Against gods, goddesses, and syncretism.

01.09.07.1854

I am completely willing to accept that. It is perfectly fine to regard certain citations of the Old Testament as historical documents as long as physical evidence for the place, person, or event, can be corroborated. So far, there is no such evidence whatsoever that the Jews were amassed as slaves in Egypt. What justification is there for this missing evidence?

A good point. History reported must be history examined. We cannot just simply take the words of a 1900-some year old historian to provide the answers of what really happened.

Sagesound – it is too difficult to explain that “something” inside an off-topic thread – and I’ve been so busy studying the Bible that I haven’t had time to even write down what happened to me. I’ve explained it a little to a handful of people close to me, and it’s just now beginning not to feel so awkward to talk about it. Please pardon my hesitation here. Maybe some day. Maybe. You won’t be convinced by what I tell you, though, I’m thinkin’. You’d have to experience it for yourself. It happened to me… it can happen to you (Lord willing).

Keeping this thread on topic would narrow down the historical documents to ones applying to the gods and goddesses of Canaan (and other lands of the OT) in OT times.

A quote from my reply above:

Have I read the Canaanite epic literature? No. It sounds pretty nasty… so I’m not sure I want to.

That doesn’t include the sources found here: christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

I’m going to try to stay away from the Internet until the 23rd. Take care.

01.10.07.1859

Ich, if religious text is so very important to you, perhaps you should check out the Qu’ran. Considering how easily you fall into theological work designed to persuade, you may just become a Muslim. Hey, it’s supposed to be the “real truth”… because it says so. Where in the bible does it say it’s the truth? (silly question)

Yes and no. We do have reports from as early as the reign of Amenhotep IV that Hebrew marauders were at the periphery of the Egyptian Empire (which reached up in to modern-day Syria).

We also know that, while it was generally rare throughout the Egyptian Empire to keep generational slaves, there was a brief period where they did which corrosponds roughly to this time period (18th and 19th dynasties).

So it is possible that at some point during those years that some Hebrew maruaders were captured and enslaved. Also, given the striking similarity between the high-court restrictions placed on Egyptian nobles and many of the Jewish prohibitions, it is possible that the Hebrew slaves got some of their ideas on proper life from their Egyptian masters and brought them back when they were freed.

Icthyus,

You have been studying the Bible have you?

I am Neutral in all things and defend Christianity as well as smash it, But there are some things you need to do.

  1. Before studying the bible study the History of how it was Created.
  2. Then Upon descovering that it is the creation of about 400 completly diferent variations and sects of Christianity smashed into one, Ask yourself:

Is it real?

I encourage you to believe in whatever makes your soul comfortable, Happy and at Peace, But I discorage you from believeing a Book written by man for the Use of Power,Greed, and useing the tools of Fear death and destruction as it resources. Simply because you Yearn to be just the oposite.

I will tell you that God is real, Though when and if you meet him/it You will find that what he IS is not what you curently believe.

Do your Home work on the History of the book you hold so dear and how and why it was written. Then make your own decisions in its beleif’s.

I will also tell you that Jesus Himself admits to being Satan in the Bible.

He says: For I am the Bright and Shining Light, The morning Star.

You want to find truth, Study Chaos. It is in everything and has always been, Even your Bible admit’s that it was there in the begining before anything else.

I can stop you having to worry about Baphomet. Its a code.
If you substitute the first for the last, the second for the second last etc. letters in the Hebrew alpabet Baphomet comes out as Sophia, the Greek godess of wisdom.
A lot of the other names, Astarte etc are names of the evening star, the godess of the evening star etc. ie. Venus.

–Sagesound,

Down a rabbit hole? On a wild goose chase? It was not the purpose of this thread to point out the age of any religion or belief. However – Ramakrishna (Hindu teacher) showed up in the 1800s A.D., right? Why, then, do you say he predates Jesus? Hinduism itself predates Christianity, but the patriarchs (see “Abrahamic Covenant—backbone of the Gospel”) showed up around 2000 B.C, whereas Buddhism, Hinduism and the Asian religions showed up somewhere between 1200 and 600 B.C. (at about the same time as the prophets of Israel). But, again – the purpose of this thread wasn’t to point out the age of any religion or belief (a professed Gnostic tried to point out the prehistoric origins of Gnosticism in my “Against Gnosticism” thread though – and you said nothing to him about that). I won’t go into it in this thread, nor start a new thread which delves deeper (I already have quite enough on my plate as-is, for now)… I am just observing a timeline in Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible (1999), which compares the developing ideas between 2000 B.C. to A.D. 2000 – including Judaism, Bible period, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism/Hinduism/Asian religions, Ideologies/beliefs/ideas, Civilizations/people/events… it’s pretty interesting. One could argue that if error is the corruption of truth, then the truth precedes error (I think I may have argued that in the “Against Gnosticism” thread – though it is someone else’s argument originally…). Christian Gnosticism definitely came after true Christianity – go back to the “Against Gnosticism” thread if you’d like to discuss how all this pertains to Gnosticism.

If you want to discuss it further (apart from Gnosticism), please please please lift relevant quotes from this thread and start a new one… I won’t be able to join it for some time (if ever), though. If you do this, send me (or this thread) a link. I just ask that this thread stay on-topic.

Regarding the following from the original post:

If anyone knows how the Jews of the New Testament time period came to identify Beelzebul as Satan – if you research it at all and find anything – please post your findings in this thread – I don’t have time to research it on my own (for a while). Thanks in advance.

Sauwelios – this is the thread I promised:

Differing, changing concepts of gods/God – unchanging God.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 44#1860144

The Watcher – yeah, I noticed that morning star thing… but that doesn’t necessarily have to be referring to Satan (or the king in the OT which prefigured the antichrist, can’t remember which one right now), any more than a bright and morning star out in the sky is Satan.

Avocet – so you’re saying freemasons are Gnostics? Hm. Interesting.

01.24.07.1875

You certainly are a weird one, Ich. I’ll give you that. You bother to go out of your way to cherry-pick a quote of mine only to come up with a retort like this? First of all, I was using it as an example to criticize your method of proving your case, which you have apparently not changed. Why do you persist upon preaching Zondervan-this and Zondervan-that? (Don’t answer those comments, just think about them.)

Now, as for your comment above… At no point was I referring to Ramakrishna, but Krishna. I don’t know anything about this Ramakrishna character, but I know enough about Krishna to say he predates Jesus. You should do your research more before you pander on with your ill-hoped attempts at proving your cases.

You seem to get worse every day you post on these forums… Hinduism popping up between 1200 and 600 B.C.E? Please don’t say you got that out of Zondervan…

I didn’t say it was… why do you imply that?

Let me finally ask you something I should have asked you in the first place Ich; Why are you bitching so much about Gnosticism anyway? What did it do to you? Challenge your root belief systems? Is that what is driving you to sell yourself short for an empty promise? Are you so afraid of losing your belief that you’re willing to promote any lie, deception, false truth, or even half truth, to make yourself feel better about your “truth”?

Come now Ich, get this out on the table… I really want to hear it.

If winning by ‘sounding forceful’ were winning – you’ve won – I give up.

I don’t really know what you’ve won, but there you go.

I don’t have time for a while to research Hinduism, or Krishna or Ramakrishna, whether they are different or the same, so I’ll leave it up to fact-checkers-who-care to see if there’s any point to what you said.

– Sagesound

I am not sure which method you are referring to – I thought you were referring to ‘truth precedes error’ – ???

That ‘something’ I went through – if I didn’t know better the source of it – I could be deceived into thinking it was gnosis. It was not. Gnosis is a counterfeit. It is important for you to know that, if it ever happens to you. Want what is real. If I am afraid of anything, it is that you and others will settle for a cheap imitation. But I am not afraid, because I know God has it all under control – there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason… including a person choosing the wrong path.

There are more answers in the two threads I started which deal with gnosis and Gnosticism.

You may as well have asked me why I love philosophy.

Take care.


Oh, and please stop diverting this thread, gosh dernit. Those new to this thread, please see my last reply on why the Jews considered Beelzebul to be Satan.

01.27.07.1881

Sounding forceful? I don’t know where you got that from, but it wasn’t my intention to “sound forceful”, but merely to point out that you have it wrong. I wasn’t intending to “win” anything, but I do hope that you will wake up and welcome logic and reason into your life.

Wow, if ever there was an admittance to a lack of credibility, that’s it. Congrats, Ich; you’ve proven that you’re unfit to speak on things you know nothing about. The next step is fixing it. I highly recommend that you start doing some critical research and analyzing of data before you start drawing conclusions.

For one, you’re not using your own thoughts to form a premise by which the argument is conclusively justified. A great deal of your arguments rely on Zondervan… you are not Zondervan. What are your personal reasons for Gnosticism not being at equal or greater terms with Christianity?

For the second time, you seem unwilling to go public with this “something” you went through. So, I propose you PM me what it is. I promise I won’t tell anyone. I seriously want to know what has gotten you so bent against Gnosticism… why Gnosticism… why not Mormonism?

You seem to have made a huge assumption. Are you implying that I, being agnostic, believe in Gnosticism? Is that what you are referring as “cheap imitation”? I could call Christianity a cheap imitation of Mithraism, and you wouldn’t be able to contend with that. I could go further to say that Christianity is a knock-off wanna-be of Judaism that is non-exclusive, but then, it’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it?

What a grim way to look at the world; not to mention flawed. If there are no coincidences, and fate exists, then there’s no such thing as choice. Ergo, there’s no way a person can “choose” a wrong path if they were meant to go on it in the first place. Why then do you or anyone else bother preaching if it is the destiny of whoever to go wherever when they die no matter what they do in life?

Diverting the thread? Hardly… I’ve challenged your assumptions, your illusions and delusions, and you’ve come up empty handed for a descent rebuttal. You were right to concede your argument, because in reality, it can’t hold up in a real debate.

Well, good job.

I am taking a course in ‘critical thinking’ for writing (argumentation)… it covers what you mentioned I should do. I’ve wanted to sharpen those skills for a very long while. But – I have made an argument in the original post – with premises which support a conclusion. You haven’t answered THAT argument, have you (there may be more than one, and perhaps the argument is not stated clearly – I don’t know, I don’t have time to review it right now, I need to go).

Most of your questions are answered in the two threads I started on Gnosticism and gnosis.

– Sagesound

Please see the Determinism/Free will thread I posted.

– Sagesound

Funny.

01.31.07.1887

[i]Ich… one major problem is that you’re argument is completely biased one way to the point that your only sources for evidence are the bible and works related to it. If there’s anything I like about your method, it’s your constant referencing to other threads where you’ve posted stuff. That’s unique and I don’t think anyone’s really done something like that on this site. However, it does get a bit mixed up at times, and chaotic.

The point is, find some evidence outside the religious spectrum. If you want to gain supporters to your argument, you need to show (for example) something like: that Gnosticism would not work as good as Christianity in today’s society because… and then give logical reasons why, not quotations from Zondervan.

Your arguments can never be validated or accepted because your sources are already unacceptable. Ergo, your argument was defeated before you ever made it. If you really want to rely on the bible, you need to show it is a reliable source of valid information. You can’t simply skip a stone or bend over backwards to get your case on the table.[/i]

I hope this discussion has been helpful for you.

The original post is about what the Bible has to say against gods, goddesses, and sycretism.

It was not about Gnosticism, specifically.

The Bible is considered by many historians as reliable – using it as a reference to date their archaeological finds and what-not. Those who are truly interested in researching that have a wealth of resources at their fingertips – they don’t need my help.

That could, of course, be said about a lot of what I post… but not all… I think… in that every individual brings a unique perspective.

Over and out. Psshht.

Someone in this thread mocked my history-knowledge deficit, so I had to share some feedback from my history professor. She graded my first test (consisting of six essay questions with a four-page minimum, not including the space taken up by the questions). I got a 93% and she used the phrase “excellent analysis”!!! Yeehawww!!! ThankYou, Lord!!!

Sagesound, I read up on Vishnu/Krishna (I wouldn’t have, but I was geeking out with an encyclopedia and came across a picture in ‘India’ – which is right next door to ‘Indians’, which I was reading because I’m taking U.S. history – of some dude dancing with multiple arms), which gave me some insight on the weird dance I did back in October ’05 (for more insight, see Ezekiel 8, but when you think “temple” do not think “building” think “person”). I totally forgot to remember when he came on the scene, though. Vishnu is apparently the creator, but not in a monotheistic sense. Krishna (Lord of the Dance), an avatar of Vishnu, is the destroyer (it may seem contradictory that the creator is also the destroyer, but consider how forest fires help forest growth – and I don’t mean that as a point in Vishnu/Krishna’s favor). The ideas I found in my research are similar to the fertility religions discussed in the OT (see original post in this thread). I was looking up Viracocha (read below) when I came across a reference to Vishnu that I had forgotten, in Don Richardson’s “Eternity in their Hearts” – Hindus apparently anticipate the tenth incarnation of Vishnu – Jesus is not that, and neither is He the fifth manifestation of Buddha as Phra-Ariya-Metrai, “the lord of mercy” anticipated by some Buddhists. However, Jesus is the incarnated (once and for all time) Word of God, and He came to actively demonstrate God’s mercy.

When I was a kid I thought the idolatry in the OT would surely never happen again, that people certainly must have learned their lesson by now (the “now” of my childhood). Then, when I was a teen and a young adult, I made an allowance for atheism (I was losing faith), but still thought surely no one would go after the delusional idolatry of the OT. I became an atheist for a while (about five years), and then God yanked me back and showed me just how wrong I was (again, see Ezekiel :sunglasses: – He broke me free, and He can break you free.

I want to share something I learned from “Eternity in their Hearts” by Don Richardson. Are you familiar with Akhenatun (1379-1361 B.C.), the Egyptian pharaoh who tried to replace the “grossly confused idolatry of ancient Egypt with sun worship” (Richardson)? According to Richardson, Akhenatun is credited by modern scholars as a rare genius, as a reformer.

Have you heard of Pachacuti, the Incan king (1428-1471 A.D.) who rebuilt the temple to the sun (Inti)? Did you know he later attempted to replace Inti with the Creator of all things (in a monotheistic sense) – called by the Inca “Viracocha”? Richardson writes, “Like Epimenides, Pachacuti was one of those spiritual explorers who, in the words of Paul (see Acts 17:27), sought, reached out for and found a God far greater than any popular ‘god’ of his own culture. Unlike Epimenides, however, Pachacuti did not leave the God of his discovery in the category of the ‘unknown.’” He held a council of the priests of Inti and presented his three doubts: “1) Inti cannot be universal if, while giving light to some, he withholds it from others, 2) He cannot be perfect if He can never remain at ease, resting, 3) Nor can he be all-powerful when the smallest cloud may cover him.” He reminded the council of the attributes of Viracocha, the omnipotent God forgotten from “old traditions lying dormant within his own culture,” (see Acts 14:16-17). “All that remained of earlier Incan allegiance to Viracocha was a shrine called Quishuarcancha, located in the upper Vilcanota Valley. Pachacuti recalled also that his own father, Hatun Tupac, once claimed to receive counsel in a dream from Viracocha. Viracocha reminded Hatun Tupac in that dream that He was truly the Creator of all things. Hatun Tupac promptly renamed himself (dare we say presumptuously?) Viracocha! // The concept of Viracocha, therefore, was probably of great antiquity. Worship of Inti and other gods, in this view, were only recent departures from a purer original belief system. Metraux implies as much when he observes that Viracocha-like figures are prominent in Indian cultures ‘from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego,’ whereas sun worship appears in relatively few cultures.” Anyway, the reformation was short-lived, as Pizarro came along and messed everything up. All quotes are taken from the section titled “The Incas” found on pages 30-37 in Don Richardson’s “Eternity in their Hearts”.

03.16.07.2005

“Four pages minimum” is below the high school standard I was exposed to; are you in high school or college? If you are boastful enough to post your test scores, perhaps you would care to elaborate on what the questions covered? Regardless, researching and knowing history is one thing, understanding it is another.

Perhaps you could elaborate more on your sudden shift from atheism to die-hard theism? There isn’t anything about Ezekiel 8 that I can relate to, so I’m having a little trouble understanding where your coming from. If you say you were an atheist and that “Christian values” pulled you back into “Christian belief”, then I would appreciate some further explanation. Please understand that I don’t believe in the concept of sin, so you would have a difficult time trying to prove that such a thing exists. Perhaps you did believe such a concept as an atheist; in which case you would not have been a true atheist.

Of course, I can recognize that you may have chosen to stay with a theistic belief on the basis of fear… societal acceptance is a very powerful motivator of belief; a mass delusion if you will.

Perhaps you should read Nietzsche. He broke me free; he can break you free (again). Nietzsche saves.

I replied in “Sin – (continued discussion with Sagesound)”.