|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2001 : 13:45:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All of Christianity would be cults that branched off of Jewdism, which might have branched off of some even earlier religion that we don't know about.
This raises other questions: at what point does a cult gain legitimacy and become a religion? At what point does a legitimate sect become its own religion?
Most people will say that Christianity and Judaism are religions, and will legitimise many of the different sects of each, but hesitate to call each sect a different religion, or a cult.
-Timmy! |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2001 : 13:44:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All of Christianity would be cults that branched off of Jewdism, which might have branched off of some even earlier religion that we don't know about.
Oh no, we know the sources of Judaism very well. It's just dangerous to talk about them.
Yahweh was a volcano god who had taken on all the monotheistic characteristics of the Egyptian god Aten. That mono-theistic "cult" was started by Tutankhamen's dad Akhenaten. When it collapsed with his death it moved from Egypt to become mixed with Yahweh in Judah. There it took on many aspects of the Assyrian Dumuzi-Tammuz (who was worshiped at shrine at the gates of the great temple of Jerusalem until the day the Romans destroyed it)
In the further north was the kingdom of Israel where they worshiped a god called Elohim who originally had been the Sumerian god Marduk.
When Judah and Israel merged so did these two gods.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2001 : 19:37:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh no, we know the sources of Judaism very well. It's just dangerous to talk about them.
Yahweh was a volcano god who had taken on all the monotheistic characteristics of the Egyptian god Aten. That mono-theistic "cult" was started by Tutankhamen's dad Akhenaten. When it collapsed with his death it moved from Egypt to become mixed with Yahweh in Judah. There it took on many aspects of the Assyrian Dumuzi-Tammuz (who was worshiped at shrine at the gates of the great temple of Jerusalem until the day the Romans destroyed it)
In the further north was the kingdom of Israel where they worshiped a god called Elohim who originally had been the Sumerian god Marduk.
When Judah and Israel merged so did these two gods.
Slater,
I hate to disagree with you on this since most of your previous posts were right on as far as my understanding goes. I do however have some differences of opinion.
First your discussion of the similarities of the various gods are right on. Akhenaten (and his very short-lived monotheistic experiment) however lived about 600 years before there is any evidence to suggest that Judah was practicing a monotheistic Yahweh-only religion (7th century BCE). In fact, monotheism in Judah is unlikely until after the Babylonian exile (5th century BCE). Even in Egypt, attempts were made to erase Akhenaten's "heresy" from history. It is unlikely that Judaic monotheism was brought from Egypt. The reasons for a Yahweh-only cult are more political than religious (similar to Constantine's bargain a millenium later) but that is a discussion for another time.
It is also interesting to note that there is a social continuity in the region of Judah/Israel that suggests that there is no ethnic difference between the Caananites and the followers of the Yahweh-only cult.
There is no significant modern archeaological evidence of a "united" kingdom of Judah/Israel. This again is mythology, likely for a political purpose.
You have some fascinating insight into comparative ancient religion (more than I do). I have however undertaken about ten years of reading and study of the ancient roots of Judeo-Christian religions while wrestling with my own religious views.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2001 : 22:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Akhenaten (and his very short-lived monotheistic experiment) however lived about 600 years before there is any evidence to suggest that Judah was practicing a monotheistic Yahweh-only religion (7th century BCE).
I'm basing my comments on Sigmund Freud's Moses and Monotheism
In fact, monotheism in Judah is unlikely until after the Babylonian exile
(5th century BCE).
Very true, but Yahweh would have started out as one of the Semitic pantheon and, eventually due to his Egyptian mono-ness, become a single deity. Note, if you will, the first of the ten commandments. Yahweh demands that he be considered the first among the gods. The top dog. This would suggest a time, previous to mono-theism, that the followers of Yahweh were promoting him as a Zeus-like "king" of the gods.
600 years to make a transition from Aten, a dethroned Egyptian mono-godo, to Yahweh a Semite "mono" sounds like just about the right amount of time, if you ask me.
The reasons for a Yahweh-only cult are more political than religious (similar to Constantine's bargain a millenium later) but that is a discussion for another time.
Wadayamean another time!? That sounds fascinating. Let's hear about it.
Why, do you think, a Yahweh cult when they owed everything to Cyrus the Great--a Zoroastrian? Both Ezra and Second Isaiah call him "the anointed of Yahweh" which, of course, means he is the Messiah.
It's interesting because Yahweh himself is supposed to have said to Cyrus: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am Yahweh, who do all these things." Which is a direct attack on the inherent dualism of the Zoroastrian doctrine.
There is no significant modern archeaological evidence of a "united" kingdom of Judah/Israel. This again is mythology, likely for a political purpose.
Bummer. So what is the root of all those Elohim stories in Genesis, mixed with the Yahweh stuff? Every thing that I've read says he's the same Marduk that features in The Law Code of Hammurabi..
Does this point to a Semitic triumvirate of gods to mirror the Greek Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and their Indian and Roman counterparts? And why, do you think, Elohim is always spoken of in the plural?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 13:18:56 [Permalink]
|
Greg, I think I found mention of the political institution of monotheism in Israel that you were referring to, starting in II Kings 22:3. A priest named Hilkiah conveniently "finds" The Book of the Law hidden in a wall of the Temple of Solomon during some renovation work. This would appear to be the first time anybody in Jerusalem had even heard of Moses or Yahweh.
The laws are all very similar to those that the Persian emperor Artaxerxes had already given the Jews to live by.
The message from their mono-theistic "past" causes all hell to break lose and countless people are killed but Israel "returns" to mono-theism.
This would have all been around 620BCE, which is the time frame you were talking about.
See Wilhelm M. L. de Wette's Contributions Introductory to the Old Testament
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 17:19:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The laws are all very similar to those that the Persian emperor Artaxerxes had already given the Jews to live by.
The message from their mono-theistic "past" causes all hell to break lose and countless people are killed but Israel "returns" to mono-theism.
This would have all been around 620BCE, which is the time frame you were talking about.
Exactly. Note however that the Babylonians conquered Judah in 585-590 BCE. The Persians did not destroy the Babylonian empire and control the region until 539 BCE. The edict of Cyrus was given in 538 BCE granting the exiles passage back to Judah and some political sovereignty. I have much more to say and must answer your other questions/statemennts but cannot do it at the moment.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 19:53:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Very true, but Yahweh would have started out as one of the Semitic pantheon and, eventually due to his Egyptian mono-ness, become a single deity. Note, if you will, the first of the ten commandments. Yahweh demands that he be considered the first among the gods. The top dog. This would suggest a time, previous to mono-theism, that the followers of Yahweh were promoting him as a Zeus-like "king" of the gods.
600 years to make a transition from Aten, a dethroned Egyptian mono-godo, to Yahweh a Semite "mono" sounds like just about the right amount of time, if you ask me.
I don't have a sense of how much you know about serious (no religious axes to grind) Biblical scholarship. Your arguments seem to be from the point of view of comparative mythology.
The difference in our thinking here, is that you seem to be treating the Bible stories and other myths in a linear fashion (one myth based on another) only. You are not taking into account the socio-political environments under which the Bible was written and revised.
Modern scholarship suggests four writers/revisionists of the Pentateuch. They are named as follows;
E = Elohist, refers to God as Elohim (probably the Caananite high god El). Written probably in the north (Israel) 8th century BCE or before.
J = Yahwist, refers to God as Yahweh (origin unknown). Written probably in the south (Judah) around the same time as 'E'.
D = Deutoronomist, Written probably 7th century BCE. Most of the book of Deutoronomy & revisions of others. The original form (minus later revisions) of the book of Deutoronomy are probably the 'lost' books (that you spoke of) that were 'found' during the Temple renovations during the reign of Josiah.
P = Priestly source, likely post-exilic. This version is interested mostly in ritual and mythology rather than history. The God of this version is not as anthropomorphic as in the other versions (somewhat Persianized).
What you are discussing therefore, is biblical verse that were written under two separate worldviews. 7th century BCE king Josiah - a vassal of the Assyrian king - attempting to maintain a national identity by starting a Yahweh-only cult - that is Yahweh is to be worshiped as the patron god of the Judahites/Israelites but not the only god that exists. 6th century post-exilic period where the surviving Yahweh-only priests gained power and had to account for the humiliation of their people at the hands of the various superpowers of the time (Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and the ubiquitous Egyptians) when their patron had sworn to protect them. How could the gods of these other peoples be greater than Yahweh? How come Yahweh's people were not taking their rightful places among the elite nations of the region? It was simple, Yahweh was pulling the strings because he was the only god. He was using other nations to, in turn, punish Israel when it was sinful and glorify it when righteous.
More to come later.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 13:32:59 [Permalink]
|
The difference in our thinking here, is that you seem to be treating the Bible stories and other myths in a linear fashion (one myth based on another) only. You are not taking into account the socio-political environments under which the Bible was written and revised.
You are right. Although I have been stringent about that with the NT I have foolishly let it slip concerning the OT. I must shame-facedly admit that that is because the OT bores me, so I tend to become a bit sloppy in my scholarship.
