judaism

[S.A.M.]

Y'know, other things have been proven when only one source of evidence backs it up, simply because it was the only trace proving r disproving it

When its only source, its not called evidence.

:wallbang:Excuse me but i've just got to shout- :soapbox: HEBREWS, JEWS, AND ISREALIS AREN'T THE SAME THING! - Sorry, just had to say that.

Agreed.

May I see proof for The El to elohim transition?

Sure. Historical. The Canaanites had a God called El and then the Hebrews migrated there and adopted elohim. No Elohim or Hebrews or Jews before Canaan.

Unless you cunt the torah

Which was written when? No evidence of Judaism or Torah until 500 years after Moses.

Revised from the original, not made from nothing.

No comparison available.

 

[Bishadi]

I meant to keep reading, below is what I mean: the torah.
I'll try to be more clear in the future


Exactly- which is why the Torah is written as a biography, with God as witness writing it.

then why witness one theology and not the others?

why in torah people are 'chosen ones' and not all equal ones?

And that's what happened. God wrote the torah, and gave it to Moses. No ideas that were impressed upon him, if any, were impressed upon the Torah

perhaps you need a lesson on the 613 misfits before believing that line of BS you just posted

moses spoke to the god of egypt, perhaps everyday at supper (the pharoah) but the god of existence (mother-nature) don't talk to people!

Once agian, I am sorry if what I said is unclear: The 'Undisputable truths' are things that are so believed that there is no argument over them- such as the fact that there is only one God, and that he is good

there is no argument; God don't talk; first fact (no beliefs)

God (mother nature) is Good........... hence both life and death are balances in nature.

:frust: Man, I'm like a car with no windsheild wipers in a hurricane, amn't I?
I really need to be more clear with my analogies!
I ment imagine this: There's a court case going on and there isn't any evidence to prove the defendent guilty. Suddenly, a witness comes up with no other evidence than what he says against the Defendant. Isn't that enough?

nope!

as any man can say; 'this is the word of GOD'....(like most every religion).... and be lying thru their teeth just like the rest who said it.

ok! :huh:Let's also get rid of fire, since that's outdated too, isn't it?

fire is natural, lies within beliefs are created and unnatural; as most of the fibs divide man from nature (the garden) all created by men/women

The religion has changed with the times, so don't think that it's the same as when started: Reform and conservative update laws to fit modern times (The traditional look stands out like a sore thumb)

are you suggesting 'knowledge evolves'?

be nice when the absolute runs over the fibs of beliefs! (that is the faith to all, that was to be maintained; trust that the truth WILL exist; one day)

Now I'm Not the one being unclear

it is because you may not have realized that all three of abrahams sect (jew, mus, christian) are all from the roots of torah (OT) and that book is from what egyptian knowledge (african roots)

yes. but he also learned things from god.

if nature(existence) is god, thn you learn from god too;

question is are you honest enough to accept that?

And god wrote the torah

BS.......... as man created and wrote every word in existence (fact)

Even so, none of of those three came from ancient Egypt's gods

did you forget akhanatan and his converting egypt to observe ONE GOD?

perhaps you need a little history on religions?

I'm sorry i didn't look up the fact on the religions' oldest populations, but that's the only fact i didn't look up. The rest I reaserched.
and you view isn't right

then if you are not willing to read and actually question yourself before others, then you are not learning; you are following!

 

[swarm]

Akhenaten created the first documented monotheism.

The Ra-Horus who rejoices in the horizon, in his/her Name of the Light which is seen in the sun disc aka Ra-Horus-Aten or just Aten for short.

Great Hymn to Aten

How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole god, like whom there is no other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire,
Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts,
Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
And what is on high, flying with its wings.

The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,
Thou settest every man in his place,
Thou suppliest their necessities:
Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
Their tongues are separate in speech,
And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished,
As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.
Thou makest a Nile in the underworld,
Thou bringest forth as thou desirest
To maintain the people (of Egypt)
According as thou madest them for thyself,
The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them,
The lord of every land, rising for them,
The Aton of the day, great of majesty.

- - Akhenaten

 

[S.A.M.]

I think that credit should go to the Hindus. The Vaishnavs, to be exact. Not certain, but the Vedas do purportedly go back farther than the Egyptians [i.e. the period of the Itihasas]. The Egyptians traded with the Indians and may have learned monotheism from them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishnavism

 

[Bishadi]

Akhenaten created the first documented monotheism.

The Ra-Horus who rejoices in the horizon, in his/her Name of the Light which is seen in the sun disc aka Ra-Horus-Aten or just Aten for short.

Great Hymn to Aten

How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole god, like whom there is no other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire,
Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts,
Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
And what is on high, flying with its wings.

The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,
Thou settest every man in his place,
Thou suppliest their necessities:
Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
Their tongues are separate in speech,
And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished,
As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.
Thou makest a Nile in the underworld,
Thou bringest forth as thou desirest
To maintain the people (of Egypt)
According as thou madest them for thyself,
The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them,
The lord of every land, rising for them,
The Aton of the day, great of majesty.

- - Akhenaten

Swarm............ thanks for the contribution

Now i ask; could he be the Abraham of OT. IN which he identified the single God? (notice how it almost mirrors what is recorded from egyptian works)

perhaps see if there is a story were Akhenaten was willing to put up his child (sacrafice) to show his faith

Just thinking out loud (on the keypad).

My view is can mankind bridge the truth or do we need the continuous perpetuation of fairy-tales? (legends)


As Zoroaster was the 'other' fine contributor to Islam that did bring in the Eastern (hindu) flare to the western Abrahamic sects. (hence the chanting...etc..)

 

[Ness]

Y'know what? I'm not getting anywhere with this.
Ness out.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now i ask; could he be the Abraham of OT. IN which he identified the single God? (notice how it almost mirrors what is recorded from egyptian works)

perhaps see if there is a story were Akhenaten was willing to put up his child (sacrafice) to show his faith

Just thinking out loud (on the keypad).

My view is can mankind bridge the truth or do we need the continuous perpetuation of fairy-tales? (legends)


As Zoroaster was the 'other' fine contributor to Islam that did bring in the Eastern (hindu) flare to the western Abrahamic sects. (hence the chanting...etc..)

Sure why not? Abraham could well be Brahma too just as his wife Sara could be Saraswati.

 

[Bishadi]

Sure why not? Abraham could well be Brahma too just as his wife Sara could be Saraswati.

educate me please; on what you have learned

that's an east/west combining; that may build a bridge

please

 

[S.A.M.]

I read a paper by Gene Matlock on it

http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html

Haven't gotten around to dissecting it for veracity

 

[swarm]

Now i ask; could he be the Abraham of OT.

Probaly not. Abraham seems to have been from Sumer, Amon or Babylon, depending on when you place him.

IN which he identified the single God?

The early books like genisis use the plural gods. What it looks like to me is "moses" took the "only god of the jews" from abraham and changed it to the "only god" to fit his monotheism and then beat the living calf out of them.

 

[Bishadi]

Probaly not. Abraham seems to have been from Sumer, Amon or Babylon, depending on when you place him.

kind of like the legends of mount olympus

try something; change the word babylon to babilu (the gate/jeruselem)

then reread the bible

The early books like genisis use the plural gods.

same with egypt
before ahkanetan

What it looks like to me is "moses" took the "only god of the jews" from abraham and changed it to the "only god" to fit his monotheism and then beat the living calf out of them.

basically the same story line up until king tut............

my point is most of the torah tries to create Moses as some person who was israeli, when he never knew israeli anything, he was raised in the pharoahs house and like ahkenatan perferred the single diety combining than the pantheon


this is what is so interesting

he (moses) was educated and born in egypt (no matter the story line)

so all he learned was from their libraries, their method, they language and culture.


that is why i enjoy how the literature almost opens up the mind to imagine HE was representing while walking amongst the pharoahs and pyramids in their glory days

of course religious leaders like piety and humility but come on, name a religious leader on this planet that has dirty underwear or even makes his own meals

again i am just writing aloud (my thoughts)

so my idea is that, perhaps the stories are not as pure as people think when maintaining religious interpretations but to open up to more knowledge then we can see more combining frames, rather than dividing.

 

[S.A.M.]

he (moses) was educated and born in egypt (no matter the story line)

so all he learned was from their libraries, their method, they language and culture.

Seen like that it would be interesting to compare and contrast between the Egyptian culture and the pre-Moses culture of the Hebrew people.

 

[SkinWalker]

Seen like that it would be interesting to compare and contrast between the Egyptian culture and the pre-Moses culture of the Hebrew people.

There was likely a lot of "sharing" since the Hyksos culture that ruled Lower Egypt for a time was clearly a Canaanite culture based on their pottery, architecture, temples, cult-figures, etc.

One of the hardest problems with Canaanite archaeology in Israel is that the funding usually stops once the archaeologist reaches a pre- or proto-Israelite level. The people with the money want only to know/confirm their "Israelite" roots and much of the evidence points to a cultural evolution from Canaanite to Israelite rather than the "conquest(s)" of the Torah.

 

[Bishadi]

Seen like that it would be interesting to compare and contrast between the Egyptian culture and the pre-Moses culture of the Hebrew people.

point becomes; are hebrews really just egyptians

as we can read story lines from OT but it seems best to question the single frame rather than observe it as the last word

meaning; since much is questionable throughout; then the history should not be idnentified to meet it's own criteria before observing the implications of previous 'archeological' data.


as moses was egyptian, then the likelihood is the best rendition from moses would be something thereof, rather than torah

there is no literature of torah (OT) from HIS time, so if HIS time was Pharoah time, then all other data held religiously should be held suspect.

my opinion

 

[S.A.M.]

There was likely a lot of "sharing" since the Hyksos culture that ruled Lower Egypt for a time was clearly a Canaanite culture based on their pottery, architecture, temples, cult-figures, etc.

One of the hardest problems with Canaanite archaeology in Israel is that the funding usually stops once the archaeologist reaches a pre- or proto-Israelite level. The people with the money want only to know/confirm their "Israelite" roots and much of the evidence points to a cultural evolution from Canaanite to Israelite rather than the "conquest(s)" of the Torah.

I wondered about that when I saw the documentary on Herods tomb. It seemed to me that Herods non-Jewish roots were treated as of no consequence and none of his excellent work in architecture examined for what the influences on him might have been. The Edomite kingdom was not even discussed.

 

[SkinWalker]

One hypothesis (and it's mostly speculation, but speculation that might have some traction) is that the Israelite story of Moses and the Exodus is loosely based on an oral tradition that recounts a much earlier "exodus" made by the Hyksos as they were run out of Egypt.

The Hyksos slowly migrated into Lower Egypt and began to dominate that part of the region, with Hyksos leaders taking on the title of Pharoh. The iconography of the time shows distinctive head-dresses for the respective pharohs of Upper and Lower Egypt -the Upper Egypt ruler being Egyptian and the Lower Egypt Ruler being Hyksos.

Hyksos was an Egyptian term for "foreigner" and they first appeared during the 11th or 12th Dynasties of Egypt. But they ruled in Lower Egypt (Nile Delta area) from about the 15th to the 17th Dynasties before they were run out by Amose (or Kamose... memory failing) who laid siege to Avaris, the Hyksos stronghold. One of the more significant Hyksos Pharaohs was Apophis and he may have been the one that Amose ran out of Egypt.

Many have tried to apply the Exodus myth of the Torah to the Hyksos, but ultimately it never stuck since the chronology is significantly different between the material record and the biblical account.

However, if the story was penned in the Iron Age, by Jewish priests concerned with nationalizing and legitimizing Israelite culture, the story may have its roots in the Hyksos people (who were Canaanites) fleeing from Lower Egypt. It would be counterproductive to call the move a "loss," so the "win" would come from their ability to unify the former Canaanites by giving them a common adversity that was overcome through the divine intervention of the god they now worship.

As far as the evolution of Canaanite culture into Israelite, this is an idea very consistent with the archaeological record of the Levant. The Canaanite gods are discussed in the Torah; there's no evidence of systematic "conquest" in the region for hte period claimed; there's evidence of continual and contiguous habitation of a culture that gradually gave up domestication of swine; there's evidence of Canaanite cult figures being gradually replaced with more Jewish figures; etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

point becomes; are hebrews really just egyptians

Note that the Hebrews never referred to themselves as Hebrews they were so referred to by other peoples. There is evidence of a people called as Hapiru [but referred to as Shasu by the Egyptians] whose trials appear to reflect those of the Hebrews but there is no conclusive evidence if they were the one and the same [when people are referred to as spics for example, its hard to know if they are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans or some other brand of Hispanic].

Also, the fact that habiru, hapiru, apiru, etc were used to denote similar peoples, it is difficult to know if they were all the same or were different peoples.

Scholars have long been fascinated with the Tell el-Amarna tablets some which, written by Canaanite Princes to Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten (1386-1334 BCE), mention Habiru brigands attacking Pharaoh's lands in Canaan. Some have suggested that the "Habiru" may have been transformed by later storytellers into the "Hebrews" of the Pentateuchal narratives. It is clear from the tablets written in Akkadian (Babylonian) in a Canaanite dialect, that they are not describing the Hebrew conquest of Canaan by Joshua because the names of various Princes of the Canaanite cities do not match the names of the kings appearing in the Book of Joshua.

The other problem as noted above is that when names do not match biblical accounts its hard to tell if they are the same time frame or different ones.

From what I have read on the apiru, they were fiercely AGAINST the monotheism of the then Egyptians as they considered the Egyptian god a weak one.

Israel in the Sinai Wilderness is portrayed as possessing two unflattering qualities, she "despises" God and is "rebellious" to his authority. Perhaps these notions recollect the `Apiru in the Amarna era ? That is, the `Apiru "despised" the one God, because he is a weakingly god, NOT a "warrior god," to be feared. The `Apiru are also in a state of open "rebellion" vis-a-vis the one God and his earthly representative, Pharaoh Akhenaten. I suspect that later generations fused these "conflicting concepts" into the biblical narratives. The one God made possible the weakening of Pharaoh's resolve to put down the Slaves' (`Apiru vassalage being a type of slavery) desire for freedom, allowing them to dream of one day possessing all the Land of Canaan to the border of Egypt, yet the Hebrew ancestors (`Apiru) were in defiance of this one God, giving him only "lip-service" and engaging in numerous acts of rebellion against this one God's authority over them.

As noted by numerous commentators, the biblical narrator appears to be "unaware" that in the biblical time frame of the Exodus and Conquest, 1446-1406 BCE (1 Kings 6:1) that Egypt was a mighty power in Canaan. His memory is NOT of Hebrews fighting Egyptians for control of Canaan, but of Hebrews fighting Amorites, Hittites and Canaanites for control of all the land of Canaan. Could this notion be based on a historical kernel ? That is, Hebrews fighting Amorites, Hittites and Canaanites may be a vague recollection that the `Apiru state of Amurru (Amorites ?) with its shifting alliance with Hatti (the Hittites ?), may have contended with the Shechemite `Apiru (Shechem of the Joshua narratives) for control of Canaan after Egypt withdrew from Canaan ca. 1140 BCE ? The Exodus and Conquest stories are thus understood to be fictitious, set in a Late Iron II world of ca. 640-562 BCE, but recollecting in a garbled manner real historical events, anchored in historical time by archaeological discoveries in the Amarna era and the `Apiru/Habiru struggles for ALL the Land of CANAAN, and FOR PEACE, that is, no fear of Egyptian dominance, no more war. An end to rule by mighty despots like Pharaoh, rule being more egalitarian, and by tribal laws and the notion of Covenants or Leagues, sworn to in a local shrine before a local god or gods.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/Hebrewhabiruslaves.html

 

[S.A.M.]

One hypothesis (and it's mostly speculation, but speculation that might have some traction) is that the Israelite story of Moses and the Exodus is loosely based on an oral tradition that recounts a much earlier "exodus" made by the Hyksos as they were run out of Egypt.

The Hyksos slowly migrated into Lower Egypt and began to dominate that part of the region, with Hyksos leaders taking on the title of Pharoh. The iconography of the time shows distinctive head-dresses for the respective pharohs of Upper and Lower Egypt -the Upper Egypt ruler being Egyptian and the Lower Egypt Ruler being Hyksos.

Hyksos was an Egyptian term for "foreigner" and they first appeared during the 11th or 12th Dynasties of Egypt. But they ruled in Lower Egypt (Nile Delta area) from about the 15th to the 17th Dynasties before they were run out by Amose (or Kamose... memory failing) who laid siege to Avaris, the Hyksos stronghold. One of the more significant Hyksos Pharaohs was Apophis and he may have been the one that Amose ran out of Egypt. .

I need to make a chart to get all the information in perspective.

Another theory I read ascribed to Campbell is that the Hebrew history was an inversion of the Mesopotamian myths. The Sumerian serpent-god Ningishzida was transformed into the serpent of Eden, the destruction of the world in 6 days to the creation of the world in 6 days, the winged sphinxes into the cherubims, the Sacred tree of the Assyrians into the Tree of Life in the garden of Eden. The urban settlement which was lauded in Mesopotamian life was decried as giving rise to the profane and the unholy, while the nomadic life was exemplified as exemplary. There is a parallel here to Tacitus description of the Jewish religion:

Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swines flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable.

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id8.html

Its a fascinating theory. Any thoughts?

 

[SkinWalker]

I actually have (or had, anyway) a chart at home (I'm at work) which I created that is a timeline of the region. I'll have to dig it up and convert it to an image (I think its in xls).

I've always been a bit skeptical of Campbell's interpretations since they seem to rely so heavily on psychology and his own expectations, but I think that there was a lot of sharing among early Near Eastern cultures from Anatolia through Persia through Mesopotamia and the Levant and on through Egypt. This is seen in various motifs that appear to repeat and could be explained by oral histories and common origins that go back to the Neolithic and even Post-Pleistocene periods before the invention of writing. I've been involved with a site in Oman that dates back to about 12,000 years ago that consists of rock art images that invoke an exodus of people perhaps due to flooding (the Persian Gulf was inundated at around this time) and this may be linked to a common "eden." Sumerians speak of Dilmun; Egyptians of Punt; etc. The site's murals show scenes of people migrating and moving away in boats, by land, etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

What would you suggest as a less subjective read than Campbell on the topic?