walk. spin wrote: Nomads like the people who continued dwelling in villages from the late bronze to iron age?? No. Nomads who eventually settled there following a period of some assimilation. Originally posted here: the people from the late Bronze to Iron Age would've been the Canaanites. Is the presence of the Canaanites in the land of Canaan vain speculation? Cursed be Canaan, spin! Cursed be Canaan. Totally unevidenced nomadic absorption, not a trace of material culture. You believe in fairy stories. spin wrote: You like pushing shit uphill, we have the report cited in Josephus of the Egyptian connection of the Jews to the expulsion of the Hyksos. That is sufficient to explain the connection. A first century Jew, riffing on Jewish history centuries prior? That's sufficient to explain the connection? spin wrote: What have you got? Umm.... Well, I suppose I've got Freud, don't I? Also a Jew riffing on Jewish history. Writing considerably later than Josephus, and therefore (admittedly) more removed from the events that preceded both of their births. But having no less persuasive a theory. Well, thanks for the comic relief. I bet you could use Prince of Egypt to support the exodus with that logic. ROTFLMAO. spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Because your reading of the text is the definitive one? If, in your scenario, it was indeed a retaking of what was previously already theirs, why would they mythologize an event in recent memory as an exodus narrative from long ago? Why would it have them taking land that wasn't theirs but had only been promised them in the days of Abraham? That's rhetoric to justify a settling, not a retaking. As already indicated, they came back to dispossess those who remained there during the exile. (It was only the upper classes who were skimmed off to Babylon.) Hence the holy possession and empty land. And voila', no retaking, but hey, it was empty and promised. In this bizarre scenario, then, they were composing legendary myths about an exodus from Egypt and a conquest of the land from Canaanites—even though they were returning from Babylon after less than a century's absence to a land that had already been their own? Bizarre to you because you're messing up the time frame. They were not returning. They had returned and were looking back after the struggle to take over the land from the Hebrews who remained, ie the Canaanites. spin wrote: Alright, so you want to keep up this stupid Akhenaten stuff. You crap on about the Shasu and drop it when called on it. I didn't drop the Shasu; I replied to that point in my last response. If the Hebrews didn't occupy Palestine for more than a millennium, then "they were nomads who began moving in Canaanite circles, soaking up Canaanite influences and whoring with their gods. Their settlement in Canaan would not be all too disruptive." This, naturally, is not compatible with your own speculation (put forth with the forcefulness of an infallible dogmatic decree) that they had been there all along. Oh, so it's just the invisible absorption of people whose relevance you can't show. What were you talking about them for again? spin wrote: You have no response to the non-nomadic nature of the Palestinian archaeological remains and the agricultural, thus sedentary, nature of the festivals … I've given a response. To suppose that a nomadic tribe settled there among the Canaanites without much relative discord doesn't contradict the archaeological record and would explain the mythology (which you, contrariwise, believe was all just cleverly concocted in the post-exilic period). As I said earlier: "the myths would be expected to take incidents of friction between the natives and the immigrants, and to lionize the Hebrew perspective." So no trace in the archaeological record is your evidence? You'd prefer to work with legendary conflict and forget about the known conflict. spin wrote: … and you'll cling to a connection between the monotheism of a religion that died out centuries before the time of the earliest records of the Jews and the monotheism of the later literature of the Jews. Only if you reject the notion that the Jews were the Shasu of Yahweh. You naturally brook no alternate theories such as this. Given that the people of Ugarit worshiped El as the Hebrews did, would you conflate the two? spin wrote: One puts our differences down to individual biases, but it seems to me it's not so much a matter of bias but willful desire on your part to get monotheism ultimately from Akhenaten, via some conjectured courtier who decides to piss off from Egypt and leaves the abstract notion of monotheism in the wind for 500+ years to eventually be absorbed into Judaism. Credible, isn't it? About as credible that the claim that the bulk of the Torah is post-exilic. I'd say "willful desire to get monotheism ultimately from Akhenaten" roughly corresponds to the want of a better explanation coming from the other side. At this point I could flip a coin. You've got yourself believing that you have an either/or situation with this Akhenaten folly. Sorry, but no cigar. All you are doing is confusing two separate issues. Your theory about nomadic absorption has nothing directly to do with your Atenist source for Jewish monotheism theory.
'11-12-10, 22:09 Oldskeptic	Re: Akhenaten I find it interesting that in Ugarit mythology going back perhaps to 1800 BCE that El was the father/supreme god and that Yaw was his son. Yaw wanted to be the second top god and El told him that he would have to overthrow Ba'al. In Ugarit mythology Ba'al wins. But in Hebrew mythology Yahweh wins, and Yahweh is so fucking insecure that he has his priests go after anyone that worships Ba'al. Actually it is the priests that are insecure, but they portray their god that way. The Hebrew god as portrayed in the Old Testament is a jealous and vindictive god that is jealous of other gods, and vindictive towards people that worship other gods. The golden calf that set Moses into such a frenzy is a symbol of Ba'al. My pet hypothesis* is that the whole "one god in Yahweh" story stemmed from Ugarit mythology and has nothing to do with Egyptian mythology. Aten was a sun god, Yahweh was a tribal war god. "Thou shall have no other gods before me," doesn't sound much like monotheism to me. *It's as good if not better than others.
'11-12-11, 08:23 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten There's also the "create man in OUR own image" business.
'11-12-12, 02:02 paarsurrey	Re: Akhenaten Please read the following: Who is the founder of monotheistic religions? Each monotheistic religion had its own founder. If Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, then Zarathushtra(Greek: Zoroaster) would be the first founder of a monotheistic religion The Founders of each of the monotheistic religions was descended from Abraham, who it could be reasoned was the first to believe in the concept of one God. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_fo ... z1gHUcHxoW This shows that Akhenaten was not the founder of monotheism.
'11-12-20, 10:00 Zwaarddijk	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: What is very interesting about the Bible is the non-inclusion of the Books of the Maccabees in the standard Bible. It's part of the Jewish tradition, but not the Christian one. My opinion for this is that it didn't fit the prophecy of the Messiah, and the idea that the worship of Yahweh was what caused them to live as "his people" for 500 years before the Romans sent them into exile again. Sorry, Agrippina, but ... please check your sources again. About one and a half year ago, you actually posted a link that got this right in an original post in a thread. I admit that the link is somewhat tendentious - the content is quite religiously tinged, but unlike you, they actually got this fairly basic fact about canonicity right. A couple of months ago, I also pointed out you where being wrong about this- but when you asked why no Christians ever had cited them at you, I simply didn't answer because, what, do I look like I should know that? (Though my guess would be you live in a predominantly protestant area. Maybe catholics you know don't use them that much either, possibly out of protestant influence, or you just know the kind of catholics that don't cite the Bible much; if they do, would you recognize an out-of-context apocryphal quote from an out-of-context canonical one?). Turns out the Jews do not include Maccabees in their tradition - no Hebrew version of it has been passed down since antiquity, and all Jewish sects since roughly the second century CE reject that book. The only intertestamental apocryph quoted to any considerable extent in the Talmud afaict is the Wisdom of Jesus Syrach - but its Hebrew form was afaict only recovered to some extent when the DSS were found. However, as I said, more than half of Christianity accepts these books as canonical - the catholic, orthodox (and to a lesser extent the anglicans.) Together, these form more than half of Christianity. To make things even more opposite of what you say, one reason for the Jewish rejection of these books might be their widespread use among early Christians. Akiva might have gone so far as to say 'anyone who reads these books has no portion in the world to come'. Don't fall for the temptation, Agrippina, of making up bullshit to discredit Christianity. Verify your claims if you're in doubt.
'11-12-20, 13:45 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten Zwaarddijk wrote: Agrippina wrote: What is very interesting about the Bible is the non-inclusion of the Books of the Maccabees in the standard Bible. It's part of the Jewish tradition, but not the Christian one. My opinion for this is that it didn't fit the prophecy of the Messiah, and the idea that the worship of Yahweh was what caused them to live as "his people" for 500 years before the Romans sent them into exile again. Sorry, Agrippina, but ... please check your sources again. About one and a half year ago, you actually posted a link that got this right in an original post in a thread. I admit that the link is somewhat tendentious - the content is quite religiously tinged, but unlike you, they actually got this fairly basic fact about canonicity right. Yes that was in March last year, when I was still looking at reading the Bible, which I finally started in June 2010. There's a big difference in the opinions you have when you're just repeating what you think you know and then when you've actually done some reading, finding out that your thumbsucking was wrong, but more on this later. A couple of months ago, I also pointed out you where being wrong about this- but when you asked why no Christians ever had cited them at you, I simply didn't answer because, what, do I look like I should know that? (Though my guess would be you live in a predominantly protestant area. Maybe catholics you know don't use them that much either, possibly out of protestant influence, or you just know the kind of catholics that don't cite the Bible much; if they do, would you recognize an out-of-context apocryphal quote from an out-of-context canonical one?). My exposure to Catholicism as you rightly guessed was very fragmented as a youngster. I went to Catholic school as a young child and when I was found out attending their religious services, my dad stopped it because he was raising me to become his Zionist daughter who would eventually work on a kibbutz and become a sabra, or some other silly dream he had for me when I was five years old. That didn't work out so no more exposure to Catholic church so yes. I really still do know very little about the actual doctrine of the Catholic church, although I know the history of how it came about. As for Protestantism, the same actually applies. I know the history of its origins but very little of the theology, except for the one read through the New Testament, which I am going to be redoing very shortly. I'll be also doing some reading on the theology at the same time. In fact, my present reading material is Bart Ehrman's "Forged." I'm finding that very interesting. Turns out the Jews do not include Maccabees in their tradition - no Hebrew version of it has been passed down since antiquity, and all Jewish sects since roughly the second century CE reject that book. The only intertestamental apocryph quoted to any considerable extent in the Talmud afaict is the Wisdom of Jesus Syrach - but its Hebrew form was afaict only recovered to some extent when the DSS were found. Interestingly, when I read for my Ancient History courses, I wondered why there was no history of the Greeks in the Bible while a lot was said about the Romans. I remembered learning about the Maccabees as a child so I went looking and found a few websites and a copy of a translation of the books themselves. I'd have to look for it (can't remember where it is). I have a few theories about why it wasn't included which I think I've mentioned before. http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__8-First-of-Maccabees .html However, as I said, more than half of Christianity accepts these books as canonical - the catholic, orthodox (and to a lesser extent the anglicans.) Together, these form more than half of Christianity. To make things even more opposite of what you say, one reason for the Jewish rejection of these books might be their widespread use among early Christians. Akiva might have gone so far as to say 'anyone who reads these books has no portion in the world to come'. Don't fall for the temptation, Agrippina, of making up bullshit to discredit Christianity. Verify your claims if you're in doubt. I'll read up on what you're saying when I get to the New Testament. Remember I've read the standard version, and not the theology, or not in any depth just yet. I'm not making stuff up. I'm confident enough to admit that I don't know something when I don't know it. But also remember what I have read is the standard version of the Bible that is sold as the "Word of God." If the churches want people to know the rest of it, they should make it part of their "holy" book. If they don't then other people who "read the Bible" are as ignorant of the existence of Apocrypha as I was until I started asking questions and as I'm beginning to learn from Ehrman.
'11-12-20, 13:49 Zwaarddijk	Re: Akhenaten editing
'11-12-20, 14:05 rJD	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: If they had consistently been in Palestine since forever, why wouldn't the myth be about a holy possession from the beginning of time? Why have Abraham peek in, find it inhabited by Canaanites, and be given a promise that his own people would inhabit it later? And why the exodus myth? By this reasoning, we should assume that the Irish legends of the Fomorian giants and the godlike Tuatha Dé Danann are reliable. These don't seem to be the stories of a long-settled people. The ruins of cities in Palestine that predated the Israelites, and were remembered by them only as ruins, suggests that there was quite a bit of movement around ancient Palestine simply due to the usual ravages of war, but this does not mean that there was a wholesale displacement of an indiginous people. A mytho-history that purports to 'explain' the ancient ruins around them would be perfectly sufficient explanation, without trying to force-fit vaguely similar stories from elsewhere into the mix.
