Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 71565136" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>I am a little disappointed. I was hoping for stronger parallels, but this is essentially just the overarching concepts of sin being transferred and thus atoned for. This would make the Pharmakos ritual in archaic Greece the same, again a sacrificial rite for the community, although an outcast in this case. Or rites like the Leucaia in Rome. It is really not a very definitive connection at all.</p><p></p><p>Even your conclusion states there is a wide gulf between the Hittite and Mesopotamian views and the Jewish Scapegoat, as the latter does not envision it as being given unto a deity or demon. Azazel means 'for complete removal' hence it was translated as 'Caper Emissarius' in the Vulgate or as a word for Scapegoat in the Septuagint, which escapes me at the moment. There is no evidence of a being Azazel before the midrashic literature of the Second Temple period, nor have strong or etymological antecedants been found either. So it actually shows a bit of Jewish exceptionalism here, if anything. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That depends on how you derive your historic evidence or which timeline you adopt, as I said. Or continual historic narrative largely starts with Greek histories, so we try and fit other peoples' narratives onto it to descend it back in time. As I said, the Egyptian narrative is only anchored at two points, so none of our current timelines are completely satisfactory, although the traditional one is probably our best bet still, and the other Near-Eastern timelines are usually connected via the Egyptian one. This is why the Fall of Nineveh has been redated four times in a 150 years. </p><p>So on alternate timelines, we have okay Exodus candidate time periods and on the traditional one, with references like Shasu of YHW and Egyptian reticence to record events not in their favour, there are still suppositional grounds to support a limited Exodus narrative. There is not an unambigious narrative for it though, no.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You misunderstand though. It is a developmental theory, an explanation how Religion came into existence from our most primitive state. So centuries before Sumer, before the tribes that would become it started developing distinct cultures, this would have been the case. What survives are faint suggestions, which alone do not suggest it, but placed against the model, fit it quite well. The chief argument of the model, is whether this is a true develooment from primordial man, hence it focuses on the most primitive and least developed to try and support it, like Amazonian tribes or Andaman Islanders. By the time we have writings for Sumeria it is hopelessly too advanced to fit the most primitive stage, but would fit a later one with archaic elements pointing back to it. The Anthropologists will really be able to explain this and support it better than I can.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Christians have many different views on these matters, you will see. My personal opinion is that the Peleg narrative refers to the triune split of populations according to Noah's sons, the Hamite, Semite and Japhethite, and not to 'land' per se. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have no blog, nor do I understand the relevance of Theodosius? He was responsible for closing temples and dealing death blows to a lot of pagan traditions, but what this has to do with the depiction of the devil is beyond me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 71565136, member: 385144"] I am a little disappointed. I was hoping for stronger parallels, but this is essentially just the overarching concepts of sin being transferred and thus atoned for. This would make the Pharmakos ritual in archaic Greece the same, again a sacrificial rite for the community, although an outcast in this case. Or rites like the Leucaia in Rome. It is really not a very definitive connection at all. Even your conclusion states there is a wide gulf between the Hittite and Mesopotamian views and the Jewish Scapegoat, as the latter does not envision it as being given unto a deity or demon. Azazel means 'for complete removal' hence it was translated as 'Caper Emissarius' in the Vulgate or as a word for Scapegoat in the Septuagint, which escapes me at the moment. There is no evidence of a being Azazel before the midrashic literature of the Second Temple period, nor have strong or etymological antecedants been found either. So it actually shows a bit of Jewish exceptionalism here, if anything. That depends on how you derive your historic evidence or which timeline you adopt, as I said. Or continual historic narrative largely starts with Greek histories, so we try and fit other peoples' narratives onto it to descend it back in time. As I said, the Egyptian narrative is only anchored at two points, so none of our current timelines are completely satisfactory, although the traditional one is probably our best bet still, and the other Near-Eastern timelines are usually connected via the Egyptian one. This is why the Fall of Nineveh has been redated four times in a 150 years. So on alternate timelines, we have okay Exodus candidate time periods and on the traditional one, with references like Shasu of YHW and Egyptian reticence to record events not in their favour, there are still suppositional grounds to support a limited Exodus narrative. There is not an unambigious narrative for it though, no. You misunderstand though. It is a developmental theory, an explanation how Religion came into existence from our most primitive state. So centuries before Sumer, before the tribes that would become it started developing distinct cultures, this would have been the case. What survives are faint suggestions, which alone do not suggest it, but placed against the model, fit it quite well. The chief argument of the model, is whether this is a true develooment from primordial man, hence it focuses on the most primitive and least developed to try and support it, like Amazonian tribes or Andaman Islanders. By the time we have writings for Sumeria it is hopelessly too advanced to fit the most primitive stage, but would fit a later one with archaic elements pointing back to it. The Anthropologists will really be able to explain this and support it better than I can. Christians have many different views on these matters, you will see. My personal opinion is that the Peleg narrative refers to the triune split of populations according to Noah's sons, the Hamite, Semite and Japhethite, and not to 'land' per se. I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have no blog, nor do I understand the relevance of Theodosius? He was responsible for closing temples and dealing death blows to a lot of pagan traditions, but what this has to do with the depiction of the devil is beyond me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom