Your Garage Beauty LyingGame STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning Landline Landline Landline  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

Origin of Monotheism, or Was Moses an Egyptian Priest of Aten?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 225 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 5:21:44 PM PST
Mr. Jeffery, your point about the 3 stars in Orion's Belt being the three Wise Men or Kings is confused at best. First, nowhere in Scripture are the Wise Men called 'Kings' (they were first described as being "like unto kings" by Tertullian in the early Third Century), and nowhere are we told there were three of them-- that number didn't come into common usage until the Sixth Century. What is numbered in Scriptureis the "new star" in the sky. Given that Sirius-- which is actually two stars-- is the single brightest 'star' in the night sky (albeit only in the east in the hours before dawn), if the Wise Men, probably Babylonian court astrologers, thought it was a brand-new star and therefore worth following, then they apparently weren't as 'wise' as the New Testament gives them credit for being.

I shan't bother with your first paragraph... suffice it to say that your historical continue, offset only by your personal bias regarding matters of faith... and your opinions are your own. You have the right to believe as you please regarding matters of faith: matters of fact, however, you should attempt to get right if you wish to appear credible. Pax tecum. FCZ+

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 6:43:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2012, 7:39:19 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Fray Francis C. Zanger :

I am assuming then you are Catholic. Great. The teacher that directed in my thesis on Psychology was a Jesuit priest and he and I did a wonderful work using Viktor Frankl's work and applying his values to Teens Sex Education. What a wonderful professor he was.

Now, my question will go why can Jews be the receiver of truth without having to connect it with something else?

If the example to Zoroastrianism is Job and STN, they way Jews take it is that he is an advocate against GD ( yes do not use the name of GD in vain, as Jews we can't write the whole name of any of his other names). STN argues against the devotion of Job, by contradicting GD's perception. In other words Job has a utilitarian reason for this devotion. The book demonstrates that this is not so and STN is wrong.

In what way is this Zoroastrianism? The latter, it is my understanding, that is Manichean in nature two separate identities one negative and one positive. STN is an angel of GD not another god.

Thank you for writing to me directly, I hope to have longer conversations with you on this.

Yet, Why is it that Jews can't be holders of a truth just given to them and then spread to mankind?
Even that most be taken away from Jews?

Be aware that Ominus has a lot of animosity against Jews and certainly I will never agree with most of what he says. It so happens that he lives in an area that used to refuse that Jews buy houses there in the 60-70s. He doesn't see the bigotry but he has it. Plus every forum that he initiates is against Israel. I can't stand this at all.

Finally, English is not my first language, so if word placement is weird; it is hebspanglish for you.
Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 6:52:31 PM PST
Rachel, While up to here I've supported most of your stance as a religious Jew (the idea that you may be wrong and me right, or vice versa, is not for us to know for certain until we're told by G-d at the Final Judgement-- my version, Apocalypse of St. John-- or when G-d gathers all the nations unto His Holy Mountain-- yours, Isaiah), I have finally found a point of real, non-faith based disagreement with you.
You have conflated Abstinence, as emphasized primarily by Evangelical Protestants as a means less of birth control than of the avoidance of pre-marital sex, with Natural Family Planning (which includes but is by no means limited to, the 'Rhythm Method'), promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church as a means of birth control within the Sacrament of Marriage. Abstinence doesn't work well, not because the lack of coitus isn't a relatively sure-fire method of avoiding pregnancy, but because it's competing with teenagers' hormones. Natural Family Planning (the post-just Rhythm Method version) works relatively well given an imperfect world (condoms break, IUDs shift, tubal ligations & vasectomies aren't always reversible...), but NFP suffers from a lesser version of the abstinence problem: desire and "planning" don't always coincide well, plus it can be a bit too 'clinical'-- or complicated-- for some.
Still, faith and sexuality have long been (if you'll excuse me) uncomfortable bedfellows. The Levitical ritual uncleanliness of women either during menstruation or post-partum-- with different rules if you've delivered a boy or girl-- only demonstrates that such issues aren't limited to Christianity.
And all that said, I doubt if you know of anyone who became pregnant whilst successfully using the abstinence method. So far as I know, that's only happened once: to a Jewish girl who was history's first convert to Christianity!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 7:14:44 PM PST
*Jerusalem has been around for at least 2,000 years.*
Joseph, are you implying that Jerusalem was founds by Jesus? I'd always thought of it as being just a tad older...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 7:39:53 PM PST
*Whereas Jerusalem has been around for at least 2,000 years.*

Anne, do you actually believe that Jerusalem was founded at about the same time as Christianity, or are you just trying to get a rise out of the folks on this forum?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 7:49:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2012, 7:51:49 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Fray Francis:

My thesis was to put values in the thinking of teenagers.
The culture today is such that there is no way that what The Jesuit priest and I wrote could not be applied given,as you say, that hormones kill neurons ipso facto.

Having had difficulty having more than two precious kids, for which I am thankful, it is not for me to decide what other people should do or not do.

That Jewish girl, dear Fray Francis, was conceived using Parthenos in the Greek translation of the Bible. If you know Hebrew quite possible we can say that Almah means young girl Yet, as you argue that would be resolved at the end of the days.

We have no disagreements based on abstinence issues. I think this is a personal issue for couples to decide, not me. I honestly have no opinion, as I said Frankl, a survivor of the Holocaust had developed a way to survive based on moral values and this is what I tried to build on: think before you act.

Sincerely yours.

Rachel

PS: If you find anne's posts you will find that this is her intention all the time. This is what we call in the fora; a troll.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 9:13:07 PM PST
Useful Idiot says:
*By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca, and by the time of his death in 632 (at the age of 62) he united the tribes of Arabia into a single religious body.

He was a conquering warlord and a very different kind of force than a thinker. It took Jesus 300 years to have a significant effect on thought.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 9:29:51 PM PST
Omnireader says:
JMC

What do we know about Zoraster?

Not much. He comes from a family of warriors, and his name had something to do with 'golden camels'.

http://parsaworld.com/bastan/Zoroaster.html

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 9:46:01 PM PST
anne says:
anne: *Whereas Jerusalem has been around for at least 2,000 years.*

Fr: *Anne, do you actually believe that Jerusalem was founded at about the same time as Christianity?*

anne: No, I believe Jerusalem was founded prior to Christianity.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 9:52:43 PM PST
Useful Idiot says:
*Available information suggests that the Israelites were not slaves, If Moses were, according to the biblical accounts, an adopted prince, he would likely be a priest. There isn't any definitive Egyptian history of the Israelites escaping Egypt, it is all conjecture or myth.

We might look at Exodus with a story from the same time period the Iliad. There was the end of the Bronze age and the chaos that spread to that part of the world about 1100 BC. What is interesting is that we find the connections with Babylonian stories more than there are similarities with Egyptian myths.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 9:58:05 PM PST
Useful Idiot says:
No I am saying that Israel seem to have been founded about 1,000 BC and has been around for about 3,000 years. I think the response was the Israel never existed as an ancient state and that it is purely a modern creation.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 10:02:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2012, 10:06:19 PM PST
anne says:
Joseph: <I am saying that Israel seems to have been founded about 1,000 BC >

anne: Source, please. I'll need two links--neither of which comes from the bible--to believe that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012, 11:13:21 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Hi Joseph:

Mohammed formed his religion in 612 of the Common Era. He was kicked out of Mecca by the Qurayshi family. The conquest of Mecca was with his followers from Medina ( land of the prophet ) or Yathrib as it was called prior to his coming there. It was there that he gained adherents, those adherents helped him to try to conquer Mecca. a second time with more force. and was successful.

I am not sure this was so peaceful- since they had kicked him out before- not wanting to do anything with Islam. They were happy as they were with the Meteorite and the idols they had there, until Mohammed conquered them from Medina. When he succeeded, Islam was implanted, the idols taken out, but not the Kaaba itself, which "the gift from Heaven" and that his where the Hajj or pilgrimage is done every year.

Once Mohammmed died, it is Abu Bakir who does the conquests and those were certainly not peaceful at all. They had the promise of booty as they went along into North Africa all the way to Spain, stopped by Charles Martel, and all the way to Vienna stopped there too.

Nearly bloodless, I am not so sure. Christains and Jews who did not follow the new religion were killed near Medina.

Nearly bloodless in Christianity? Well, there were first martyr of the Romans, so the conquest could not be so swift being sent to the lions. Once the Roman Empire fell, and the Church took over,now Christians had an framework with an army and this helped to imposition of Christianity further. Constantine ( later called the Great) Imposed Christianity from above.

It was done in the name of Jesus, but Jesus lived and died as a Jew. Paul ( Saul in Hebrew) was after his vision in Damascus a convert to the truth that Jesus presented, and he is the spreader of Christianity.

Not Jesus. Sadly he died at the cross under the Romans and others won the fight for Christianity as a religion later on. Jesus became the sacred symbol of this religion, but we can't know what Jesus would think because he said that he would never change one iota from the Hebrew Scripture or Torah and the NT was not written until much later.

So yes, it was harder for Christianity to get established itself,but Paul made it easier by taking away circumcision ( now of the heart only by believing in Jesus as the son of GD) and taking away the rituals of keeping Kosher- hence pork was permitted.

I certainly, have made peace with Christianity- given Vatican II.

Not so with Islam 9/11 will make me shudder to truly trust Islam again ever.

Just in Pakistan there was another suicide bombing. I am in despair, I don't see a good future to this.

Rachel

Posted on Feb 18, 2012, 11:15:45 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
And annnie need proofs. She is a troll please!
She is here and there in every fora to besmirch Judaism, Jews and Israel.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 6:43:38 AM PST
Rachel,

First, the most minor of points: I am actually an Anglo-Catholic priest and thus my title isn't Fray, but Father, the same as your Jesuit thesis advisor's. 'Fray' in the Church means "Brother"-- a monk or itinerant friar, not ordained to the priesthood. (If 'Father' leaves you uncomfortable, I'm also a Canon, an honorary title meaning very little, and have a doctorate-- I've inadvertently collected titles over the years, the more so for having not always lived in the US. I am American, but a priest of Portugal, since that is where I was last in active ministry-- I'm physically disabled.

Regarding Jews being the receivers of Truth without it having had to go first through some other group, I can toss out a pair of possibilities... with the human sinful and somewhat antisemitic one first, then the theological one. First, then, a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that G-d chose the Jews and not them. The fact that G-d's choice hasn't been all that comfortable for the Jews over the past few millenia is ignored-- the bondage in Egypt, the Babylonian Captivity, the destructiion of the First Temple, the Roman invasion/colonization, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the Diaspora, two thousand years of pogroms and persecution, the ecpulsion of the Sephardic Jews from Spain in 1492, all culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust... being G-d's Chosen hasn't always been what most people would call 'ppppppp0a really positive experience' for the Jewish people. [Of course, who else could have survived all that?]

But logic and emotion are two different things. The idea that the Jews were chosen *AND WE WEREN'T* is enough to inspire fear and jealously and hatred in far too many people. Once, that led to pogroms-- now, it's more likely to lead to less overt antisemitism, and one of the ways it's demonstrated is by attempting to diminish the Chosen People's "chosenness". "See, the Jews stole this whole Pintetook...Panntiteuk... you know, their Bible from the Babylonians, or the Sumerians, or whoever. So I think the modern version comes down to a mix of jealousy, fear, and mediocre scholarship.

And (more briefly, as I'm running out of steam-- I had another bout of surgery three days ago) now to the the more theological response to your question regarding why scholars and others insist on bringing up Gilgamesh, Sumerian flood stories, and other non-Jewish sources, oftentimes without a single anti-semetic thought crossing their minds; merely making the point that the Sumerian creation stories pre-date the Jewish ones.

Fine. Historically, that may be perfectly true. So what???

Let me explain-- and bear with me. I have (strangely enough for clergy) some background in ballistics. Because I've served as a chaplain with both the military (Marine Corps & Navy) and with various police departments and in emergency rooms, I know the effect of a high velocity round string a human body. The bullet doesn't just enter and exit, leaving a neat hole. Rather, it pushes the flesh ahead of it, at bone-crushing speed... the damage done by the bullet to the inner organs is actually done before the bullet arrives.

Now, let us bring this admittedly gory metaphor to theology. Let us imagine a Creation, made by a Creator, madeb by G-d. As Creation, it is merely a faint reflection of He who made it. And yet G-d chose to enter into a tiny, tiny skier of His Creation... He who made the Pleiades and Orion, Alpha Centauri and the wild winds of dark matter swirling between the constellations... He whose command, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" provided modern scientists with their 'Big Bang'... That this G-d should even decide that there should be, bacteria-like, tiny creatures living on one planet of one star of one galaxy, and not even mere creatures, but creatures created in G-d's own image and likeness, male and female thus created... of course such an unheard of, impossible event will have tremendous repercussions.

Just as the high-calibre round is going to push the rupture flesh before it, the damage being done to the organs before the bullet even reaches them, so too the impact on earthly history will be affected before the event itself... the impact of the Creator entering into creation will reach back to Gilgamesh and forward to Muhammad, each a damaged, incomplete reflection of God's relationship with Abraham and Moses, Deborah and David (and from my point of view, Mary and Jesus).

And so there is no reason to worry about the doubters who bring up other, earlier stories, such as that of the flood of the Sumerians, insisting that the Jews simply stole it. The Jews didn't steal it... the Sumerians anticipated it.

And I cannot write anymore, Rachel-- I need to take narcotics and stop thinking. I am, by the way, a far better correspondent via email, as I rarely read these fora boards.

A quick question... you wrote that English isn't your first language (although your English is better than some of your detractors): in that case, what is?

Shalom
Fr. Francis+

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 6:59:05 AM PST
*Anne: No, I believe Jerusalem was founded prior to Christianity.*

I have to admit to being confused. Given that we measure the Common Era (CE or AD) from Jesus' time, and we're now in 2012 AD or CE, and that you say that Jerusalem 'has been around at least 2,000 year, it appears that you believe that King David founded Jerusalem and the Virgin Mary said 'yes' to the Angel Gabriel pretty much simultaneously.