'11-12-20, 14:09 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten Zwaarddijk wrote: ... but churches do make it part of their holy book. The catholic and orthodox at the very least. MANY PROTESTANTS, however, object strenously to the apocrypha, and therefore exclude them. Therefore, your central claim - that Christianity rejected those books because they kind of contradicted the messianity of Jesus fails. IN fact, JUDAISM rejected those books because they were used by Christians. YOU ARE MAKING THIS STUFF UP. Sorry, but that genuinely is the case. Having only attended church with the actual intention of paying attention to what the lecturer was saying, about 50 years ago, I wouldn't know what they say. I'm going to read up on it in the new year. So let me do that before you shout at me. Funny that you say that about the Jews because I learnt about the Macabees from the idea of Chanukah: Just a quick google (as I said I need to look through more authoritative sources and don't have time right now but read what this says: The Jewish Hammer Though many Jews had been seduced by the virtues of Hellenism, the extreme measures adopted by Antiochus helped unite the people. When a Greek official tried to force a priest named Mattathias to make a sacrifice to a pagan god, the Jew murdered the man. Predictably, Antiochus began reprisals, but in 167 BCE the Jews rose up behind Mattathias and his five sons and fought for their liberation. The family of Mattathias became known as the Maccabees, from the Hebrew word for "hammer," because they were said to strike hammer blows against their enemies. Jews refer to the Maccabees, but the family is more commonly known as the Hasmoneans. Like other rulers before him, Antiochus underestimated the will and strength of his Jewish adversaries and sent a small force to put down the rebellion. When that was annihilated, he led a more powerful army into battle only to be defeated. In 164 BCE, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Maccabees and the Temple purified, an event that gave birth to the holiday of Chanukah. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html History Of Jewish Hanukkah Holiday The history of Hannukah can be traced back to the rededication of the holy temple of Jerusalem by the Jews, by emerging victorious over the Hellenist Syrians in 165 BC. The Greek god of Syria, Antiochus, ordered the Jews to worship the Greek god and prohibited Jews from practicing their rituals. Even their holy temple was seized in 168 BC and was dedicated to Zeus. Not much time later, the angry Jews decided to fight back and restore the dignity of their holy temple. The fighting began in a village close to Jerusalem, known as Modiin. The seeds for Jewish revolt were planted when Jews asked by a Greek officer to bow to an idol and eat a pig's flesh, which is forbidden by the Jewish religion. This enraged one of the Jews who killed the officer and went into hiding with his family. There, he was joined by the rest of the Jews, who were willing to fight against the Greeks. This group of Jewish warriors ambushed the Greeks whenever they sensed opportunity. Soon, Judah Maccabee, the third son of Jewish priest Mattathias and the leader of the Jewish revolt; went to the holy temple with his soldiers. In the temple, Judah found many things broken or missing. The temple was cleaned and repaired by Maccabee and his soldiers and then, a big dedication ceremony was held there. The Maccabees also wanted to light the golden menorah in the temple, but they could only find a small flask containing oil, which was enough to light the menorah for a day. However, the oil lasted in the menorah for eight days, quite miraculously. Later, this led to the tradition of lighting menorah on Hanukkah, for eight days. http://festivals.iloveindia.com/hanukkah/history.html The origins of the Jewish "Christmas" has its roots in the celebration of the return of the Temple from defilement by the Greeks by the family of Mattathias, who was a member of the family the "Maccabees." Making this up? EDIT: whether your Bible has "the word of God" printed or it or not is immaterial - anyone can print that on a book. Doesn't say anything about the Catholic or Orthodox canon, or what the canon of the majority of Christians in the world is. The fact that you were taught about the greek period in school does show the catholic school had some interest for educating people on this era - and tadaa! - they include those books in their fucking canon as I already said. Your claiming your bible is the "standard version" ... what standard version? That's just a very awkward thing - there's no arbiter saying that this or that Bible is the standard. Putting the words "standard version" in the preface or on the binding of it is just a marketing ploy, or a theological ploy within a church. When I was told to "read the Bible" I wasn't told to study Christian theology. I read the Bible, the KJV in English, and I'm writing from I learn from that. That is the book that's issued in every hotel room by the Gideons, it's the book that people call 'holy' if you want me to study Theology, I am more than capable of doing that, but to be honest, I have far better things on which to waste my time.
'11-12-20, 14:15 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten rJD wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: If they had consistently been in Palestine since forever, why wouldn't the myth be about a holy possession from the beginning of time? Why have Abraham peek in, find it inhabited by Canaanites, and be given a promise that his own people would inhabit it later? And why the exodus myth? By this reasoning, we should assume that the Irish legends of the Fomorian giants and the godlike Tuatha Dé Danann are reliable. Because the people who were creating a society wanted their own history, with their own heroes, with their own religion, so they made it up. These don't seem to be the stories of a long-settled people. The ruins of cities in Palestine that predated the Israelites, and were remembered by them only as ruins, suggests that there was quite a bit of movement around ancient Palestine simply due to the usual ravages of war, but this does not mean that there was a wholesale displacement of an indiginous people. A mytho-history that purports to 'explain' the ancient ruins around them would be perfectly sufficient explanation, without trying to force-fit vaguely similar stories from elsewhere into the mix. According to my reading of the history of "Israel" from various sources, which I can cite if I have to, just don't have them on the tips of my fingers unfortunately, rJD is quite right. It was inhabited. Israel Finkelstein says that it seems that some sort of civil disturbance caused them to make up the society that was joined by other people from other places and that for a short time was ruled by a king who may or may not have been David, but probably was. I can find the quote in his book if necessary.
'11-12-20, 14:22 Zwaarddijk	Re: Akhenaten editing
'11-12-23, 03:29 jparada	Re: Akhenaten If the Jews are the same people who were living there from the beginning of the Bronze Age, when did they differentiate from Canaanites then? Canaanites are the same people we know as Phoenicians.