Polytheistic origins of christianity

[Joshpantera]

On 3/14/2017 at 9:44 AM, DarkBishop said:

Yeah when I posted this I was really wanting a Christian viewpoint on the subject. I know this same topic is in another forum. But figured a Christian would feel more comfortable talking about it in this one. 

 

Some of the answers I've gotten to the polytheistic origins consist of accepting that the bible mentions others gods, but then accusing me or who ever of not understanding the bible.

 

Example: "The Israelites went whoring after idiols against gods will, don't you understand the bible?"

 

So the argument should consist of starting at the beginning which is the traditionally accepted christian interpretation of the bible with it's references to Baal and the other gods - what we're all raised thinking that it is. And then show how and why archaeologists and academic theologians have changed their opinions on the subject due to rigorous research and discovery. Granted, no matter what academic angle we take stubborn apologists will waive of the hand dismiss anything presented contrary to their preconceived beliefs on the matter.  Science, Archaeology and Critical Biblical Studies that disagree with their beliefs make no impact. These guys and gals are entrenched. But that's OK. You can make an example of their entrenchment so that others can weigh out their own opinions based on observing the outcome of the discourse. They'll look foolish if you hold their feet to the fire. They'll try to make you look foolish, don't let them. There's nothing more foolish than believing that a supernatural story book trumps science and discovery. Hold their feet to fire. Keep them in a dunce cap....

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I think this is why outright attacks on Christians fail. It's why Richard Dawkins is likely preaching to the choir- oh sure he will have something to add for those who are pretty much on the way out, but I'm not sure he is effective at  getting people to think in the first place. That requires a gentler softer approach to avoid triggering the great wall of denial and reinforced belief. I triggered that in my family... now I'd say any hope of us coming to some common understanding is gone. We don't even agree on simple matters such as age of earth, Noah's flood, etc. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that is brought out that contradicts the literal reading of the bible is immediately deemed godless heathens working to undermine the bible.

 

I think I read that you made the mistake of gathering a ton of info and just dumped it on them all at once right? 

 

I've been trying to think of ways to take the gentle approach you were talking about. I know eventually someone I don't want to know is going to find out. I guess there is really no "good" way to approach the subject to a believer. But I would also like to figure out a way to approach the subject gently to get them to thinking when they do approach me. 

 

I haven't really come up with much yet ?

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Some of the answers I've gotten to the polytheistic origins consist of accepting that the bible mentions others gods, but then accusing me or who ever of not understanding the bible.

 

Example: "The Israelites went whoring after idiols against gods will, don't you understand the bible?"

 

So the argument should consist of starting at the beginning which is the traditionally accepted christian interpretation of the bible with it's references to Baal and the other gods - what we're all raised thinking that it is. And then show how and why archaeologists and academic theologians have changed their opinions on the subject due to rigorous research and discovery. Granted, no matter what academic angle we take stubborn apologists will waive of the hand dismiss anything presented contrary to their preconceived beliefs on the matter.  Science, Archaeology and Critical Biblical Studies that disagree with their beliefs make no impact. These guys and gals are entrenched. But that's OK. You can make an example of their entrenchment so that others can weigh out their own opinions based on observing the outcome of the discourse. They'll look foolish if you hold their feet to the fire. They'll try to make you look foolish, don't let them. There's nothing more foolish than believing that a supernatural story book trumps science and discovery. Hold their feet to fire. Keep them in a dunce cap....

 

I think pretty much any argument you make, if they are entrenched like you said, would be brushed off in some way. If they couldn't explain it away with the bible then they are probably going to doubt the validity of the discoveries and researches that were done. 

       I can remember a few times when I fell back on the old. "Well they just haven't found the truth yet", spill. Thinking that one day they will come across an ancient buried vault or something with all that they need to prove the bible was telling the truth. But it seems the  ore they do find. The  more it disproves the bible. Most bible thumping believers will go as far as to accuse scientists of out right lying to lead people away from Jesus. I've even preached against the dead see scrolls for no other reason than that if they didn't make it into God's word. (The KJV bible) then they were all lies because Jesus said his word would be published among all nations and the bible is what was published. And reassuring everyone that what they held in their hands was the infallible word of God. (Yes I was just as brain washed and entrenched as the rest) It took a long time for me to get here. 

       It's the same way between denominations. I had a debate one time with a Mormon friend of mine. He wanted to show me and two other preacher friends of mine the truth behind the LDS beliefs and vise versa, we wanted to lead him out of them. Well to say the least he felt like he had been attacked and I felt like it had been a big waste of time. He was a good man tho. Unfortunately he passed away last year. He was actually a couple of years younger than  me. 

 

Dark Bishop

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I think I read that you made the mistake of gathering a ton of info and just dumped it on them all at once right? 

 

I've been trying to think of ways to take the gentle approach you were talking about. I know eventually someone I don't want to know is going to find out. I guess there is really no "good" way to approach the subject to a believer. But I would also like to figure out a way to approach the subject gently to get them to thinking when they do approach me. 

 

I haven't really come up with much yet ?

 

DB

 

Yes. I thought I was being gentle at the time... in hindsight I dropped an A bomb. Shattered my entire families world... we are all still recovering from it.

 

It's an impossible task really - someone is going to get hurt. Attempting to mitigate damage I think is the best approach. Just how to do that, I don't really have an answer for.

 

Edit: ContraBardus just posted a topic with links to an article that discusses this very issue:

 

"Bombarding people with information that challenges their cherished beliefs — the usual strategy that people employ in attempts at persuasion - is more likely to engender defensive avoidance than receptive processing. If we want to reduce political polarization, we have to find ways not only to expose people to conflicting information, but to increase people's receptivity to information that challenges what they believe and want to believe."  https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/march/information-avoidance.html

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I think pretty much any argument you make, if they are entrenched like you said, would be brushed off in some way. If they couldn't explain it away with the bible then they are probably going to doubt the validity of the discoveries and researches that were done. 

       I can remember a few times when I fell back on the old. "Well they just haven't found the truth yet", spill. Thinking that one day they will come across an ancient buried vault or something with all that they need to prove the bible was telling the truth. But it seems the  ore they do find. The  more it disproves the bible. Most bible thumping believers will go as far as to accuse scientists of out right lying to lead people away from Jesus. I've even preached against the dead see scrolls for no other reason than that if they didn't make it into God's word. (The KJV bible) then they were all lies because Jesus said his word would be published among all nations and the bible is what was published. And reassuring everyone that what they held in their hands was the infallible word of God. (Yes I was just as brain washed and entrenched as the rest) It took a long time for me to get here. 

       It's the same way between denominations. I had a debate one time with a Mormon friend of mine. He wanted to show me and two other preacher friends of mine the truth behind the LDS beliefs and vise versa, we wanted to lead him out of them. Well to say the least he felt like he had been attacked and I felt like it had been a big waste of time. He was a good man tho. Unfortunately he passed away last year. He was actually a couple of years younger than  me. 

 

Dark Bishop

 

I only mean what I said in the context of discourse with apologists online, like here in the LD or whatever. Where it's a public viewing event. 

 

I'm not suggesting this approach to family and friends, unless of course they become raving assholes and you think a balls to the wall approach is warranted. I would advise differently within the context you and LF are discussing. My gentile approach is to try and be as less abrasive as possible. I just explained the polytheistic origins lightly and non abrasive to an old friend of mine from SDA boarding school. I pulled it off well. I made it about the institution and didn't make it very personal at all. The institution is misleading people and it's not a spiritual outlook as mush as it is a political venture. And I explained it in such a way as to leave room for spiritual thinking while at the same time being firm about religious leaders knowing many truths but concealing them from the congregations. Because if everyone understood the truth, the monetary aspect would fade away...

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I only mean what I said in the context of discourse with apologists online, like here in the LD or whatever. Where it's a public viewing event. 

 

I'm not suggesting this approach to family and friends, unless of course they become raving assholes and you think a balls to the wall approach is warranted. I would advise differently within the context you and LF are discussing. My gentile approach is to try and be as less abrasive as possible. I just explained the polytheistic origins lightly and non abrasive to an old friend of mine from SDA boarding school. I pulled it off well. I made it about the institution and didn't make it very personal at all. The institution is misleading people and it's not a spiritual outlook as mush as it is a political venture. And I explained it in such a way as to leave room for spiritual thinking while at the same time being firm about religious leaders knowing many truths but concealing them from the congregations. Because if everyone understood the truth, the monetary aspect would fade away...

 

I like the way you approached that with your friend. I don't think I'm going to actively proselytize deconversion tho. I would like to help people who are questioning things get out of it. And maybe just get people thinking if they approach me about it. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to convert people as a Christian and I just don't want to do that. 

         I'm happy if they are happy. But if they try to push me I will push back. I'm done with being told what to believe. 

I have a question for ya tho. Do you think that the church leaders are intentionally deceiving people. Or that they are so brainwashed themselves that they are just as deceived as the ones they are deceiving?

 

DB

[Joshpantera]

Many SDA's know the problems with EGW. I've discussed this with some leaders privately. And yet they do the job and toe the party line nonetheless. That's intellectually dishonest. But they're afraid of loosing their jobs. 

 

Further, educated religious leaders have at least some degree of critical knowledge about the bible do to the education process. Some more than others. But many of them still take intellectually dishonest approaches with congregations, thinking perhaps that the end justifies the means. And this comes out a lot of the time when religious leaders leave their respective churches and confess that they can no longer go on towing the party line knowing what they know about it. 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Many SDA's know the problems with EGW. I've discussed this with some leaders privately. And yet they do the job and toe the party line nonetheless. That's intellectually dishonest. But they're afraid of loosing their jobs. 

 

Further, educated religious leaders have at least some degree of critical knowledge about the bible do to the education process. Some more than others. But many of them still take intellectually dishonest approaches with congregations, thinking perhaps that the end justifies the means. And this comes out a lot of the time when religious leaders leave their respective churches and confess that they can no longer go on towing the party line knowing what they know about it. 

 

 

 

Yeah now that's messed up. They are going against their own teachings in order to keep a job. I thought "money was the root of all evil?". 

 

Not only that it is a deception. If you are going to live as Christ supposedly lived you can't knowingly deceive someone. I did a study a long time ago on the relationship  of the unforgivable sin in the old testament of taking the Lords name in vain. And the unforgivable sin in the new testament. Blasphe,you of the holy ghost. It never did gain  much ground as far as being taught in the church. But I think that's because they already had preformed conclusions on the subject. 

 

In the old testament, in the ten commandments it says:

KJV Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

now keep in mind I don't know Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, so all I had to use was a strong concordance with a Hebrew and Greek dictionary. This is what I came up with. There were two key words you had to look at. The words take and vain. 

 

Take- 

Original: נסה נשׂא

Transliteration: nâśâ' nâsâh

Phonetic: naw-saw'

BDB Definition:

1. to lift, bear up, carry, take
   1. (Qal)
      1. to lift, lift up
      2. to bear, carry, support, sustain, endure
      3. to take, take away, carry off, forgive
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to be lifted up, be exalted
      2. to lift oneself up, rise up
      3. to be borne, be carried
      4. to be taken away, be carried off, be swept away

Vain-

H7723

Original: שׁו שׁוא o

Transliteration: shâv' shav

Phonetic: shawv

BDB Definition:

1. emptiness, vanity, falsehood
   1. emptiness, nothingness, vanity
   2. emptiness of speech, lying
   3. worthlessness (of conduct)

Origin: from the same as H7722 in the sense of desolating

TWOT entry: 2338a

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong's Definition: shâv' shav
shawv, shav 

From the same as H7722 in the sense of desolating ; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjectively), uselessness (as deceptive, objectively; also adverbially in vain): - false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.

 

So now let's reword this a bit.

 

KJV Thou shalt not (lift, bear up, carry,) the name of the LORD thy God in (emptiness, vanity, falsehood) for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

So you see its not saying God damn or something like that. It's actually carrying or bearing his name in falsehood, vanity, or in other words evil. My best example is of a cult leader molesting children because god supposedly told him to?? So that made since to me why that would be unforgivable. 

 

Fast forward to Jesus. And once again there is another unforgivable sin. 

 

Mark 3:29

KJV But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

 

Since the Holy Ghost is supposed to lead us after we accept Christ then I felt that the only way to truly Blaspheme the Holy ghost was basically to take the Lords name in vain. 

 

I said all that to say this. Even in their own bible. If my study is correct. Then what they are doing is causing them to sin an unforgivable sin. I know the SDA don't believe in a hell like my churches did. But never the less. I'm sure they don't want eternal separation from God either.  Because knowingly deceiving your congregation from the pulpit is doing just that. 

 

I apologise about the bible study. But this may be something to give those pastors if you talk to them again. 

 

Dark Bishop

[Joshpantera]

Those are sharp thoughts you're having. I like it. 

 

7 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Since the Holy Ghost is supposed to lead us after we accept Christ then I felt that the only way to truly Blaspheme the Holy ghost was basically to take the Lords name in vain. 

 

Let's narrow this down too. 

 

blasphémia: slander

Original Word: βλασφημία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: blasphémia
Phonetic Spelling: (blas-fay-me'-ah)
Short Definition: abusive or scurrilous language, blasphemy
Definition: abusive or scurrilous language, blasphemy.

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 988 blasphēmía (from blax, "sluggish/slow," and 5345/phḗmē, "reputation, fame") – blasphemy – literally, slow (sluggish) to call something good (that really is good) – and slow to identify what is truly bad (that really is evil).

Blasphemy (988 /blasphēmía) "switches" right for wrong (wrong for right), i.e. calls what God disapproves, "right" which "exchanges the truth of God for a lie" (Ro 1:25). See 987 (blasphēmeō).

 

The usual thought is that blasphemy means claiming you're god. But that's not really what the Greek meaning suggests. Unless you take the claim of being god as an outright lie. It's only blasphemy in that blasphemy is a lie, or abusive and scurrilous language. 

 

EGW blasphemed the Spirit of Prophecy. She outright lied about prophetic visions and also prophesied falsely. This is a matter of record and is outlined in the studies I was going over. They also blasphemia by carrying on in an intellectually dishonest way. So this is a good point. Let that settle into their minds for a while.  

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Yeah if they realise that they are committing an unforgivable sin according to there own beliefs they may start coming clean. ?

 

 

[TABA]

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I like the way you approached that with your friend. I don't think I'm going to actively proselytize deconversion tho. I would like to help people who are questioning things get out of it. And maybe just get people thinking if they approach me about it. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to convert people as a Christian and I just don't want to do that. 

        

 

DB, are you familiar with the concept of Streep Epistemology?  If you google the term, or the name Anthony Magnabosco, you'll find out more.  It is a non-confrontational method of encouraging people to look at why they hold certain beliefs.  It was inspired by the book 'A Manual for Creating Atheists' by Peter Boghossian.  The title can be off-putting but that's somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  It's really about sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of believers by asking questions like "If you grew up in a Muslim country, is it likely that you would be a believer in Mohammed and Allah rather than Jesus?"  I actually haven't read the book yet, but I've heard several interviews with the author and I've listened to Magnabosco's podcasts and I have been impressed that it can be a powerful yet gentle tool against supernatural or magical thinking, whether it's theism or  healing crystals. 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Interesting, thank you logical! I will definitely check it out when I get a chance. ?

[ironhorse]

Of course the Israelite precursors of the Jews, going back to the ancient Hebrews and other semitic peoples, were not always monotheistic. Abraham rebelled against the polytheism of his tribe and founded a people dedicated to monotheism.

Their strong monotheistic belief was one of the major reasons they later objected to Jesus and his claim to be the Messiah. I recently heard a Jewish rabbi say this idea that Jesus was God is at the core of why Judaism cannot accept his message.

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

~ Genesis 1:1

The Bible does not specify the age of the universe or the earth. The scriptures do declare God is the creator. This I believe.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

Of course the Israelite precursors of the Jews, going back to the ancient Hebrews and other semitic peoples, were not always monotheistic. Abraham rebelled against the polytheism of his tribe and founded a people dedicated to monotheism.

Their strong monotheistic belief was one of the major reasons they later objected to Jesus and his claim to be the Messiah. I recently heard a Jewish rabbi say this idea that Jesus was God is at the core of why Judaism cannot accept his message.

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

~ Genesis 1:1

The Bible does not specify the age of the universe or the earth. The scriptures do declare God is the creator. This I believe.

 

? finally a Christian comment!! And not a half bad answer. 

 

But there are still parallels in scripture just reworded from the old polytheistic verses. 

 

But the biblical age is described in the bible when it goes through the lineages of Adam and eve. Theologians before us added up all that and now it's roughly 7000ish years. Another member pointed out God's time frame too. A day and and evening. 

 

I'm not gonna brow beat ya to much tho. Thanks for answering ?

[ironhorse]

6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

? finally a Christian comment!! And not a half bad answer. 

 

But there are still parallels in scripture just reworded from the old polytheistic verses. 

 

But the biblical age is described in the bible when it goes through the lineages of Adam and eve. Theologians before us added up all that and now it's roughly 7000ish years. Another member pointed out God's time frame too. A day and and evening. 

 

I'm not gonna brow beat ya to much tho. Thanks for answering ?

 

DarkBishop,

Thank you for your comments.

 If theologians and others want to speculate the age of the universe or the earth, it doesn’t bother me. It is interesting to think about and wonder. I enjoyed reading the comments in this thread. Like I said, I’m fine not knowing the exact time involved. It doesn’t rattle my view of God, the scriptures or my faith.

Also, welcome to the Lion’s Den. I have been absent several weeks due to some computer problems and such. I was able to read but not post. Now I hope to be here more often. It’s good to see another Southern dude onboard. I live in foothills of the Appalachians in good ole South Carolina.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

You would do well to pay attention to this thread, Ironhorse.

 

The scriptures declare God to be the creator and you believe it.

 

Yet there is no possible way to reconcile what the Bible says with what science tells us about the origin of the universe.

 

You should follow that thread and learn why this is so.

[LogicalFallacy]

9 hours ago, ironhorse said:

Of course the Israelite precursors of the Jews, going back to the ancient Hebrews and other semitic peoples, were not always monotheistic. Abraham rebelled against the polytheism of his tribe and founded a people dedicated to monotheism.

Their strong monotheistic belief was one of the major reasons they later objected to Jesus and his claim to be the Messiah. I recently heard a Jewish rabbi say this idea that Jesus was God is at the core of why Judaism cannot accept his message.

 

 

Ironhorse, welcome back. We were getting worried about you. End3 has been carrying the Christian flag while you were unable to post.

 

You fail to explain why a god is needed in this instance. We can trace the Israelite Monotheism from its polytheistic roots and show that their chosen God Yahweh was one of the Canaanite pantheon of gods. We can also show why in Genesis God keeps referring to us and our. The stories in early genesis all originate from older polytheistic sources. There is no indication of a sudden break and a brand new monotheistic God being named.

 

Incidentally the Israelites were not the first peoples to try out at monotheism - an Egyptian Queen tried to introduce Egypt to monotheism (Need to find the dates). The Priests of all the gods were most unhappy at this as they were out of a job and killed her.

 

Judaism doesn't accept Jesus because a half decent Jew knows that the Jesus prophesises are misread and shoehorned into the new testament. They know that's not what the prophesies were saying.

[bornagainathiest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

 

Ancient Egyptian monotheism?

[LogicalFallacy]

Yeah..., I thought there was an earlier attempt with a Queen and she got murdered. I'll have to dig back through my ever expanding archives

 

[Edit... further research would seem to indicate my Queen and King wires were crossed and Akhenaten is the person I am thinking of]

 

But BAA's link shows that monotheism was attempted. Interesting Aten was a sun God. It seems all ancient mid east religions have a fascination with the Sun, moon and venus - they all appear in some form in the religions of the area. The original holy trinity?  Also interesting that this was around the time we could expect the Israelites to be starting their monotheism. 

 

Here is a link to an interesting article (Josh might appreciate this guy)

 

http://enlightenedworldview.com/blog/?title=the-egyptian-origins-of-monotheistic&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

Excerpts:

 

"I will begin this series with the religion of ancient Egypt. Interestingly, there is evidence that seems to show that Judaism, and by extension Christianity and Islam, were influenced by the ancient Egyptian religion, which predates Judaism by at least 1500 years.

 

An interesting event happened around the year 1350 BC that changed Egyptian society for a short time but seems to have had a much more lasting affect on other cultures. The pharaoh at this time, Akhenaten, decided that Egypt should become monotheistic. Instead of having so many gods including Amun-Ra and others, he ordered that everyone should worship the sun, which was only depicted as a disk when drawn, rather than having human form.

 

Though it is unknown if the Israelites were ever actually slaves in Egypt, it is reasonable to conclude that if they did, they were there around the time of the 1300's BC. If they were in Egypt at this time, then it is reasonable to conclude that they learned the religion of the Egyptians as it was at this time, which might have been monotheistic.

 

It is known from historical records that the original religion of the Semitic peoples, from which the Israelite people came, was polytheistic. So it is reasonable to conclude that the Israelites learned monotheism, the belief in one God, from their exposure to the Egyptians during this time in history.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Yes it seems to all fit together that it wasn't "Abraham" that started the belief in monotheism for the Isrealites. But most likely caused by: Ahkenaten like Logical Fallacy is saying. 

 

(Akhenaten (/ˌækəˈnɑːtən/;^[1] also spelled Echnaton,^[7] Akhenaton,^[8] Ikhnaton,^[9] and Khuenaten;^[10][11] meaning "Effective for Aten") known before the fifth year of his reign as Amenhotep IV (sometimes given its Greek form, Amenophis IV, and meaning "Amun Is Satisfied"), was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who ruled for 17 years and died perhaps in 1336 BC or 1334 BC. He is especially noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the Aten, which is sometimes described as monolatristic, henotheistic, or even quasi-monotheistic. An early inscription likens the Aten to the sun as compared to stars, and later official language avoids calling the Aten a god, giving the solar deity a status above mere gods.)

 

At this same time Egypt ruled most of canaan. Therefore they would have been under the monotheistic ruling of Ahkenaten as well. This next excerpt from the encyclopedia Britanica and the above from Wikipedia will show the correlation in the time frame.

 

(The introduction of bronze in the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2000 bc) brought about a cultural revolution, marked by the development of metallurgy and by a decline in painted pottery. Semitic peoples first appeared in Canaan during this period. With the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–c. 1550 bc), recorded history in the area began. The Semitic Amorites, who penetrated Canaan from the northeast, became the dominant element of the population during this time. Other invaders included the Egyptians and the Hyksos, a group of Asian peoples who seem to have migrated there from north of Palestine. The Hurrians (the Horites of the Old Testament) also came to Canaan from the north.

The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–c. 1200 bc) was mainly one of Egyptian dominance in Canaan, although their power there was contested by the Hittites of Anatolia. The period was also marked by incursions of marauders called Hapiru, or Habiru (Egyptian: ʿApiru). This term was apparently applied by the Egyptians to other peoples or social groups who were of foreign origin. Many scholars feel that among the Hapiru were the original Hebrews, of whom the later Israelites were only one branch or confederation.)

 

According to the bible the exodus also happens during this time period. This next one is also an excerpt from Wikipedia. Note: this is not when scholars date the first writing of the book of exodus. 

(Dating the ExodusEdit

Attempts to date the Exodus to a specific century have been inconclusive.^[37] 1 Kings 6:1places the event 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, implying an Exodus at c.1446 BCE, but it is widely recognised that the number in 1 Kings merely represents twelve generations of forty years each.^[38][39][40] There are major archaeological obstacles to an earlier date: Canaan was part of the Egyptian empire, so that the Israelites would in effect be escaping from Egypt to Egypt, and its cities were unwalled and do not show destruction layers consistent with the Bible's account of the occupation of the land (e.g., Jericho was "small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified (and) [t]here was also no sign of a destruction". (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002).^[41] William F. Albright, the leading biblical archaeologist of the mid-20th century, proposed a date of around 1250–1200 BCE, but his so-called "Israelite" evidence (house-type, the collar-rimmed jars, etc.) are continuations of Canaanite culture.^[42] The lack of evidence has led scholars to conclude that it is difficult or even impossible to link the exodus story to any specific point in history. )

 

        Ironically the story was still based during a time period when Egypt would have had rule over canaan. So to escape Egypt and flee to canaan would have just served to put them back under egyptian rule. But odds are the writter didnt know that.

        Scholars Date the writing of Exodus to around 800-900 BCE but it's was probably revised in the first or second century BCE because they noted that the mass movement of cattle as a herd isn't evident in archeology until around 200 BCE. Which I find very interesting because that little fact alone shows that Abraham and Lot were created from the imagination of someone living during that time period.

      When we start putting all the pieces together the most probable truth is that the monotheistic theology was an influence left over from the reign of Akhenaten. More than likely after Egypts influence waned in the area monotheistic religious cults based on old Canaanite mythology began to arise. Most likely all the teachings weren't recorded until some 300 to 400 years later during the accepted time frame of the written exodus. By that time monotheism had probably gained popularity in the area once again but under a different name. Using the God El. Later the God Yahweh was introduced and assimilated with El at some point creating one God with two names. 

 

Dark Bishop

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, ironhorse said:

Of course the Israelite precursors of the Jews, going back to the ancient Hebrews and other semitic peoples, were not always monotheistic. Abraham rebelled against the polytheism of his tribe and founded a people dedicated to monotheism.

Their strong monotheistic belief was one of the major reasons they later objected to Jesus and his claim to be the Messiah. I recently heard a Jewish rabbi say this idea that Jesus was God is at the core of why Judaism cannot accept his message.

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

~ Genesis 1:1

The Bible does not specify the age of the universe or the earth. The scriptures do declare God is the creator. This I believe.

 

Ironhorse, thanks for giving this a go. 

 

Now I predicted earlier that one direction an apologist could take would be similar to the path you'e chosen in the above. In the absence of any apologetic takers we had to improvise and project a likely response.

 

So you're saying that the bible taken at face value, via the story of Abraham in the bible, is the answer to the question of polytheism in ancient Israel and not simply the starting point for questioning the real presence of polytheism found by archaeologists and textual critics? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Ironhorse, thanks for giving this a go. 

 

Now I predicted earlier that one direction an apologist could take would be similar to the path you'e chosen in the above. In the absence of any apologetic takers we had to improvise and project a likely response.

 

So you're saying that the bible taken at face value, via the story of Abraham in the bible, is the answer to the question of polytheism in ancient Israel and not simply the starting point for questioning the real presence of polytheism found by archaeologists and textual critics? 

 

IMO if taken from a Christian perspective and not utilizing any archeological findings this is a good assumption. 

 

In Gen 12:1 it explains how Abraham was lead to leaves his people.

 

Genesis 12

 1  Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

 2  And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

 3  And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

 4  So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

 5  And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

 

It could also be theorized that Abraham was one of the Hapiru that I mentioned earlier. Which possibly influenced isrealite beliefs. 

 

Maybe iron horse could shed some more light on the Christian aspect of this train of thought?

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi all

 

Below are three links to some interesting clips of scholars talking about Israelite monotheism... well at least what the ancients referred to as monotheism.

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Oooh this is interesting stuff.

 

So the Canaanite supreme god was of course El

 

"El, also called 'Il or Elyon ("Most High"), generally considered leader of the pantheon" (Wikipedia)

 

Now the phrase Most High, and similar phrases are found in the Bible to refer to God.

 

Now, here's something interesting, before God reveals himself to Moses as Yahweh, he appears to Abraham as El Shaddai. What Shaddai means can be hard to pin down, but El is similar to the Canaanite El.

 

It would appear that somewhere between the writing of Abraham and Moses characters the chief Gods have changed.

 

Incidentally, both El and Yahweh shared a consort Asherah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah  Asherah was nearly edited completely out of the bible circa 586 BCE, but there are still references to Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah.

 

From this link, http://www.seeker.com/gods-wife-edited-out-of-the-bible-almost-1766083399.html Asherah's symbol was a tree - a symbol that the Yahweh cults tried to destroy. What is interesting is how this ties into the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps this is an early written attempt at purging worship of Asherah from the Israelite? However, not to worry, Asherah has been replaced as Queen of Heaven... you all know her name well... Mary, mother of God. (Somewhat a contradiction in terms in reference to a being that had no beginning)

 

So next time you hear Amy Grant singing El Shaddai remember she is singing to the Canaanite supreme deity El, Elyon, the most high God.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Excellent selection of videos. Well informed and concise. 

 

This speaks to the question I put to ironhorse. Everyone starts off with the same question in terms of taking the bible at face value, looking at the suggestion of one god creating the universe and then going through a series of hid and seek with humanity thereafter. The blunt assertion here seems to be that the god of the bible, taken to be YHWH, was the god of creation in Genesis and was the only true god throughout the entire biblical tale. The other gods of the OT are taken to be devils or pure imagination on the part of post fall society. 

 

But that isn't the case. Academics have learned otherwise. And this is very damming towards christianity. Now ironhorse, you're very quick to wave of hand dismiss academic and scientific analysis of Genesis and the creation accounts. But for those willing to look into academic studies with an unbiased perspective, there's a lot of valuable information at play. How do you propose to address your beliefs if you have no idea what playing field you're stepping onto while trying to discuss them? 

 

For instance, would you say Psalm 82 was written post the story of Abraham? Obviously, Abraham leaves Ur and it's idols to migrate east to Canaan. Much later after his descendants go off to Egypt and eventually return to Canaan do we find the story of King David and Solomon, the writing of Psalms and so forth. 

 

(Abraham)------------------------------------------------>------------------------------------------------------(Psalms)    

(Polytheism)---------------------------------------------->------------------------------------------------------(Polytheism)

 

 

 

 

So Abraham didn't stop polytheistic reasoning where an entire pantheon of gods was known and believed by the people. This is still the state of affairs as of Psalms. And the god of Abraham was El Elyon, which is the most high god of the Elohim pantheon of gods. Abraham didn't turn away from a pantheon by worshiping the most high god of the said pantheon. That same pantheon of gods is what Psalms 82 is addressed to. And academic scholars have gone back and put together a comprehensive understanding of how monotheism actually evolved over time with it's many details. What they've found is that it's completely human minded reasoning behind the evolution from polytheism to monotheism. See below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any thought's?