My main field of mythological studies have concerned the Celtic deities. In them I find an elegance and grace that is not reflected in the crass gods of the Near East. For instance, among the Gaels, people never abased themselves. Gods were not "worshiped" as we know the word. Give me Cernunnos of the wood over Yahweh the potentate any day.
Amongst the Celts there was never a centralized government (with the short-lived exceptions of Boudicca and Vercingetorix) so mythology was able to "evolve" at a slow and easily traceable rate.
If you add powerful governments to this mix it's like adding the Cretaceous Asteroid to biological evolution. Over night the entire structure of the myths can change for no apparent reason. Worse, these governments will actually change their "history" to match the new religion. (I previously mentioned the trouble I was having finding out when and why the Jesus followers took on the name of the pagan god Christ).
Look at believers on this site go on about "the early Christians" or "the historic Christian church. They have nothing but legends and yet they consistently treat them as history.
In the current issue of SKEPTIC (Vol 8 #4) there is a lengthy article by Tim Callahan called "The Triumph of Christianity: Why a small apocalyptic cult overwhelmed its powerful Roman rivals." He gives 3 reasons.
quote:
"Christianity's triumph was assured, not by divine agency but by three factors: (1) the broad base of its appeal to those searching for what was lacking in Rome's state religion; (2) its acceptance of all people of whatever social station, race, or gender: (3) its belief that the Kingdom of God was at hand."
He has a little trouble with women having to be inferior to men (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 11:5-10 and 14:34, 35; Eph. 5:23) salves obeying their masters (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22) and all Christians being submissive subjects to the state (Romans 13:1-7) but he explains it all away by saying that Christians thought that the world was about to end so they didn't really care.
Yeah, right.
He never takes into account "the socio-political environment" which easily explains everything. These were all Roman civil rules.
The Romans didn't flock to Christianity because it was so much better than what they already believed in. They believed that what they believed was believable (say that 3 times, fast...in Latin)
They converted because there was an Imperial sentence of death for those who didn't. Praise Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
Any way, it's a shame that there aren't people on this thread who believe that the son of god and a mortal woman, Cuchulainn, is real. I'm much better prepared to debate about him. (He lead a much more interesting, much more "manly" life than Jesus H.)
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 17:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I previously mentioned the trouble I was having finding out when and why the Jesus followers took on the name of the pagan god Christ.
Christ (Christos) is a loose Greek translation of messiah. It is a title rather than a proper name (the Christ rather than Christ). I can suggest one possibility - purely speculative. Since the Greeks were Indo-Europeans (as were the Celts), it is possible that Christ and Krishna have a similar ancient etymological root.
quote:
...but he explains it all away by saying that Christians thought that the world was about to end so they didn't really care.
Yeah, right.
He never takes into account "the socio-political environment" which easily explains everything. These were all Roman civil rules.
True, but the Christians were not much different than other sects of Judaism in their apocalyptic beliefs (the Essenes of the Qumran community for example). There is a fascinating book written by British historian Norman Cohn called 'Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith' where he argues that the roots of post-exilic Messianic Judaism and Christianity are grounded in the beliefs of the Zoroastrians.
Unfortunately, I've only been visiting this board for a couple of months. I get the impression that discussions such as this one have been going on for a while. I don't want to beat a dead horse here and bore everyone but personally, I could discuss this subject for a long time. I believe that these issues are at the heart of western thought.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 18:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unfortunately, I've only been visiting this board for a couple of months. I get the impression that discussions such as this one have been going on for a while. I don't want to beat a dead horse here and bore everyone but personally, I could discuss this subject for a long time. I believe that these issues are at the heart of western thought.
Regards,
Greg.
Fer crying out loud! Keep discussing! This is the best read I've had in ages. Sure, there's only a few of you on this thread, but there's lots of us "listening in".
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 18:28:03 [Permalink]
|
Check out the thread "Did Jesus Really Exist? (Old Forum)" for some good reading! Select to view posts from 60 or 120 days ago in the Religion section, and it will pop up.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 21:23:44 [Permalink]
|
Christ (Christos) is a loose Greek translation of messiah. It is a title rather than a proper name (the Christ rather than Christ).
Mmmmm…almost…sort of…not really.
It means, as Tiptup correctly pointed out, "the anointed one." One of several titles applied to the messiah. The problem is, it's applied after the fact.
In no Jewish record do you find some one saying "Oy veh, those Romans are a big pain in the tucus. I hope the Christ hurries up and saves us."
There had been at least three messiahs before Jesus and no one referred to them as the Christ. Only Jesus.
I can suggest one possibility - purely speculative. Since the Greeks were Indo-Europeans (as were the Celts), it is possible that Christ and Krishna have a similar ancient etymological root.
Nothing ancient about it. They are one and the same guy.
Apollonius of Tyana, born 4 CE. Kids a prodigy, studies for the Pythagorean priesthood. In his late teens he decides to go on a pilgrimage following the footsteps of Alexander the Great. In northern India, just as Alexander's lieutenants had done, he studies with the monks. He becomes a follower of the Hindu god Krishna.
Realizing that Krishna is the "pure essence of Heracles" he brings these teachings back to Greece. After some little success there he moved up to Rome. He of course started to use the Greek for Krishna which is Christos.
In his wanderings from Greece to Rome he starts doing miracles. Heals the sick, casts out demons, even raises the dead -twice. He disciples start calling him the son of god, which was a standard compliment at the time. In his modesty he insisted that he was the son of man. Developed a large following in Rome, mostly upper class women (he was supposed to be quite the charmer). His followers call themselves Christians after Krishna. These are the same people that Nero complained burned down the town. Not the followers of Jesus. He was arrested by Nero (at the same time as Peter and Paul-the difference being that we have the Roman records of him and nothing for P&P) He escaped his chains by the power of Christ. Disappeared while Nero was berating him. He reappeared that same instant a couple of days march from town.
Years later he was recaptured and put to death. Three days later he rose from the dead. He lived to be 94 at which time he ascended into heaven.
The big difference between him and Jesus is that he wrote several books. His followers also wrote about him (try Flavius Philostratus Life of Apollonius) and many of the citizens of Rome mentioned him.
Jesus left nothing; as if he was never there.
So for the second half of the first century CE and the entire second century Rome was filled with Christians all behaving in exactly the same manner we are taught that they did--only none of them had heard of Jesus.
So the question is why did the Jesus people take the name and attributes of an already existing religion?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 21:46:04 [Permalink]
|
Slater, to put the ball closer to your court, I love Celtic mythology but am not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be. Can you suggest some good references?
quote:
For instance, among the Gaels, people never abased themselves. Gods were not "worshiped" as we know the word. Give me Cernunnos of the wood over Yahweh the potentate any day.
People would, however, volunteer their lives (noble sacrifice) to give their community prosperity for a while.
quote:
Amongst the Celts there was never a centralized government (with the short-lived exceptions of Boudicca and Vercingetorix)
What about Brian Boru?
quote:
Any way, it's a shame that there aren't people on this thread who believe that the son of god and a mortal woman, Cuchulainn, is real. I'm much better prepared to debate about him. (He lead a much more interesting, much more "manly" life than Jesus H.)
Personally, I believe that Cu Chulainn (as well as Theseus, for that matter) was based off an actual hero, and had theistic attributes associated to him.
Please correct me if I am at all mistaken.
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 22:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So the question is why did the Jesus people take the name and attributes of an already existing religion?
Even bigger question. Why a Jew - a people that the Romans found so troublesome that they destroyed their cities? Why not someone of Constantine's own Germanic stock? Why not an Egyptian - an ancient culture that the Romans could even respect? Very strange indeed.
quote:
try Flavius Philostratus Life of Apollonius
Thanks, I will check it out. I don't think you're pulling this stuff out of your a** here, so until I check out the reference, I'll take it at face-value.
One interesting note. Most of the references to Christian writings that "existed" prior to 325 CE are from Eusebius, a good buddy of Constantine. Do you think that scholarly historiography was used? Or do you think that there was a political purpose to the writing (I've read the book, it's not written well at all - very dry)?
I don't mean it to sound like I'm bad-mouthing any religious beliefs. I've spent about 10 years studying and trying to come to terms with my Roman Catholicism and now consider myself an Agnostic. Having said that, I suggest that all religions are political in nature. Prehistoric humans originally worshipped the forces (spirits) of nature. This can be seen today in some isolated tribal societies. When humans came together in agrarian societies where there is further division of labor and stable leadership is necessary, the switch was made to appease a pantheon of gods who could at least try to keep the forces of nature in check. This required a hierarchy of priests and kings to maintain the rituals as well as the status quo. If everything stays the same, all will be well. Political, beurocratic, and religious institutions have developed together and have served each other well for >5000 years now.
End of my stream of consiousness writing tonight!!!
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 08:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Having said that, I suggest that all religions are political in nature.
I'm of the opinion that the politics come later. I believe that religion is basically social in nature. People use it to come together and have a common social basis for interaction. When it gets big enough (relative to the population involved) it starts to develope political aspects as ambitious individuals start to take advantage.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