Please elucidate.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:25:54 AM PST
Fr Francis C. Zanger wrote: "And all that said, I doubt if you know of anyone who became pregnant whilst successfully using the abstinence method. So far as I know, that's only happened once: to a Jewish girl who was history's first convert to Christianity!"

On Page 24 of "The Life of Jesus," Grove Press (1967), The Life of Jesus , Marcello Craveri points out that the birth narrative in Luke's Gospel is a later insertion. "However, as is unanimously conceded by all the commentators, even the Catholics, this passage, like the entire story of the birth of Jesus, is written in a style that hardly harmonizes with Luke's characteristic sentence structure. Plainly, the fragment was added later, and the insertion was made rather unskillfully."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 9:10:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 5:21:38 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Father Francis:

I apologize profusely no knowing what to call you and the FR stranded for. I can call you what you feel most comfortable with. I love the high level of discussion and this is what i expected in the fora. Sadly, it has run down to just dismiss Jews in all ways shapes and form. For example a very antisemitic person here said "that I really want to live in Israel ( which is true) but I don't go because I am leeching the Social Security System." He has no idea what he is talking a bout and what my economic level is to even dare to say that.

I am here because my husband came for more training, being an oncologist, and the temporary always becomes permanent one way or another. I have already grandchildren here and I want to see them grow. My children married American Jews so it is illogical to move all the contingent of the family. Yet, antisemitism shows its ugly head.

I am also an older person, still teaching at the University/ college level. My major is European History with a sub-specialty of Poland and Germany. I also have accrued degrees, like Jewish Education at Yeshiva U, and the Psychology degree I talked to you before that. So Ido read an translate German, but my pronunciation of German had a Yiddish flavor in classes and my teacher said I should go and live in Germany fora year. This is not possible. I am happy to understand it, write it and translate it even when I might speak German with a peculiar accent, as i speak English with a peculiar accent.
All this is well known here no secret. I still remember Father Acosta with a lot of affection. Since Spanish is also my specialty, my minor is Latin America and this , of course, would include Portugal.
Yet, not one word of Portuguese, My daughter and my brother do know Portuguese.

Thank you for your kindness in evaluating my possession of the English Language. I could not teach, and have graduated, had I not done well in this area in the USA. Yes, of course idioms and word placement sometimes fail me,but those detractors go to my English execution, not to discuss the items that I am shredding from their posts, so my English becomes THE issue.

I am sorry that it is difficult to give you my e mail to you here given the situation. Yet, if you have a public e mail that I can write to you, I can then communicate with you privately and it will be an enormous pleasure to do so.

MY first language was Hebrew, my father was a fighter in the Haganah, I was there a big period and the Six Day War, then got married and came to the USA. My brother lost his life in the Yom Kippur war.

I look forward to hear from you and I do hope that you can give me an e mail for me to chat about all this interesting issues with you without the interference of people like anne.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 9:12:23 AM PST
Aluf B. says:
Domenico Rosa:

Sorry not being Catholic, I lost part of your post. Can you expand?
Thanks,
Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 10:48:30 AM PST
Omnireader says:
FFCZ

Thank you for your novel and impressive post.

May healing and wellness suround and infuse you with G-ds mercy.
Shalom.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 10:51:16 AM PST
Omnireader says:
JMC

I forget what was your explanation of the Merneptah Stele?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 4:36:09 PM PST
Useful Idiot says:
*Nearly bloodless in Christianity?

Yes when we compare the actions of the founders. Jesus at most knocked over a few tables and Mohammad had a much higher body count who he directed.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 4:39:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 4:40:24 PM PST
Rachel,

I don't know what part of my post you lost and what you want me to expand. Luke's birth narrative starts at 1:26. According to Marcello Craveri: "However, as is unanimously conceded by all the commentators, even the Catholics, this passage, like the entire story of the birth of Jesus, is written in a style that hardly harmonizes with Luke's characteristic sentence structure. Plainly, the fragment was added later, and the insertion was made rather unskillfully."

I do not read Greek and have no idea about how the "style and sentence structure" of the birth narrative compares with that of the rest of Luke's Gospel.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 5:17:35 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Thank you Domenic you clarified what I wanted.

I hope all is well with you.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 5:20:13 PM PST
Aluf B. says:
Joseph yes! I understood this backwards I though Islam nearly bloodless. We are in agreement.
in comparison and by all means Jesus is a decent human being and for Christians the Son of GD. Therein the difference with Islam.

Rachel
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  37
Total posts:  225
Initial post:  Jan 27, 2010
Latest post:  Mar 19, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers