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: 71567332" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>Polytheism is not a single religious tradition or even idea. There is a vast gulf between Indo-European conceptions of their gods and the Semitic variety. If you are only arguing parallels of this type, then it does not really equate to much but that humans everywhere are human, that we recognise similar archetypes. This would be arguing the Golden Bough, essentially.</p><p>It is similar to how the idea of the Corn King, a dying and then reborn agricultural deity as seen in some cultures, has such a common prevalence. I myself, see a prefiguration of Christ in the Corn-king myths, as a praeperatio amongst the Pagans for the gospel.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We know there is influence from one to the other. This is history and even mentioned in the Bible, where Israel harlots after foreign gods and initially utilises High Places, Mulk sacrifices and Asherah poles themselves. I don't see what point you are trying to make.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What are you talking about? Of course the Indo-Europeans could look on their gods. Have you ever read the Iliad? Or Norse mythology? Humans directly interacted with them, even wounding them and sleeping with them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We know that Semitic people moved between Canaan and the Delta. We have the record of Semitic inscriptions in the delta, adoption of Canaanite gods in Egypt like Reshef, and even Semitic dynasties that ruled it, like the Hyksos. Similarly, our first reference to YHWH is in the Sinai in the 15th century BC, the Shasu of YHW, before moving north to appear as the National God of Israel. We see Egyptian influence, like certain Psalms that bear similarities to Egyptian ones, most notably 104, or the use of Scarab seals in the 8th century in Judah. Then we have the Exodus narrative itself, which is ancient and argues that they had been slaves under Egypt and lead out by a man bearing a clearly Egyptian name. It is unlikely that a narrative that is so degrading, "we were slaves in Egypt", would be fully invented, nor that the active person therein, via his name and so forth, does not appear to have a rock-solid Jewish pedigree. On top of this ancient Jewish tale, we have an Egyptian historian saying something similar, Manetho, and Greek historians like Herodotus calling the Jews a 'type of Egyptian'.</p><p>So we have clear historic evidence that movement of peoples occurred between Egypt and Canaan; we have an ancient Jewish story, a similar Egyptian story, corroborating views from another people, movement of the God of these people as the story relates, Egyptian influence in Israel, and periods during which it could have occurred such as the Second Intermediate period or latter of the 19th dynasty. None of this is very strong in and of itself, but gives suppositional grounds to assume some event to account for the storyline, but smaller as there is not so much physical evidence, and ancient narratives tend to exaggerate numbers anyway. So you cannot really discount a limited Exodus completely, but it would not be very easy to prove anyway, as you would be looking for a temporary nomadic movement of peoples.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, not a pre-Sumer civilisation. Just primitive tribes that over time became more developed until they eventually became the Civilisation, but during this transition would have undergone religious development along with their societal and material development. You are completely failing to grasp the point here. The Ur-Monotheismus theory is not a Christian theory or even a religious one. It is an Anthropological one, so they do not assume a trinity or anything of that sort. Nor do we expect anything but vague reminders of the earlier state, like that Anu is King of the gods say. I really can't explain it better, so rather just look for the Anthropology texts, for perhaps they will make the theory more plain to you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 71567332, member: 385144"] Polytheism is not a single religious tradition or even idea. There is a vast gulf between Indo-European conceptions of their gods and the Semitic variety. If you are only arguing parallels of this type, then it does not really equate to much but that humans everywhere are human, that we recognise similar archetypes. This would be arguing the Golden Bough, essentially. It is similar to how the idea of the Corn King, a dying and then reborn agricultural deity as seen in some cultures, has such a common prevalence. I myself, see a prefiguration of Christ in the Corn-king myths, as a praeperatio amongst the Pagans for the gospel. We know there is influence from one to the other. This is history and even mentioned in the Bible, where Israel harlots after foreign gods and initially utilises High Places, Mulk sacrifices and Asherah poles themselves. I don't see what point you are trying to make. What are you talking about? Of course the Indo-Europeans could look on their gods. Have you ever read the Iliad? Or Norse mythology? Humans directly interacted with them, even wounding them and sleeping with them. We know that Semitic people moved between Canaan and the Delta. We have the record of Semitic inscriptions in the delta, adoption of Canaanite gods in Egypt like Reshef, and even Semitic dynasties that ruled it, like the Hyksos. Similarly, our first reference to YHWH is in the Sinai in the 15th century BC, the Shasu of YHW, before moving north to appear as the National God of Israel. We see Egyptian influence, like certain Psalms that bear similarities to Egyptian ones, most notably 104, or the use of Scarab seals in the 8th century in Judah. Then we have the Exodus narrative itself, which is ancient and argues that they had been slaves under Egypt and lead out by a man bearing a clearly Egyptian name. It is unlikely that a narrative that is so degrading, "we were slaves in Egypt", would be fully invented, nor that the active person therein, via his name and so forth, does not appear to have a rock-solid Jewish pedigree. On top of this ancient Jewish tale, we have an Egyptian historian saying something similar, Manetho, and Greek historians like Herodotus calling the Jews a 'type of Egyptian'. So we have clear historic evidence that movement of peoples occurred between Egypt and Canaan; we have an ancient Jewish story, a similar Egyptian story, corroborating views from another people, movement of the God of these people as the story relates, Egyptian influence in Israel, and periods during which it could have occurred such as the Second Intermediate period or latter of the 19th dynasty. None of this is very strong in and of itself, but gives suppositional grounds to assume some event to account for the storyline, but smaller as there is not so much physical evidence, and ancient narratives tend to exaggerate numbers anyway. So you cannot really discount a limited Exodus completely, but it would not be very easy to prove anyway, as you would be looking for a temporary nomadic movement of peoples. Again, not a pre-Sumer civilisation. Just primitive tribes that over time became more developed until they eventually became the Civilisation, but during this transition would have undergone religious development along with their societal and material development. You are completely failing to grasp the point here. The Ur-Monotheismus theory is not a Christian theory or even a religious one. It is an Anthropological one, so they do not assume a trinity or anything of that sort. Nor do we expect anything but vague reminders of the earlier state, like that Anu is King of the gods say. I really can't explain it better, so rather just look for the Anthropology texts, for perhaps they will make the theory more plain to you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom