Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
- Thread starter Raha
- Start date
Have you read this article (compliments of ConsequentAtheist) Israelites Found in Egypt?
Re: Re: Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
'amen: adverb
verily, truly, amen, so be it,
from the primitive root 'aman
to support, confirm, be faithful
But could there be another possibility for a connection?
Exodus 7:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God [Hebr. Adonai= Egyptian Aten] to Pharaoh..."
Here is an article on Moses' Egyptian name for those interested.
*
"And in his work on the Religion and Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians Brugsch expressed his conviction that, from the earliest times, a nameless, incomprehensible and eternal God was worshipped by the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile. This conviction he based on many passages in the religious and moral texts of the Egyptians, in which reference is made to a self-existent almighty Being who seems to be none other than the God of modern nations."
It is, however, very probable that he [Amenhetep IV] wished Aten, as the god of absolute truth and justice, to become the national god of Egypt and divine ruler of all the countries of the Sudan and Western Asia that formed his dominions. If that be so, he was born too late to bring this about, even supposing that he was physically and mentally fit to undertake such a task. When he ascended the throne, Amen, or Amen-Ra, the King of the Gods, the Lord of the world, was actually what Amenhetep wished Aten to be. Amen had expelled: the Hyksos and set the first king of the XVIIIth dynasty upon his throne, and he had given victory to the successors of Aahmes I and filled Egypt with the wealth of the Sudan and Western Asia. Amen had become the overlord of the gods, and his fame filled the greater part of the world that was known to the Egyptians. It was impossible to overthrow the great and wealthy priesthood of Amen. to say nothing of the social institutions of which Amen was the head. The monotheism of Amenhetep from a religious point of view was not new, but from a political point of view it was. It consisted chiefly of the dogma that Amen was unfit to be the national god of Egypt, the Sudan and Syria, and that Aten was more just, more righteous, and more merciful than the upstart god of Thebes, and that Aten alone was fitted to be the national god of Egypt and her dominions. When Amenhetep tried to give a practical form to his views, his attempt was accompanied, as has frequently been the case with religious "reformers," by the confiscation of sacrosanct property, and by social confusion and misery. It was fortunate for Egypt that she only produced one king who was an individualist and idealist, a pacifist and a religious "reformer" all in one. - Egyptian monotheism
Amen is a Hebrew word. You are confusing it with the Egyptian god of Thebes*.
'amen: adverb
verily, truly, amen, so be it,
from the primitive root 'aman
to support, confirm, be faithful
But could there be another possibility for a connection?
Exodus 7:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God [Hebr. Adonai= Egyptian Aten] to Pharaoh..."
Here is an article on Moses' Egyptian name for those interested.
*
"And in his work on the Religion and Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians Brugsch expressed his conviction that, from the earliest times, a nameless, incomprehensible and eternal God was worshipped by the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile. This conviction he based on many passages in the religious and moral texts of the Egyptians, in which reference is made to a self-existent almighty Being who seems to be none other than the God of modern nations."
It is, however, very probable that he [Amenhetep IV] wished Aten, as the god of absolute truth and justice, to become the national god of Egypt and divine ruler of all the countries of the Sudan and Western Asia that formed his dominions. If that be so, he was born too late to bring this about, even supposing that he was physically and mentally fit to undertake such a task. When he ascended the throne, Amen, or Amen-Ra, the King of the Gods, the Lord of the world, was actually what Amenhetep wished Aten to be. Amen had expelled: the Hyksos and set the first king of the XVIIIth dynasty upon his throne, and he had given victory to the successors of Aahmes I and filled Egypt with the wealth of the Sudan and Western Asia. Amen had become the overlord of the gods, and his fame filled the greater part of the world that was known to the Egyptians. It was impossible to overthrow the great and wealthy priesthood of Amen. to say nothing of the social institutions of which Amen was the head. The monotheism of Amenhetep from a religious point of view was not new, but from a political point of view it was. It consisted chiefly of the dogma that Amen was unfit to be the national god of Egypt, the Sudan and Syria, and that Aten was more just, more righteous, and more merciful than the upstart god of Thebes, and that Aten alone was fitted to be the national god of Egypt and her dominions. When Amenhetep tried to give a practical form to his views, his attempt was accompanied, as has frequently been the case with religious "reformers," by the confiscation of sacrosanct property, and by social confusion and misery. It was fortunate for Egypt that she only produced one king who was an individualist and idealist, a pacifist and a religious "reformer" all in one. - Egyptian monotheism
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
Amen, pronounced Ameen, is an arabic word that have two meanings in one, Ameen means in all honesty. Aman which is a derivative of Ameen means secure. After we pray, we say Ameen to indicate that our request is in all honesty and that we seek the security and reguge of Allah to make our prayer and confession.
Salam, Islam, Saleem, Aslam, Muslim, are all derivative of the same word Salam. They have three meanings in one. Salam means peace, while Aslam means submitted, Saleem means complete and pure from errors. Submission should be complete and in peace and one arabic word conveys all three meanings.
Amen, pronounced Ameen, is an arabic word that have two meanings in one, Ameen means in all honesty. Aman which is a derivative of Ameen means secure. After we pray, we say Ameen to indicate that our request is in all honesty and that we seek the security and reguge of Allah to make our prayer and confession.
Salam, Islam, Saleem, Aslam, Muslim, are all derivative of the same word Salam. They have three meanings in one. Salam means peace, while Aslam means submitted, Saleem means complete and pure from errors. Submission should be complete and in peace and one arabic word conveys all three meanings.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
I am reminded of a letter to BAR (Vol 29 No 5, pg. 81) noting:
Which variant of Exodus 7:1 uses "Adonai" rather than Elohim, i.e., Strong's 0430?
I am reminded of a letter to BAR (Vol 29 No 5, pg. 81) noting:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
But I agree with Mr. Herald, such equations are usually very contrived. I just thought it was interesting in regard to the topic.
I'm not sure whether he used this verse, but the analogy was originally made by none other than Sigmund Freud.
But I agree with Mr. Herald, such equations are usually very contrived. I just thought it was interesting in regard to the topic.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Akhenaton founder of monotheism?
In other words, retrojecting this 'analogy' into Exodus 7 was your fabrication, much as you fabricated the etymology of the term "Septuagint". Got it.
CA, you have an incredible knack for missing the point. But if it makes you feel better, yes I am fallible. I went from memory and got it wrong. Nontheless, if you think the "I am Adonai" (Exodus 6:2) of Moses is a different God than Elohim (Ex. 7:1) of Moses, you are way off course.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
The problem is not that you're fallible, but that you're ignorant, and yet deign to instruct others.
This is like watching a sequel to Dumb and Dumber:
- Exodus 6:2 does not reference Adonai, but YHWH.
- There is a robust library of scholarship by Cross, Smith, and others addressing and explicating the difference between El/Elohim and YHWH.
But I count on you to correct my obvious mistakes.
"Adonay is the prescribed traditional reading of the Divine Name expressed in the four Hebrew letters YHWH - which is never pronounced as written." (From the Pentateuch and Haftorah's, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, pages 6-7)
The problem is that I used the Hebrew version:
"God spoke to Moses and said to him, 'I am Adonai. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name Adonai'" (Exodus 6:2-3).
(Parashat Va-Era)
Again: An honest mistake is not a lie - I said nothing that would lead anyone to conclusions that did not agree with the Bible (although they would disagree with you).
What does their scholarship say about Exodus 20:7
"You shall not take the name of Yahweh your Elohim in vain, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished him who takes His name in vain."?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Actually, the same thing they say about Joshua 22:22.
There is an interesting perspective on this: In the beginning, "man" was with God in the form of Jesus, and "they" were known as elohim. Then man was made by God in his image, becoming the "gods" of God - He said "you are gods (elohim)" (Ps 82:6), when describing knowledge of Him. People came to know God, among other names, as YHWH ("I am") El (God) Elohim (of gods) (Josh 22:22). God became "I am", his children became "you are". We are only "gods" as God's inheritance, not otherwise. And we inherit God's life and kingdom through Christ.
34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." (John 10:36-37).
You can only know God by knowing Him in your life - by the measure in which you live as God's image. The separation of "the image" from "God" is idolatry. You will not find God anywhere else - His image is seen most clearly in people who love as He loves us.
Psalm 82
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the elohim:
2 "How long will you [1] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 "I said, 'You are elohim;
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." (John 10:36-37).
You can only know God by knowing Him in your life - by the measure in which you live as God's image. The separation of "the image" from "God" is idolatry. You will not find God anywhere else - His image is seen most clearly in people who love as He loves us.
Psalm 82
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the elohim:
2 "How long will you [1] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 "I said, 'You are elohim;
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
The human race is God
Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
There is an interesting perspective on this: In the beginning, "man" was with God in the form of Jesus, and "they" were known as elohim.
----------
(In the beginning, "man" was with God in spirit--the image of God. Paul didn't create the myth of Jesus until around 80-100 AD. There's no way that Jesus could be alluded to in the OT.)
----------
Then man was made by God in his image, becoming the "gods" of God - He said "you are gods (elohim)" (Ps 82:6), when describing knowledge of Him.
----------
(Man was always in God's spiritual image. God and man were "gods" and still are.)
----------
People came to know God, among other names, as YHWH ("I am") El (God) Elohim (of gods) (Josh 22:22). God became "I am", his children became "you are".
----------
(How convenient you have interpreted this to suit your own needs.)
----------
We are only "gods" as God's inheritance, not otherwise. And we inherit God's life and kingdom through Christ.
----------
(Again, you conveniently interpret this to suit your own needs. The human race is One with God. We inherited the status of "god" because we share God's spiritual image. We are the kingdom of God on Earth. This is what Jesus was trying to teach, but people like you have been misinterpreting Jesus for 2,000 years. Give the guy a break!)
Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
There is an interesting perspective on this: In the beginning, "man" was with God in the form of Jesus, and "they" were known as elohim.
----------
(In the beginning, "man" was with God in spirit--the image of God. Paul didn't create the myth of Jesus until around 80-100 AD. There's no way that Jesus could be alluded to in the OT.)
----------
Then man was made by God in his image, becoming the "gods" of God - He said "you are gods (elohim)" (Ps 82:6), when describing knowledge of Him.
----------
(Man was always in God's spiritual image. God and man were "gods" and still are.)
----------
People came to know God, among other names, as YHWH ("I am") El (God) Elohim (of gods) (Josh 22:22). God became "I am", his children became "you are".
----------
(How convenient you have interpreted this to suit your own needs.)
----------
We are only "gods" as God's inheritance, not otherwise. And we inherit God's life and kingdom through Christ.
----------
(Again, you conveniently interpret this to suit your own needs. The human race is One with God. We inherited the status of "god" because we share God's spiritual image. We are the kingdom of God on Earth. This is what Jesus was trying to teach, but people like you have been misinterpreting Jesus for 2,000 years. Give the guy a break!)
Raha
Registered Senior Member
Who knows what Jesus originally taught? Who knows for sure whether he ever lived? And when and where? How did he die?
To all those questions we have only secondary sources (at best!). But regarding the historical circumstances, say, 100 BCE - 50 CE, then we can assume that Jesus (if he lived) was somehow connected either to Zealot or Essene movement (if those two were not identical). This assumption leads us to conclusion that Jesus' teaching was in the first place apocalyptic (and we know that early Christians were apocalyptic a good deal). And although there is no direct "the end is nigh" in Gospels, there are many hints (do not care for future etc.)
So yes - if he lived, than his teaching was something completely different than what we know today.
To all those questions we have only secondary sources (at best!). But regarding the historical circumstances, say, 100 BCE - 50 CE, then we can assume that Jesus (if he lived) was somehow connected either to Zealot or Essene movement (if those two were not identical). This assumption leads us to conclusion that Jesus' teaching was in the first place apocalyptic (and we know that early Christians were apocalyptic a good deal). And although there is no direct "the end is nigh" in Gospels, there are many hints (do not care for future etc.)
So yes - if he lived, than his teaching was something completely different than what we know today.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Why? I know of absolutely no evidence to suggest either.
Raha
Registered Senior Member
No, there is no evidence. But according to Gospels, Jesus was neither Pharisee nor Sadducee. And if we do not assume divine inspiration than Jesus (if he ever lived) had to start somewhere. Zealots and Essenes where (if not just two fractions or two names for the same movement) the other two most influential sects. And from works of Philo and Josephus we know that there are some strong similarities between Essene teachings and supposed teaching of JC. There are also Dead Sea scrolls, of course, which provides many interesting insights into religious thinking of that era.
Of course, there is still the possibility that JC came out of nowhere with something completely new, but I do not think there is big probability of that. Especially that we know that many concepts of his teaching already existed in teaching of Essenes and Qumran sect.
Of course, there is still the possibility that JC came out of nowhere with something completely new, but I do not think there is big probability of that. Especially that we know that many concepts of his teaching already existed in teaching of Essenes and Qumran sect.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
There is likely no evidence that he belonged to the Therapeutae or the Hemerobaptists or the Qumran sect. You, of course, can assume whatever you wish, but don't pretend that it has any foundation.
What a small world you have: he either "was somehow connected either to Zealot or Essene movement " or he "came out of nowhere with something completely new".
This sentence clearly suggests that you know far more about these than I do. Furthermore, when referencing the "Zealot or Essene" movement, you added: "(if those two were not identical)". This further suggests that you may well have unique revelation about the cults of the 2nd Temple Period.
I look forward to hearing which of "his teachings" were unique to either or both of the "Essenes and Qumran sect", and what evidence supports an identity between the Zealots and the Essenes. Or is this yet another case of "No, there is no evidence. But ... ".
If you're familiar with the Essene Copper Scroll, you'd know that it describes immense trasure. Jesus, supposedly, was against gathering earthly possessions. So, no similarities here.
There's also the Essene War Scroll. Jesus is believed to have been a pacifist. Again, a contradiction.
Raha
Registered Senior Member
Essene Copper Scroll? Essene War Scroll? There is no evidence that Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Essenes. In no one of the scrolls is the word "Essene" (or anything similar") used. According to my knowledge, the theory that Qumran sect were Essenes is based solely on Josephus, who wrote that Essenes lived somewhere close to Dead sea. Phillo, on the contrary, wrote that Essenes lived elsewhere - even in Egypt. Philo also wrote: