God as a Christian appropriation of pagan Sun worship
Custard Creme
appropriation of the Winter Solstice. Both live in the heavens, God
spreads light, looks down on all of us and believers "See the light",
he rises to heaven and comes back down to earth.
Pagan worship of the moon and sun was rewritten by the Christian
victors who replaced pagan stories with Christian ones but kept the
days the pagans worshipped on. Easter, the time when flowers bloom,
leaves reappear on the trees and rabbits have bunnies is the time
Jesus "Came back to life".
The pagans were forced to worship a man rather than natural
phenomenon, no wonder they had to be slaughtered in the process.
Stained glass windows in churches bear images of the various
characters of the bible story through which the sun is supposed to
shine through into the church - between the Sun and the people is the
filter of the ruling elite.
LloydBrown
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
proselytizers who come knocking at your door.
bul...@bellsouth.net
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <l...@lloydwrites.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
>
> But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
> proselytizers who come knocking at your door.
I'd rather give them printed copies of "Kissing Hank's Ass".
Boikat
CreateThis
I like boiling oil through the transom.
CT
Desertphile
wrote:
> God is a Christian appropriation of the Sun.
Which god? There must be hundreds of thousands of them, most of
which are not sun gods. There are a great many Christian gods: it
would help if you specified which one or ones you are writing
about.
> Christmas is an
> appropriation of the Winter Solstice.
Yes, we know. Who cares?
> Both live in the heavens, God
Which god?
> spreads light, looks down on all of us and believers "See the light",
> he rises to heaven and comes back down to earth.
Do you mean Helios? Or Apollo? Or Aton? Or Shamash? Or Ra? Or
Phoebus? Phaëthon also drove the sun around, as the son of Helios:
do you mean Phaëthon when you write "god?" Or do you mean Mithras?
Or maybe Horus?
When you write about gods, it would certainly help to specify
which ones you are writing about.
> Pagan worship of the moon and sun was rewritten by the Christian
> victors who replaced pagan stories with Christian ones but kept the
> days the pagans worshipped on. Easter, the time when flowers bloom,
> leaves reappear on the trees and rabbits have bunnies is the time
> Jesus "Came back to life".
Yes, we know. Why should anyone care?
> The pagans were forced to worship a man rather than natural
> phenomenon, no wonder they had to be slaughtered in the process.
>
> Stained glass windows in churches bear images of the various
> characters of the bible story through which the sun is supposed to
> shine through into the church - between the Sun and the people is the
> filter of the ruling elite.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
John Wilkins
Meet them at the door in your boxer shorts and ask if they can come back
in 20 minutes, after you've finished having sex on the couch...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Wordsmith
Are you then insinuating Christians are really cryptopagans? Please.
All
religions borrow and build on religions that came before them.
W : )
AC
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:30:40 -0700, Custard Creme <swee...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> God is a Christian appropriation of the Sun.
>
> Which god? There must be hundreds of thousands of them, most of
> which are not sun gods. There are a great many Christian gods: it
> would help if you specified which one or ones you are writing
> about.
I thought the Christian God was a variant of Yahweh, whose origins,
while murky, seem to have been one of a number of tribal gods of
the ancient Semitic peoples of Asia Minor.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Apr 2007 18:12:53 -0700, bul...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > >On Apr 23, 9:00 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <l...@lloydwrites.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
> > >>
> > >> But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
> > >> proselytizers who come knocking at your door.
> > >
> > >I'd rather give them printed copies of "Kissing Hank's Ass".
> > >
> > >Boikat
> >
> > I like boiling oil through the transom.
> >
> Meet them at the door in your boxer shorts and ask if they can come back
> in 20 minutes, after you've finished having sex on the couch...
Cat on one arm, jar of petroleum jelly in the other hand with a towel
wrapped around waist. "CAN'T YOU SEE I'M BUSY?" (SLAM)
John Wilkins
Well, the implication of *my* approach is that they have to sit on my
couch when they come back. It's a test of dedication...
JTEM
> God is a Christian appropriation of the Sun.
Maybe. I've heard some good arguments that "The
God of Abraham" was the Moon," or a Moon god
if you prefer.
But I've also read some pretty compelling evidence
for a connection between the Essenes and the Sun.
Oh. The Essenes were a Jewish sect, credited with
writing the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Then again, another compelling case has been made
for an Egyption transplant. The Egyptions were
credited with the invention of monotheism with the
Aten cult, but, even aside from the Aten, Amun
worship certainly appears far more like monotheism
than did the early Jewish religion. A lot depends on
what you read, but there's plenty in Egypt that
explains other gods as simply being different
manifestations of the one.
There's also some pretty compelling evidence for
long-standing Pagan religious traditions -- which
would include Sun gods, but not be limited to them --
morphed (or evolved) over the years.
Finally, there's a good case to be made for the
Nabataeans... saying the Christian God is really
a Nabataean transplant, because the arrival of the
Nabataeans brings us a tradition of NOT depicting
gods.
I'd have to say that all of the above is accurate.
John Wilkins
Yahweh was a Phonecian god, cousin to Ba'al, and a descendant of El.
JTEM
> Yahweh was a Phonecian god, cousin to Ba'al, and a descendant of El.
And the great Temple was clearly from the Egyption school, as was
the monotheism itself. The Nabataeans add Abraham and the nomadic
culture, as well as the tradtion of not depicting gods... as opposed
to
those Phonecians. A rather compelling case can be made for the god
of Abraham being the Moon god.
Sorry, but it's just one of those cases where Occam's Razor fails
miserably. The most likely answer is far from the simplest, but
a complicated weaving of beliefs & practices from a number of
periods and/or cultures.
John Wilkins
I think you misunderstand the nature of Occam's razor. It is not the
simplest imaginable hypothesis. It is the simplest hypothesis that
matches the *data*. Here, the data includes the identification of
religious traditions before the monotheism of Omri and the southern
kingdom with the name of YHWH in the religion. That YHWH transmogrifies
from a henotheist local deity to a monotheist universal deity *is* the
simplest explanation.
Bill Morse
> CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Apr 2007 18:12:53 -0700, bul...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 9:00 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <l...@lloydwrites.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
>> >>
>> >> But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
>> >> proselytizers who come knocking at your door.
>> >
>> >I'd rather give them printed copies of "Kissing Hank's Ass".
>> >
>> >Boikat
>>
>> I like boiling oil through the transom.
>>
> Meet them at the door in your boxer shorts and ask if they can come back
> in 20 minutes, after you've finished having sex on the couch...
>
In my youth, when I had more time and less sense, I would engage them in a
conversation about the true meaning of Genesis being that once people
developed a moral sense they could distinguish between good and evil, as
opposed to say a cat, and that original sin had little to do with inherent
goodness and much to do with inherent awareness. I generally found that
after a short while into this discussion their eyes would glaze over, they
would mumble a few aphorisms, leave a few pamphlets, and make their escape.
--
Yours, Bill Morse
JTEM
> That YHWH transmogrifies from a henotheist local deity
> to a monotheist universal deity *is* the simplest
> explanation.
Too simple, in fact. The Egyptian influences can not be
denied, not just in the temple and the monotheism, but
the practicing of explaining away other gods as manifestations
of the one.
Because, "YHWH" is NOT the only Pagan god turned into
the God of the bible. El was not Yahweh, not in what you
call that Phoenecian culture, but both are the God of the
bible. And it doesn't end there.
This is interesting:
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Especially when compared to this:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/theme2.htm
Anyway, one this we most definitely can rule out is that
the God of the bible is simply Yahweh morphed into a
monotheistic God.
I mean, we have the other gods!
John Wilkins
> j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > That YHWH transmogrifies from a henotheist local deity
> > to a monotheist universal deity *is* the simplest
> > explanation.
>
> Too simple, in fact. The Egyptian influences can not be
> denied, not just in the temple and the monotheism, but
> the practicing of explaining away other gods as manifestations
> of the one.
I do not think the Egyptian monotheist experiment had much impact on
Judaism.
>
> Because, "YHWH" is NOT the only Pagan god turned into
> the God of the bible. El was not Yahweh, not in what you
> call that Phoenecian culture, but both are the God of the
> bible. And it doesn't end there.
Sure - many of the gods in play were syncretised in a case of later
justification of the unification of several cults. Ba'al obviously was
not amenable to this, and so was called a "false god".
>
> This is interesting:
>
> http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Yeah, but I think that the influence of Ugarit and other ANE cultures is
indirect. Moreover, the Israelites never came in from the desert as this
states.
>
> Especially when compared to this:
>
> http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/theme2.htm
>
> Anyway, one this we most definitely can rule out is that
> the God of the bible is simply Yahweh morphed into a
> monotheistic God.
>
> I mean, we have the other gods!
El, YHWH, and so on are syncretised into a single deity. I envisage this
as a way of unifying disparate cultures into a single people after the
return from exile. Prior to that there is clearly a Temple religion, a
rural religion and various deities in each.
JTEM
> I do not think the Egyptian monotheist experiment
> had much impact on Judaism.
It wasn't limited to the Aten cult in Egypt. Amun worship
alone brings us something that looks a lot more like
monotheism than the early Jewish religion. And, yeah,
other gods being manifestations of the one are included
in that.
So we have something that looks EXACTLY what you're
describing, only it's next door in Egypt and started
looooong before.
> >http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
>
> Yeah, but I think that the influence of Ugarit and other ANE
> cultures is indirect. Moreover, the Israelites never came in
> from the desert as this states.
Well, it's old school. The Nabataeans came in from the
desert, and brought the traditions (including not depicting
gods) with them. But the interest in Ugarit isn't in claiming
that it's the source of any beliefs, but a record of the
beliefs common to the entire area.
> El, YHWH, and so on are syncretised into a single deity.
> I envisage this as a way of unifying disparate cultures
> into a single people after the return from exile.
There doesn't appear to have been an exile. There's certainly
no evidence for it. And what we think of as the biblical
culture doesn't really set until maybe after 400 BC. If
anything, it seems more a reaction to Helenization of the
region.
> Prior to that there is clearly a Temple religion, a
> rural religion and various deities in each.
It wasn't just a mesh of different gods, but of cultures &
traditions as well. The Nabataeans, even at that time,
lived in tents (Those great "buildings" carved at Petra were
tombs).
John Wilkins
> j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > I do not think the Egyptian monotheist experiment
> > had much impact on Judaism.
>
> It wasn't limited to the Aten cult in Egypt. Amun worship
> alone brings us something that looks a lot more like
> monotheism than the early Jewish religion. And, yeah,
> other gods being manifestations of the one are included
> in that.
>
> So we have something that looks EXACTLY what you're
> describing, only it's next door in Egypt and started
> looooong before.
In the history of ideas it is too easy to say "Hey! This idea at time t
looks like that idea at time t+n, so the first must have influenced the
second!" In fact, establishing direct influence is a hard thing to do,
and the onus is on the claimer that there, in fact, is such an
influence. Monotheism might be a logical development from henotheism of
kingdoms under stress, and so convergently evolve more than once.
>
> > >http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
> >
> > Yeah, but I think that the influence of Ugarit and other ANE
> > cultures is indirect. Moreover, the Israelites never came in
> > from the desert as this states.
>
> Well, it's old school. The Nabataeans came in from the
> desert, and brought the traditions (including not depicting
> gods) with them. But the interest in Ugarit isn't in claiming
> that it's the source of any beliefs, but a record of the
> beliefs common to the entire area.
