Which philosophy are you referring to? Stoicism? Epicurianism? There are a lot of philosophies that existed in ancient times, and modern philosophy has been created from a rather large sampling of ancient and modern philosophers (modern examples include Descartes, Kant, etc.). I would have to disagree with your suggestion that philosophy as it currently exists was in any way familiar to the Biblical authors.
I think it would greatly aid this discussion if you clearly define what you mean by "philosophy." To which philosophers are you referring, what philosophical principles do they teach, and in what way have they informed Christian doctrine?
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Who collectively developed the foundations for western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.
If I'm reading you correctly, it appears that your argument is based on the premise that early Christians recognized a contradiction between previous religious beliefs and known scientific evidence, and thus created the notion of an abstract and transcendant God who would conform to science. There's a serious flaw in this argument: what we would call "science" didn't even exist until well over a thousand years after Christ. People who lived two thousand years ago believed that lightning was due to the activity of the gods, same as people 100,000 years ago. If this is the premise of your argument, then you should be aware that it rests on anachronism.
My argument was not that modern science exsisted at that time. It was that Christianity incorporated the THEIR contemporary understanding of philosophy, math, and the foundations of science into the docterine.
The problem is that this isn't accurate history. Polytheism did not originate with the Egyptians.
Monotheism originated in Egypt, when Pharoh Akehnaten (sp?) proclaimed it. I forget the date. My sentence was phrased poorly. Apologies.
There's no evidence (at least none that I am aware of) which suggests that Canaanites renamed themselves Israelites.
Not the entier nation of Canaan. Though, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the Israelites were a wondering group of Canaanites, who for some reason, left their homeland. There is even evidence in the Bible that supports this theory. The Canaan word for god was EL, which has many connections seen in the names present in the Bible. For example: israEL, samuEL, ELisha, ezekiEL, and ELi to name a few. Another clue present in the Bible is in Exodus. When the Israelites are awaiting Moses' return, they resort to worshiping the Canaanite god Baal. Yet they are in the middle of the wilderness. Why would a group of Israelites, who were ellegedly raised monotheists, resort to worshiping a Canaanite god, unless they had polytheistic roots?
Though I do not find your theory to be elegant (no offense intended), I think the same principle applies here. Without evidence, ad hoc statements, even those that make perfect sense, cannot be regarded as accurate.
I agree that theories need to be supported by evidence. Of course this applies to both sides of the fence.
I disagree. It is not the ancient polytheistic beliefs that I mock, but modern religions. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (in its current form) and Buddhism all depict a god(s) who is terribly unconcerned with intrinsic human depravity, and who only desires for you to either obey a list of rules that he has created, or invent your own rules and obey them.
I will not comment on the theological differences for the purpose of this thread, as it is beyond the scope of this topic IMO.
I will simply state that many of the ancients beliefs have been relligated to the realm of fantasy, and we often take for granted that these concepts were alive and true to the believers at the time.
Ancient polytheists practiced human sacrifice because they knew that there was a God who was terribly angry at their sin, and that he demanded propitiation in the form of blood sacrifice.
I disagree. Not all polytheists conducted human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was by no means the most common or most prolific form of polytheistic sacrifice, and it was not to atone for sin in the way that Jews did. The most common sacrifices were of monetary value be it goats, cattle, or currency.
It was to gain favor or to divert anger from their god. Farmers would sacrifice to the Fertility god to ensure a good crop. Sailors would sacrifice to the god of the sea to ensure a safe voyage. Soldiers would sacrifice to the god of war to ensure victory in battle, etc.
Their folly was their belief that the blood of mortal, sinful men could atone for them. Instead, God himself provided propitiation by means of the blood of his Son. Though ancient polytheists committed terrible sin by sacrificing their own, they at least recognized that humans are at enmity with God, and are in need of blood atonement.
Do you have any evidence to support this theory?
But given the lack of evidence from which your theory suffers, this logic results in conspiracy theories. If I could convince you that the government controls us by repeated displaying of the number 5 in public venues, you'd probably notice the number 5 more often. Likewise you're paying attention to the similarities between the doctrines of the Bible and false religions, and ignoring the notable dissimilarities. Besides this, the Bible itself suggests that we ought to find certain similarities between the true Gospel and the various false religions of the world, since God manifests himself in part through the natural world (Romans 1:20). The idea of blood atonement is an excellent example.
Or the idea of blood atonement shows direct connections to the Jewish idea of paying for sin though sacrifice, which shows direct connection to the polytheist idea of sacrifices to their diety of choice to gain favor or divert anger.
