Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: My understanding of the Gauls is that they were one of many Celtic tribes, and yes in fact I do have some Celtic blood in my veins.. :-D

Right. And see how correct my reasoning process ended up being? Just based on the fact that your name sounds like Gaul, I've deduced your genetic roots.

A little ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

Quote: Quote: Pharisee is an English pronunciation. I trust you can google for an explanation of where the Hebrew term comes from.
You mean the same way the English colonized India and came up w/ the English term "Parsi" to describe the Zoroastrians who were living there?

That matters very little, since the British came there thousands of year after Persia is termed Paras in the Bible, and thousands of years after Peirushim called themselves Peirushim.

Do you want to start being serious now? ;)

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: I don't quite get something. Your logic seems to go like this: because the two beliefs contain similar elements, one must have adopted (blended) those beliefs from the other.
That's part of my logic, and that does *really* happen in the real world..

Quote: Both English and Hebrew have nouns. Did English, therefore, adopt the concept of nouns from Hebrew?
Perhaps not, but it's not unreasonable to speculate that they may have derived the concept of a noun from a common ancestor..

Quote: Don't forget, that before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came around, there was a common religion that recognized G-d. It was the original religion going back all the way to Adam, Shem, etc. So instead of claiming that Judaism adopted something from Zoroastrianism, it is just as plausible that both adopted certain elements from the original religion.
That's true as well.. although in this case the historical record would suggest Zoroastrianism came first, then Judaism, and that Judaism adopted lots from the Zoroastrians.

Quote: You are using the same approach is evolutionists use. The two things look similar, so one must have evolved from the other. Great. Lexus looks like a Camry. The Camry, therefore, begat Lexus.
They both come from the parent company of Toyota, do they not?

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Do you want to start being serious now? ;)
Rats, you called my bluff! :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: As I said, Zoroastrianism is obviously the result of Israel's influence on Persia, and not the reverse.
You mean to say, Judah's influence on Persia.. the other 11 tribes were long gone by then.. :wink:

(at least, according to the legends they were)..

That is not really so, the faithful of all tribes emigrated to Judah when Israel rejected God for idols, shortly after this Assyria took the others. They pretty much had to because the idolators persecuted them. It wasn't safe to worship God there anymore. Remnants of all the tribes were represented in Judah before it fell to the Babylonians.

So, there really are no "lost tribes". Plus many of these tribes that were taken descendents became what came to be called Samaritans.

These types of legends (British Israelism etc) come from a misunderstanding of history.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote:
That's true as well.. although in this case the historical record would suggest Zoroastrianism came first, then Judaism, and that Judaism adopted lots from the Zoroastrians.

No, it doesn't. The earliest dating you will find for the emergence of Zoroastriasnism is about 600-500 BC. This is late in the Old Testament. Most Scripture had been around a good long time by then.

Personally, I think it came about in the time of Daniel, probably from his influence as advisor to Cyrus. Because the "origin tales" concerning this religion before this time are legendary.

You say there is no proof of the Hebrew people before this, but that is not so.

The Egyptian Amarna Letters mention a people called the Habiru that were conquering their Canaanite provinces. This was at the time of Joshua's conquests through the time of David. At the zenith of Egyptian power.

[cap'n queasy]

Both Akhenaton and his Monotheism and Cyrus and Zoroastrianism are powerful testimonials to what happened to Empires and Emperors who came into contact with these Hebrew people and their God.

That alone is powerful historical support for the reality of Scripture.

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: I don't quite get something. Your logic seems to go like this: because the two beliefs contain similar elements, one must have adopted (blended) those beliefs from the other.
That's part of my logic, and that does *really* happen in the real world..

It may happen. Or it may not. Pure guesswork.

Quote: Quote: Both English and Hebrew have nouns. Did English, therefore, adopt the concept of nouns from Hebrew?
Perhaps not, but it's not unreasonable to speculate that they may have derived the concept of a noun from a common ancestor..

Yes, that could be plausible. Or it could also be plausible that the nature/truth of the world is such that different people would have similar concepts/ideas. So to bring it back to our case, the fact that Judaism and Zoroastrianism may share some traits does not necessarily indicate that one came from the other, but it may indicate that in some measure they both encompass the truth.

For example, in the world of science, there were plenty discoveries that discovered essentially the same thing, but wholly independently of each other. That doesn't imply plagiarism on part of one scientist, it merely implies that the two have independently discovered what is true.

If the same concept applies to religions and cultures, why wouldn't there be some similarities? Why the need to speculate that one must have come from the other?

Quote: Quote: Don't forget, that before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came around, there was a common religion that recognized G-d. It was the original religion going back all the way to Adam, Shem, etc. So instead of claiming that Judaism adopted something from Zoroastrianism, it is just as plausible that both adopted certain elements from the original religion.
That's true as well.. although in this case the historical record would suggest Zoroastrianism came first, then Judaism, and that Judaism adopted lots from the Zoroastrians.

Or it could suggest something else entirely. Or it could suggest nothing.

Quote: Quote: You are using the same approach is evolutionists use. The two things look similar, so one must have evolved from the other. Great. Lexus looks like a Camry. The Camry, therefore, begat Lexus.
They both come from the parent company of Toyota, do they not?

Exactly. And both Zoroastrianism and Judaism to some extent contain the elements of (I want to say primordial :)) religion/truth. Hence the similarity.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Both Akhenaton and his Monotheism and Cyrus and Zoroastrianism are powerful testimonials to what happened to Empires and Emperors who came into contact with these Hebrew people and their God.
Let's explore the Akhenaton case a little more closely, since the Biblical record on Egyptian history is just as muddled and obscured as it is w/ the Persians. Are you trying to say that Akhenaton's father, Amenhotep III, was the pharoah who chased the Hebrews out of Egypt? Also take a close look at the first syllable in his father's name.. it's "amen", as in the Christian benediction, as in the Hebrew אמן, as in Amen-Ra, the Egyptian Sun God.


Amen-Ra, father of all pharoahs
(note esp the Christian-looking Cross thingie in this hand)

Clearly, there's cross-fertilization (at the very least, in terms of language) happening between the Hebrews and Egyptians, but you're going to need to produce some evidence if you want to say that it was the Hebrews who influenced the Egyptians, and not vice versa..

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Both Akhenaton and his Monotheism and Cyrus and Zoroastrianism are powerful testimonials to what happened to Empires and Emperors who came into contact with these Hebrew people and their God.
Let's explore the Akhenaton case a little more closely, since the Biblical record on Egyptian history is just as muddled and obscured as it is w/ the Persians. Are you trying to say that Akhenaton's father, Amenhotep III, was the pharoah who chased the Hebrews out of Egypt? Also take a close look at the first syllable in his father's name.. it's "amen", as in the Christian benediction, as in the Hebrew אמן, as in Amen-Ra, the Egyptian Sun God.

Are you doing it on purpose? The word Amen stands of El Melech Neeman.

Drawing a parallel, ANY parallel between Amen and Amenhotep is just insane. It's like saying that Russian women are cows because Moscow[b/] has a cow in its name.


Quote: [b]Amen-Ra, father of all pharoahs
(note esp the Christian-looking Cross thingie in this hand)

Clearly, there's cross-fertilization (at the very least, in terms of language) happening between the Hebrews and Egyptians, but you're going to need to produce some evidence if you want to say that it was the Hebrews who influenced the Egyptians, and not vice versa..

How does the Christian type symbol indicate cross-fertilization with Hebrews?

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Are you doing it on purpose? The word Amen stands of El Melech Neeman.
I'm sure that to the Egyptians, Amen-Ra is a faithful king as well.. :lol:

Quote: Drawing a parallel, ANY parallel between Amen and Amenhotep is just insane. It's like saying that Russian women are cows because Moscow has a cow in its name.
Amenhotep means "Amen is pleased"... perhaps we can take that one level further and say "the faithful king is pleased"?? :-D

Quote: How does the Christian type symbol indicate cross-fertilization with Hebrews?
It doesn't.. In terms of the Hebrews, the Christian-cross-looking-thingie is neither here nor there, but it does prove that all the Mideast religions were born out of complete chaos and they all borrowed heavily from each other.. :wink:

What I am interested in is pursuing cap'ns theory a little further. Perhaps a better place would be in the context of Exodus (when we start to explore that text), but he brought it up so I'd like to go over it briefly here.. cap'n supposes that Akhenaton learned monotheism from the Hebrews. I'm wondering if cap'n has firm time-frames in mind for when the Hebrews were in Egypt, and when they left Egypt?

[Duchifas]

Quote: I'm sure that to the Egyptians, Amen-Ra is a faithful king as well..

Well, after several attempts it is clear that you don't want to engage in any meaningful discussion of the subject. And quite understandably so. The Bible Criticism theory of which you are a proponent, doesn't hold up to any serious examination, as clearly outlined in the source. So if you want to pretend that drawing parallels between Amenhotep and amen is a serious examination of the subject, you'll have to do it without me.

If I see something serious discussion, I will gladly join, but for now -- see ya.

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: I'm sure that to the Egyptians, Amen-Ra is a faithful king as well..

Well, after several attempts it is clear that you don't want to engage in any meaningful discussion of the subject. And quite understandably so. The Bible Criticism theory of which you are a proponent, doesn't hold up to any serious examination, as clearly outlined in the source. So if you want to pretend that drawing parallels between Amenhotep and amen is a serious examination of the subject, you'll have to do it without me.
Not really... you brought up the example of Moscow and Cow, but I still don't think that example is applicable. Moscow is a proper name of a city in Russia. Cow is noun that describes a four-legged herbivore that tastes pretty good on hamburgers. Moreover, the English-speaking Anglo-Saxons never shared a common border w/, or intermingled w/, the Russian-speaking Slavs. Given all that information, there's no apriori reason to assume that a syllable "cow" in Russian (or, Anglicized Russian, for that matter) has anything much to do w/ the syllable "cow" in English.

That's not the case w/ "amen" and the Hebrews, though. To the Egyptians, "amen" is a divine benediction. To the Hebrews, "amen" is a divine benediction. Moreover, the Hebrews make the claim of having been held as slaves for about 400 years by the Egyptians. And when the Hebrews weren't busy being held as slaves by the Egyptians, they were busy sharing a common border w/ them and entering into military alliances w/ them, etc.. Given that information, there's every reason to look for commonalities between the two cultures, and it'd be foolish not to examine such commonalities if and when they arise. Amen is one such very interesting commanility (imho), although (also imho) you'll find even more commonalities between the Hebrews and the Chaldeans, and that all of a sudden begins to tell you a lot about where the Jews (originally) come from and when..

That said, I'll look up some info on the JEPD theory.. it's interesting stuff.. :-D

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: I'm sure that to the Egyptians, Amen-Ra is a faithful king as well..

Well, after several attempts it is clear that you don't want to engage in any meaningful discussion of the subject. And quite understandably so. The Bible Criticism theory of which you are a proponent, doesn't hold up to any serious examination, as clearly outlined in the source. So if you want to pretend that drawing parallels between Amenhotep and amen is a serious examination of the subject, you'll have to do it without me.

If I see something serious discussion, I will gladly join, but for now -- see ya.

I agree. It most certainly fails to hold up to any serious examination.

[John]

Quote: That's not the case w/ "amen" and the Hebrews, though. To the Egyptians, "amen" is a divine benediction. To the Hebrews, "amen" is a divine benediction.

Where do you get this stuff? Amen is derived from the root aman which means to be firm, and thus by implication, to be true or faithful. Basically it just means "truth". When someone ends a prayer with amen...they're just affirming that it's true and the people that repeat it after they hear the prayer saying or whatever is just saying that they agree that it's true.

All you're really saying is that the Egyptians and the Hebrews have a similar word for Truth...big deal.



Isaiah 16
16 "Because he who is blessed in the earth
Will be blessed by the God of truth;
And he who swears in the earth
Will swear by the God of truth;
Because the former troubles are forgotten,
And because they are hidden from My sight!

What Hebrew word is translated as truth here? eh?

[psholtz]

John wrote: Where do you get this stuff? Amen is derived from the root aman which means to be firm, and thus by implication, to be true or faithful. Basically it just means "truth".
Gee, "aman" sounds a lot like "ma'at", the Egyptian word for "truth", doesn't it?? :think:

Keep talking.. :-D

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Both Akhenaton and his Monotheism and Cyrus and Zoroastrianism are powerful testimonials to what happened to Empires and Emperors who came into contact with these Hebrew people and their God.
Let's explore the Akhenaton case a little more closely, since the Biblical record on Egyptian history is just as muddled and obscured as it is w/ the Persians. Are you trying to say that Akhenaton's father, Amenhotep III, was the pharoah who chased the Hebrews out of Egypt? Also take a close look at the first syllable in his father's name.. it's "amen", as in the Christian benediction, as in the Hebrew אמן, as in Amen-Ra, the Egyptian Sun God.


Amen-Ra, father of all pharoahs
(note esp the Christian-looking Cross thingie in this hand)

Clearly, there's cross-fertilization (at the very least, in terms of language) happening between the Hebrews and Egyptians, but you're going to need to produce some evidence if you want to say that it was the Hebrews who influenced the Egyptians, and not vice versa..

Naw, Akhenaton was later. In the Amarna Letter tablets is one correspondence between Akhenaton and a vassal named Labayu, in it he is complaining about the depredations of the "Habiru" who were conquering the Canaanite cities. Many scholars think this Labayu was Saul, who was complaining about David's victories. I don't know if Labayu is Saul or not, but the time and the area mentioned are the same. It is known Akhenaton pretty much just let the provinces go when he started ignoring foreign policy.

I'm pretty sure the Pharoah of Exodus was probably Amenhotep II, Akhenaton's great grandfather. Family knowledge of the events surrounding Moses probably influenced the young and idealistic Akhenaton, who was searching for a way to inspire his people in a time of national decline.

We can be reasonably sure that this is correct. The preponderance of scriptural and extra-biblical evidence show this.

Vague similarities between an ahnk and a cross and similar sounding modern English terms for ancient words don't mean anything.

Here's a pretty good article that I think pretty much shows the correct sequence of pharaohs during this period in history.
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/642915

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Naw, Akhenaton was later. In the Amarna Letter tablets is one correspondence between Akhenaton and a vassal named Labayu, in it he is complaining about the depredations of the "Habiru" who were conquering the Canaanite cities. Many scholars think this Labayu was Saul, who was complaining about David's victories. I don't know if Labayu is Saul or not, but the time and the area mentioned are the same. It is known Akhenaton pretty much just let the provinces go when he started ignoring foreign policy.
Well, Amenhotep III/Akhenaton would put us safely into the New Kingdom period, and remember this map I've shown you before of what the Egyptian Empire looked like during the New Kingdom period:



Which is to say, it looks like Canaan was very firmly under Egyptian Imperial control during this time period (and which is also to say, there doesn't seem to be much record at all of an independent "Israeli" tribe wandering about the area in that time frame).

I'll take a closer look at the Amarna Tablets, but from what I've seen so far, they seem to valdiate what I'm saying.. the Amarna Tablets originating in Canaan seem to indicate a very slavish, servile relationship between the mayors/prefects in Canaan (who answered to Pharoah) and Pharoah himself. For instance, the Amarna Tablets describe how the mayors of Canaan were forced to grovel on their knees before Pharoah, seven times on their belly and seven times on their backs (and, it appears, this groveling should be interpreted more or less literally):

Quote: The rulers of the Canaanite and Syrian towns under Egyptian sway on the other hand had to grovel before the pharaoh, figuratively in their letters - seven times and seven times, on the belly and on the back - and quite possibly literally when the pharaoh came their way.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/amarnaletters.htm

Funny how I don't recall reading anything like that in the Book of Judges or Joshua, which is the time frame that your estimates would put us in.. :think:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: the Amarna Tablets originating in Canaan seem to indicate a very slavish, servile relationship between the mayors/prefects in Canaan (who answered to Pharoah) and Pharoah himself.

Really? Then why are they discussing the provinces in the area that are being wrested from them by the Habiru, in these letters?

That's about as stupid as your associating the British with communism because they wore red uniforms.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: That's about as stupid as your associating the British with communism because they wore red uniforms.
Nice Christian response! :tu: :-D

Great Britiain is the source of all Communism in this world.. even going back as far as the 18th century. You know this as well as I do .. Let's not derail this thread, though, shall we? I'm reading up on the Haiburu.. interesting stuff! But I'm not prepared to respond yet..

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Naw, Akhenaton was later. In the Amarna Letter tablets is one correspondence between Akhenaton and a vassal named Labayu, in it he is complaining about the depredations of the "Habiru" who were conquering the Canaanite cities. Many scholars think this Labayu was Saul, who was complaining about David's victories. I don't know if Labayu is Saul or not, but the time and the area mentioned are the same. It is known Akhenaton pretty much just let the provinces go when he started ignoring foreign policy.
Yeah, sure.. that makes sense.. Labayu == Saul.. I can *totally* see that.. Definately makes *way* more sense than speculating about the common root "amen" in both Egyptian and Hebrew culture.. (to say nothing of the Communist British Redcoats) :-D

At any rate, there are a couple issues w/ this theory:

* Labayu lived at the time of Akhenaton, which is to say, 1350-1334BC, about 300 years before David is said to have consolidated the Israeli monarchy.. I'm not sure your dates line up *that* well..
* Labayu was "king" of Shechem, but his main power base allegedly lay to the east, in Pella, in what is now Jordan, from where he could control trade routes in and out of Egypt. Is this in any way similar to the Biblical narrative of Saul (i.e., did Saul control Shechem, but even more so, control Pella?)
* Labayu complains about (and apologizes for) his son joining up w/ the Hapiru, but .. Biblically, was not Saul also a "Hebrew"? If the Hapiru are one-and-the-same as the Hebrews, why would Saul speak of the "Hapiru" in a way in which he tries to distance himself from them as much as possible?
* I was not aware that Biblically Saul was little more than an Egyptian puppet, as is clear from his Amarna letters to Akhenaton, where he talks about how Akhenaton is his "Sun and Lord" and that he prostrates himself before pharaoh sevens times on the belly and seven times on the back.

The letter in full is reproduced below:

Quote: Letter from Labayu of Shechem

To the king, my Lord and my God and Sun, thus speaks Labayu, your servant, the dust under your feet. At the feet of the king, my Lord and my God and Sun, seven times and seven times I prostrate myself.

I have heard the words that the king wrote to me and who I am that the king lose his land through my fault? I am the servant of the king, and I have not rebelled and I have not sinned, and I do not retain my tribute, and I do not disregard the demands of his commissioner. They defame to me with ill will, but may the king, my Lord, not accuse me of revolting!

Moreover, my crime is, so they say, that I entered Gezer and said in public: " Will the king take my property and not the property of Milkilu [1]? " I know what Milkilu has done against me.

Moreover, the king wrote about my son. I did not know that my son was associated to the Hapiru [2], and I certainly would have put him into the hands of Addaya.

Moreover, if the king wrote requesting my woman, how could I retain her? If the king wrote to me: " Sink a bronze dagger in your heart and die!", how could I disobey the order of the king?

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/a-labayu.htm

I dunno.. it doesn't sound like Saul to me.. at least, to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't record Saul groveling before pharaoh like this..

Equating the Hapiru w/ the Hebrews is interesting, except that the Hapiru were active everywhere in the Near East. The attacked cities as far north as Ugarit and Alalakh, as far south as Jerusalem, and as far east as Mesopotamia. The Bible does not record that Joshua's conquests were that far-reaching, they only record his conquests in Canaan..

The Hapiru were also active in the Near East before, during and after your alleged dates for the "enslavement" of the Hebrews in Egypt. When Tutmoses I conquered the city of Joppa, he insisted on bringing the horses inside the city gates, for fear of Hapiru raiders. In your time frame, however, the Hapiru were still being held in bondage as slaves in Egypt.. Again, the dates don't line up..

Interesting stuff, though.. I'll look into it more!