Yes, that's true. These religions are not, from our perspective, all
that different except in terms of the victors/survivors get to write the
histories/scriptures.
>
> > El, YHWH, and so on are syncretised into a single deity.
> > I envisage this as a way of unifying disparate cultures
> > into a single people after the return from exile.
>
> There doesn't appear to have been an exile. There's certainly
> no evidence for it. And what we think of as the biblical
> culture doesn't really set until maybe after 400 BC. If
> anything, it seems more a reaction to Helenization of the
> region.
There is more than enough evidence that there was a Babylonian exile.
>
> > Prior to that there is clearly a Temple religion, a
> > rural religion and various deities in each.
>
> It wasn't just a mesh of different gods, but of cultures &
> traditions as well. The Nabataeans, even at that time,
> lived in tents (Those great "buildings" carved at Petra were
> tombs).
I didn't know that.
JTEM
> In the history of ideas it is too easy to say "Hey! This idea
> at time t looks like that idea at time t+n, so the first must
> have influenced the second!" In fact, establishing direct
> influence is a hard thing to do, and the onus is on the
> claimer that there, in fact, is such an influence.
Oh, I agree. But there's no issue in this one case (Egypt's
influence of the area later called Judea). At the begining of
the 18th Dynasty, the Egyptians followed up the expulsion
of the Hyksos by over-running much of the Levant. Some
even go so far as to claim that their goal was to depopulate
the region of all but their own colonies & trusted vassals.
Anyhow, here's the king of Jerusalem writing sometime
before the famous "King Tut" was born:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/a-abdu-heba1.htm
As you can see, the area that encompasses Jerusalem
(and beyond) was firmly under control of the Egyptians...
though the Egyptians did lose a little ground towards the
end of the 18th dynasty.
The third king of Egypt's 19th dynasty was the famous
"Ramses II," or "Ramses the Great," and he set out
to recapture the ground that was lost at the end of the
18th dynasty. He didn't do so well, but that still left Egypt
controlling an area encompassing all of present day
Israel, well into Jordan, Lebanon & Syria, For an idea of
just how far Egypt's empire went, compare this map (and
the location of Megiddo in relation to Jerusalem):
http://tenstring.com/cd/megiddo.gif
To this map here:
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/ramseskadeshcampaign.htm
Now, when did Egypt lose control of the region? Certainly
not before Ramses IV, of the 20th Dynasty.... sometime
around (or after) 1100 BC. Egypt would again wrestle
control over the area encompassing present-day Jerusalem
about 900/800 BC, under the Libyan rules, which actually
overlaps what is supposed to be the First Temple period.
But none of this information is necessary, as the bible
quite clearly mentions Egypt a great deal.
> > Well, it's old school. The Nabataeans came in from the
> > desert, and brought the traditions (including not depicting
> > gods) with them. But the interest in Ugarit isn't in claiming
> > that it's the source of any beliefs, but a record of the
> > beliefs common to the entire area.
>
> Yes, that's true. These religions are not, from our perspective,
> all that different except in terms of the victors/survivors get to
> write the histories/scriptures.
Ugarit is by no means the only place where Pagan religious
beliefs, predating the bible/biblical monotheism, where biblical
names can be found.
> > There doesn't appear to have been an exile. There's certainly
> > no evidence for it. And what we think of as the biblical
> > culture doesn't really set until maybe after 400 BC. If
> > anything, it seems more a reaction to Helenization of the
> > region.
>
> There is more than enough evidence that there was a
> Babylonian exile.
There isn't any that I'm aware of. Occasionally someone will
say something like, "Look! Hebrew text in Egypt! This proves
they were exiled!" But, it's simply not true. The text in question
is nothing more than the official court language of the Assyrian
empire.... often refered to as "Aramiac."
Heck, there are plenty of "sources" that even refer to the Ugarit
texts as "ancient" or "Archaic" Hebrew.