Monotheism Was The Original Religion Of Ancient Man
Jul 15, 2017 05:42:44 #
Earliest man's knowledge and belief in one Creator God, was his original religion.
"The Egyptian Book of the Dead" demonstrates that in very early times, the Egyptian people originally believed in not many gods, but one great God; with the passage of time, however, each of their true God's known attributes were personified into new and individual deities - and so, polytheism was developed by man. "The A.B.C. of Biblical Archaeology,"by Dr. Clifford Wilson was a valued resource.
Documented by the famous Egyptologist, Sir Wallis Budge, in his best known text, "The Book of the Dead," are the following statements of the attributes of the true God, from The Papyrus of Ani:
"A Hymn To Amen-Ra ... president of all the gods ... Lord of the heavens ... Lord of Truth ... maker of men; creator of beasts ... Ra, whose word is truth, the Governor of the world, the mighty one of valour, the chiefs who made the world as he made himself.
His forms are more numerous than those of any god ... "Adoration be to thee, O Maker of the Gods, who hast stretched out the heavens and founded the earth! ... Lord of eternity, maker of the everlastingness ... creator of light ...
"He heareth the prayer of the oppressed one, he is kind of heart to him that calleth upon him, he delivereth the timid man from the oppressor ... He is the Lord of knowledge, and Wisdom is the utterance of his mouth. "He maketh the green herb whereon the cattle live, and the staff of life whereon men live. He maketh the fish to live in the rivers, and the feathered fowl in the sky. He giveth life to that which is in the egg ... "Hail to thee, O thou maker of all these things, thou ONLY ONE. In his mightiness he taketh many forms."
Wallis Budge states: "After reading the above extracts it is impossible not to conclude that the ideas of the ancient Egyptians about God were of a very exalted character, and it is clear that they made in their minds a sharp distinction between God and the "gods" ... Here then we have One God who was self-created, self-existent and almighty, who created the universe."
Wallis Budge sees monotheism as the original Egyptian belief corrupted into polytheism. He argues convincingly that the various attributes of the one great God were transferred to become other lesser gods. Budge states: "The truth is the Egyptian religion never wholly lost the monotheistic element which was in it." He suggests a similarity to the monotheism of the Hebrews. Crude polytheism developed in Egyptian history, with increasing numbers of deities. This is an indirect confirmation of a beginning with monotheism - not "many gods".
Other scholars have endorsed the arguments of Sir Wallis Budge, and he himself quotes others: "As a result of their studies of Egyptian texts, many of the earlier Egyptologists, e.g. Champollion-Figeac, de Rouge, Pierret and Brugsch, came to the conclusion that the dwellers in the Nile Valley, from the earliest times, believed in the existence of one God, nameless, incomprehensible, and eternal." (p.105)
Sir Flinders Petrie, early famous Egyptologist, shared this same conclusion. In The Religion of Ancient Egypt, published by Constable, London, 1908, he wrote: "There are in ancient religions and theologies very different classes of gods. Some races, as the modern Hindu, revel in a profusion of gods and godlings which continually increase, and literally number in the millions. Others ... do not attempt to worship great gods, but deal with a host of animistic spirits, devils, or whatever we may call them ... But all our knowledge of the early positions and nature of the great gods shows them to stand on an entirely different footing to these varied spirits.
"Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship, we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god ... What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology ...
"Wherever we can trace polytheism back to its earliest stages, we find that it results from combinations of monotheism. In Egypt even Osiris, Isis and Horus, so familiar as a triad, are found at first as separate units in different places: Isis as a virgin goddess, and Horus as a self-existent God.
"Each city appears to have had but one god belonging to it, to whom others were in time added. Similarly, Babylonian cities each had their supreme god, and the combinations of these and their transformations in order to form them into groups when their homes were politically united, show how essentially they were solitary deities at first."
Other people were also originally monotheists, knowing of only one true God. The late Dr. Arthur C. Custance wrote a series called The Doorway Papers (Brockville, Ontario, Canada). In Paper 34 he gives evidence to show that this was the case with many such people, contrary to the views of many scholars.
Many of those scholars held to polytheism instead of monotheism because they chose to believe that man has evolved upward in such areas as physical development, social relationships, intellectual capacities, and spiritual understanding.
The truth is that man is the crown of God's creation, originally perfect (before his fall), and having a very clear understanding of the nature of God, Who was in fact his Friend. There was no evolution of religion - in fact there was a devolution of religion, and a falling away from the relationship that it had been possible for man to enjoy.
Dr. Arthur Custance elaborates the argument, and he makes the point that at first scholars examining the records of ancient peoples: "... found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort which seemed to be always at war with one another and, much of the time, highly destructive."
He further states: "As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all." (p. 3)
Dr. Custance also quotes other scholars. For instance, he quotes Stephen Langdon of Oxford who wrote in 1931, in Semitic Mythology. Stephen Langdon knew full well that his conclusions would be unacceptable to "the establishment".
Stephen Langdon believed that monotheism preceded polytheism. He made his point very clearly: "In my opinion the history of the oldest civilisation of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man." Stephen Langdon continued to hold that view, five years later,in The Scotsman, November 18, 1936:
"The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of photographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
Not all scholars have accepted that approach - it opposes establishment views as to the evolution of religion. However, despite opposing arguments, Dr. Custance shows that subsequent excavations at Tell Asmar (Eshnunna), a few miles south of modern Baghdad, have confirmed Langdon's view.
Dr. Henry Frankfort, in his third preliminary report on the excavation: "In addition to their more tangible results, our excavations have established a novel fact, which the student of Babylonian religions will have henceforth to take into account. We have obtained, to the best of our knowledge for the first time, religious material complete in its social setting.
"We possess a coherent mass of evidence, derived in almost equal quantity from a temple and from the houses inhabited by those who worshipped in that temple. We are thus able to draw conclusions, which the finds studied by themselves would not have made possible.
"For instance, we discover that the representations on cylinder seals, which are usually connected with various gods, can all be fitted into a consistent picture in which a single god worshipped in this temple forms the central figure. It seems that at this early period his various aspects were not considered separate deities in the Sumero-Accadian pantheon."
This argument about early monotheism is true of other cultures as well. Dr. Custance quotes from Max Muller, a German scholar who was "one of the best known authorities in this area". He wrote in Lectures on the Science of Language: Scribner, N.Y., 1875: "Mythology, which was the bane of the ancient world, is in truth a disease of language. A myth means a word, but a word which, from being a name or an attribute, has been allowed to assume a more substantial existence. Most of the Greek, the Roman, the Indian, and other heathen gods are nothing but poetical names, which were gradually allowed to assume divine personality never contemplated by their original inventors.
"Eos was the name of dawn before she became a goddess, the wife of Tithonos, or the dying day. Fatum, or Fate, meant originally what had been spoken; and before Fate became a power, even greater than Jupiter, it meant that which had once been spoken by Jupiter, and could never be changed - not even by Jupiter himself.
"Zeus originally meant the bright heaven, in Sanskrit Dyaus; and many of the stories told of him as the supreme god, had a meaning only as told originally of the bright heaven, the Danae of old, kept by her father in the dark prison of winter.
"No one doubts that Luna was simply the name of the moon; but so likewise Lucina, both derived from lucere, to shine. Hecate, too, was an old name of the moon, the feminine of Hekatos and Hekatebolos, the far-darting sun: and Pyrrha, the Eve of the Greeks, was nothing but a name of the red earth, and in particular of Thessaly. This mythological disease, though less virulent in modern languages, is by no means extinct."
However little Muller shared the Christian view of man's spiritual history, he nevertheless admitted freely: "There is a monotheism that precedes the polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocation of the innumerable gods the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of idolatrous phraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds." (Quoted from History of Sanskrit Literature)
Dr. Custance relates the concept of monotheism to other early cultures, such as China, Greece and Rome, and the Middle East: "The evidence shows that he (man) began with the true Light and now has his understanding increasingly darkened. The evidence for this among primitive people is to be found in every corner of the world where such people now exist or have existed within recent times. And paradoxically, the more primitive they are, the simpler and the purer is their faith often found to be."
So-called primitive people had this idea of one great God. "Without a doubt the most informative work on the monotheism of primitive people is that by Wilhelm Schmidt, which, though originally a many-volumed work in German, was published in 1930 in a condensed English translation as a single volume, "The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories".
"Schmidt first traces the history of thinking on the subject of the origin of religion as it developed during the last century. He points out, briefly, that Herbert Spencer was largely responsible for the first evolutionary interpretation of "religion", noting that he anticipated Darwin by seven years, as is shown by his article, The Development Hypothesis, which appeared in The Leader dated 20th March, 1852.
"On the basis of present evidence it is now apparent that Spencer was completely wrong to believe that primitive people began by worshipping ancestors and that as civilization developed ancestors "naturally" were formed into hierarchies, and hierarchies in turn led to ranks, the highest ranks becoming deities."
Clearly, many modern scholars are wrong in their ideas about monotheism. Monotheism, not polytheism, was first. Dr. Custance: "What Schmidt is able to prove conclusively is that if primitive cultures are grouped on the basis of their cultural level and these groups are then placed in an ascending order, it is found that the lowest groups have the purest concept of God and that as one progresses from mere hunters to food gatherers and storers, to food growers in the form of pastoral nomads maintaining flocks, to food growers in the sense of settled land use, and on up the scale to semi-urban communities, one finds at first a simple faith in a Supreme Being who has neither wife nor family.
"Under Him and created by Him are the primal pair from which the tribe is descended. According to Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of Central Africa, the South-east Australians, the inhabitants of North central California, the primitive Algonkins - and to a certain extent the Koryaka and Aimu." This of course goes against such arguments as the worship of ancestors being very early in man's religious development. Schmidt: "The falsity of Spencer's theory is shown by the mere fact that ancestor-worship is very feebly developed in the oldest cultures while a monotheistic religion is already clearly and unmistakably there ...
"Unfortunately for Spencer's theory, the highest development of ancestor-worship does not come till the most recent times ..." (Schmidt, op.cit., p. 71) Animism supposedly developed from the idea that man had a soul, and therefore all living things (including plants) had souls or an inner reality. Thus man supposedly moved along an evolutionary path of believing that the whole spirit world was personal - leading to both animism and feared poly-demonism (who must be placated). Supposedly this led to the displacement of these demons by one great power to whom all others were subservient.
Evidence from recovered records fails to support their hypothesis opposing the Bible's record that one great Being, a Creator God, created man in His own image. Despite many "scholarly" views to the contrary, historical and other records reject animism as the "original" religion, revealing that ever since the creation, men originally knew and subsequently rejected their belief in the one true God.
Excerpted from Monotheism: The Original Religion Of Man
Copyrighted © 1997 Zxxxxx Hxxxxx Mxxxxxx (Zemirah)
"The Egyptian Book of the Dead" demonstrates that in very early times, the Egyptian people originally believed in not many gods, but one great God; with the passage of time, however, each of their true God's known attributes were personified into new and individual deities - and so, polytheism was developed by man. "The A.B.C. of Biblical Archaeology,"by Dr. Clifford Wilson was a valued resource.
Documented by the famous Egyptologist, Sir Wallis Budge, in his best known text, "The Book of the Dead," are the following statements of the attributes of the true God, from The Papyrus of Ani:
"A Hymn To Amen-Ra ... president of all the gods ... Lord of the heavens ... Lord of Truth ... maker of men; creator of beasts ... Ra, whose word is truth, the Governor of the world, the mighty one of valour, the chiefs who made the world as he made himself.
His forms are more numerous than those of any god ... "Adoration be to thee, O Maker of the Gods, who hast stretched out the heavens and founded the earth! ... Lord of eternity, maker of the everlastingness ... creator of light ...
"He heareth the prayer of the oppressed one, he is kind of heart to him that calleth upon him, he delivereth the timid man from the oppressor ... He is the Lord of knowledge, and Wisdom is the utterance of his mouth. "He maketh the green herb whereon the cattle live, and the staff of life whereon men live. He maketh the fish to live in the rivers, and the feathered fowl in the sky. He giveth life to that which is in the egg ... "Hail to thee, O thou maker of all these things, thou ONLY ONE. In his mightiness he taketh many forms."
Wallis Budge states: "After reading the above extracts it is impossible not to conclude that the ideas of the ancient Egyptians about God were of a very exalted character, and it is clear that they made in their minds a sharp distinction between God and the "gods" ... Here then we have One God who was self-created, self-existent and almighty, who created the universe."
Wallis Budge sees monotheism as the original Egyptian belief corrupted into polytheism. He argues convincingly that the various attributes of the one great God were transferred to become other lesser gods. Budge states: "The truth is the Egyptian religion never wholly lost the monotheistic element which was in it." He suggests a similarity to the monotheism of the Hebrews. Crude polytheism developed in Egyptian history, with increasing numbers of deities. This is an indirect confirmation of a beginning with monotheism - not "many gods".
Other scholars have endorsed the arguments of Sir Wallis Budge, and he himself quotes others: "As a result of their studies of Egyptian texts, many of the earlier Egyptologists, e.g. Champollion-Figeac, de Rouge, Pierret and Brugsch, came to the conclusion that the dwellers in the Nile Valley, from the earliest times, believed in the existence of one God, nameless, incomprehensible, and eternal." (p.105)
Sir Flinders Petrie, early famous Egyptologist, shared this same conclusion. In The Religion of Ancient Egypt, published by Constable, London, 1908, he wrote: "There are in ancient religions and theologies very different classes of gods. Some races, as the modern Hindu, revel in a profusion of gods and godlings which continually increase, and literally number in the millions. Others ... do not attempt to worship great gods, but deal with a host of animistic spirits, devils, or whatever we may call them ... But all our knowledge of the early positions and nature of the great gods shows them to stand on an entirely different footing to these varied spirits.
"Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship, we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god ... What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology ...
"Wherever we can trace polytheism back to its earliest stages, we find that it results from combinations of monotheism. In Egypt even Osiris, Isis and Horus, so familiar as a triad, are found at first as separate units in different places: Isis as a virgin goddess, and Horus as a self-existent God.
"Each city appears to have had but one god belonging to it, to whom others were in time added. Similarly, Babylonian cities each had their supreme god, and the combinations of these and their transformations in order to form them into groups when their homes were politically united, show how essentially they were solitary deities at first."
Other people were also originally monotheists, knowing of only one true God. The late Dr. Arthur C. Custance wrote a series called The Doorway Papers (Brockville, Ontario, Canada). In Paper 34 he gives evidence to show that this was the case with many such people, contrary to the views of many scholars.
Many of those scholars held to polytheism instead of monotheism because they chose to believe that man has evolved upward in such areas as physical development, social relationships, intellectual capacities, and spiritual understanding.
The truth is that man is the crown of God's creation, originally perfect (before his fall), and having a very clear understanding of the nature of God, Who was in fact his Friend. There was no evolution of religion - in fact there was a devolution of religion, and a falling away from the relationship that it had been possible for man to enjoy.
Dr. Arthur Custance elaborates the argument, and he makes the point that at first scholars examining the records of ancient peoples: "... found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort which seemed to be always at war with one another and, much of the time, highly destructive."
He further states: "As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all." (p. 3)
Dr. Custance also quotes other scholars. For instance, he quotes Stephen Langdon of Oxford who wrote in 1931, in Semitic Mythology. Stephen Langdon knew full well that his conclusions would be unacceptable to "the establishment".
Stephen Langdon believed that monotheism preceded polytheism. He made his point very clearly: "In my opinion the history of the oldest civilisation of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man." Stephen Langdon continued to hold that view, five years later,in The Scotsman, November 18, 1936:
"The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of photographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
Not all scholars have accepted that approach - it opposes establishment views as to the evolution of religion. However, despite opposing arguments, Dr. Custance shows that subsequent excavations at Tell Asmar (Eshnunna), a few miles south of modern Baghdad, have confirmed Langdon's view.
Dr. Henry Frankfort, in his third preliminary report on the excavation: "In addition to their more tangible results, our excavations have established a novel fact, which the student of Babylonian religions will have henceforth to take into account. We have obtained, to the best of our knowledge for the first time, religious material complete in its social setting.
"We possess a coherent mass of evidence, derived in almost equal quantity from a temple and from the houses inhabited by those who worshipped in that temple. We are thus able to draw conclusions, which the finds studied by themselves would not have made possible.
"For instance, we discover that the representations on cylinder seals, which are usually connected with various gods, can all be fitted into a consistent picture in which a single god worshipped in this temple forms the central figure. It seems that at this early period his various aspects were not considered separate deities in the Sumero-Accadian pantheon."
This argument about early monotheism is true of other cultures as well. Dr. Custance quotes from Max Muller, a German scholar who was "one of the best known authorities in this area". He wrote in Lectures on the Science of Language: Scribner, N.Y., 1875: "Mythology, which was the bane of the ancient world, is in truth a disease of language. A myth means a word, but a word which, from being a name or an attribute, has been allowed to assume a more substantial existence. Most of the Greek, the Roman, the Indian, and other heathen gods are nothing but poetical names, which were gradually allowed to assume divine personality never contemplated by their original inventors.
"Eos was the name of dawn before she became a goddess, the wife of Tithonos, or the dying day. Fatum, or Fate, meant originally what had been spoken; and before Fate became a power, even greater than Jupiter, it meant that which had once been spoken by Jupiter, and could never be changed - not even by Jupiter himself.
"Zeus originally meant the bright heaven, in Sanskrit Dyaus; and many of the stories told of him as the supreme god, had a meaning only as told originally of the bright heaven, the Danae of old, kept by her father in the dark prison of winter.
"No one doubts that Luna was simply the name of the moon; but so likewise Lucina, both derived from lucere, to shine. Hecate, too, was an old name of the moon, the feminine of Hekatos and Hekatebolos, the far-darting sun: and Pyrrha, the Eve of the Greeks, was nothing but a name of the red earth, and in particular of Thessaly. This mythological disease, though less virulent in modern languages, is by no means extinct."
However little Muller shared the Christian view of man's spiritual history, he nevertheless admitted freely: "There is a monotheism that precedes the polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocation of the innumerable gods the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of idolatrous phraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds." (Quoted from History of Sanskrit Literature)
Dr. Custance relates the concept of monotheism to other early cultures, such as China, Greece and Rome, and the Middle East: "The evidence shows that he (man) began with the true Light and now has his understanding increasingly darkened. The evidence for this among primitive people is to be found in every corner of the world where such people now exist or have existed within recent times. And paradoxically, the more primitive they are, the simpler and the purer is their faith often found to be."
So-called primitive people had this idea of one great God. "Without a doubt the most informative work on the monotheism of primitive people is that by Wilhelm Schmidt, which, though originally a many-volumed work in German, was published in 1930 in a condensed English translation as a single volume, "The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories".
"Schmidt first traces the history of thinking on the subject of the origin of religion as it developed during the last century. He points out, briefly, that Herbert Spencer was largely responsible for the first evolutionary interpretation of "religion", noting that he anticipated Darwin by seven years, as is shown by his article, The Development Hypothesis, which appeared in The Leader dated 20th March, 1852.
"On the basis of present evidence it is now apparent that Spencer was completely wrong to believe that primitive people began by worshipping ancestors and that as civilization developed ancestors "naturally" were formed into hierarchies, and hierarchies in turn led to ranks, the highest ranks becoming deities."
Clearly, many modern scholars are wrong in their ideas about monotheism. Monotheism, not polytheism, was first. Dr. Custance: "What Schmidt is able to prove conclusively is that if primitive cultures are grouped on the basis of their cultural level and these groups are then placed in an ascending order, it is found that the lowest groups have the purest concept of God and that as one progresses from mere hunters to food gatherers and storers, to food growers in the form of pastoral nomads maintaining flocks, to food growers in the sense of settled land use, and on up the scale to semi-urban communities, one finds at first a simple faith in a Supreme Being who has neither wife nor family.
"Under Him and created by Him are the primal pair from which the tribe is descended. According to Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of Central Africa, the South-east Australians, the inhabitants of North central California, the primitive Algonkins - and to a certain extent the Koryaka and Aimu." This of course goes against such arguments as the worship of ancestors being very early in man's religious development. Schmidt: "The falsity of Spencer's theory is shown by the mere fact that ancestor-worship is very feebly developed in the oldest cultures while a monotheistic religion is already clearly and unmistakably there ...
"Unfortunately for Spencer's theory, the highest development of ancestor-worship does not come till the most recent times ..." (Schmidt, op.cit., p. 71) Animism supposedly developed from the idea that man had a soul, and therefore all living things (including plants) had souls or an inner reality. Thus man supposedly moved along an evolutionary path of believing that the whole spirit world was personal - leading to both animism and feared poly-demonism (who must be placated). Supposedly this led to the displacement of these demons by one great power to whom all others were subservient.
Evidence from recovered records fails to support their hypothesis opposing the Bible's record that one great Being, a Creator God, created man in His own image. Despite many "scholarly" views to the contrary, historical and other records reject animism as the "original" religion, revealing that ever since the creation, men originally knew and subsequently rejected their belief in the one true God.
Excerpted from Monotheism: The Original Religion Of Man
Copyrighted © 1997 Zxxxxx Hxxxxx Mxxxxxx (Zemirah)
Jul 15, 2017 06:46:45 #
Jul 15, 2017 20:49:35 #
I hate to break your bubble, but most all of the sources quoted in this came from the 19th and early 20th centuries. More recent research and archeology have shown the opposite to be true; that polytheism was the elder of the two religious "isms."
Citing ancient Egyptians as being monotheistic is 180 degrees from accurate. Ancient Egypt was far from being simple farmers when its religion developed. It's pantheon of gods begin with the "Sun god, Ra." However, from there, the number of lesser gods grew to include gods to,rule over several aspects of everyday life and nature.
It wasn't until King Tut's father decided to,worship Ra as the one god, did monotheism have a fleeting moment in ancient Egypt's history. It ended with King Tut returning to the polytheistic pantheon of Egyptian gods; a span of about 15 years. The next introduction of monotheistic religion in Egypt was when the Israelites were brought to Egypt as slaves. Even then, the Egyptians held on to their religion. Even after the Romans conquered Egypt, the Egyptians held on to their religion.
Only after the Muslims invaded did the religion of Egypt change to primarily monotheistic.
Citing ancient Egyptians as being monotheistic is 180 degrees from accurate. Ancient Egypt was far from being simple farmers when its religion developed. It's pantheon of gods begin with the "Sun god, Ra." However, from there, the number of lesser gods grew to include gods to,rule over several aspects of everyday life and nature.
It wasn't until King Tut's father decided to,worship Ra as the one god, did monotheism have a fleeting moment in ancient Egypt's history. It ended with King Tut returning to the polytheistic pantheon of Egyptian gods; a span of about 15 years. The next introduction of monotheistic religion in Egypt was when the Israelites were brought to Egypt as slaves. Even then, the Egyptians held on to their religion. Even after the Romans conquered Egypt, the Egyptians held on to their religion.
Only after the Muslims invaded did the religion of Egypt change to primarily monotheistic.
Jul 15, 2017 23:24:15 #
Let me reiterate:
Eons (many centuries) before God communicated with Abram(ham), and subsequently, through His progeny, Isaac and Jacob, and the Jewish people who were Jacob's descendants, there is evidence in literally thousands of known locations that He was known and worshipped among all His created, before they turned from Him, creating gods of their own fancy, patterned after their own imaginations, devising elaborate rituals and ceremonies and building vast structures to their gods.
This was done in rebellion against God, and it began at the tower of Babel. From there it went into Egypt, and eventually throughout the inhabited earth.
It was an Astrological planetary religion worshiping the moon, the stars and the other planets and stars visible to the naked eye, but before that men knew and worshiped the God who created them.
OPP lacked sufficient allotted memory per post to complete this article on research I did over twenty years ago...
If there is scientific proof, not just propaganda from self-serving Evolutionists and Atheists, disproving this information, please provide it.
This is the remainder of my article:
Primitive man's initial knowledge of the one true God is made very clear in the writings of missionary Don Richardson a Canadian Christian modern missionary, teacher, author and international speaker who worked among the tribal people of Western New Guinea, Indonesia beginning in the 1960s; in his book "Eternity In Their Hearts,", he challenges the smug conclusions of godless scholars, Huxley, Spencer, Tylor, and others who believed: "they had thoroughly debunked all pretensions about the supernatural origin of religion, as they claimed that Religion had evolved mentally, just as biological forms evolved physically.
Back on the Kalahari Desert, in the Ituri forest, and innumerable other locations, however; the young anthropologists were getting down to a deeper level of questioning. They would ask the animists: "By the way, who made the world?" and were startled to hear them respond, often with a happy smile, by naming a single Being who lived in the sky.
"Is he good or bad?" was a usual second question.
"Good, of course", was the invariable reply. "Show me the idol you use to represent him", the researcher might ask. "What idol? Don't you know that he must never be represented by an idol?"
This of course opposed the teachings of many modern scholars. However, as Don Richardson says: "They began discovering what thousands of missionaries had already known for a hundred years - that about 90% of the world's folk religions are permeated with monotheistic presuppositions.
"They knew, of course, that Huxley, Tylor and the others would be disappointed, not to mention embarrassed. Some researchers may have shelved this aspect of their research to avoid embarrassing their high priests, for these later revelations did not find their way into early textbooks. The result was that the public developed a collective "blind spot!" Andrew Lang was alone in protesting the suppression of this contradicting data."
Finally, Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt, an Austrian, set out in the 1920's to compile every "alias of the Almighty" discovered by explorers around the world. It took Schmidt an amazing six volumes totalling 4,500 pages to detail them all! A minimum of a thousand more examples have come to light since then. An approximate 90 percent or more of the folk religions on this planet contain clear acknowledgment of the existence of one Supreme God! Dr. Schmidt's classic "Der Ursprung der Gottesidee" (The Origin of the Concept of God) was finally published in 1934.
Anthropologist Gordon Fraser's words presented the facts of the matter to the public although it was almost intellectual suicide to oppose the doctrine of evolution and its high priests. Fraser spent much of his life extending Andrew Lang's and Wilhelm Schmidt's research, and G. Foucart's treatment of the subject in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics further confirms the conclusions of these three unblinded men: "The nature, role, and characteristics of this universal sky-god may be concealed under the most diverse forms, but he is always more or less recognizable to the historian of religions and always identical in essential definition. The sky-god has reigned everywhere and his kingdom still covers the whole of the uncivilized world. (He reigns over much of the civilized world as well as under different names.)
No historical or proto-historical motive can be assigned as a cause, and neither the migration of races nor the diffusion of myths and folklore affords the slightest justification of the fact. The universality of the sky-god and the uniformity of his essential characteristics are the logical consequence of the uniformity of the primitive system of cosmogony."
"King Solomon said it much more concisely in Ecclesiastes 3:11: "(God) has also put eternity in the hearts of men!"
Tribe after tribe show theology in their hymns clearly consistent with the fact of one true God.
Here is one selection, from the Karen people of Burma:
"Y'wa is eternal, his life is long.
One aeon - he dies not!
Two aeons - he dies not!
He is perfect in meritorious attributes.
Aeons follow aeons - he dies not!"
These people actually acknowledge Y'wa as Creator in another hymn extolling Him:
"Who created the world in the beginning?
Y'wa created the world in the beginning!
Y'wa appointed everything.
Y'wa is unsearchable!"
Yet another hymn conveyed deep appreciation for Y'wa's omnipotence and omniscience, combined with regret that they lack a relationship with Him:
"The omnipotent is Y'wa; him have we not believed.
Y'wa created men anciently;
He has a perfect knowledge of all things!
Y'wa created men at the beginning;
He knows all things to the present time!
O my children and grandchildren!
The earth is the treading place of the feet of Y'wa.
And heaven is the place where he sits.
He sees all things, and we are manifest to him."
It almost seems that such people have the Bible record of creation before them, for Missionary Don Richardson states: "The Karen story of man's falling away from God contains stunning parallels to Genesis Chapter One:
"Y'wa formed the world originally.
He appointed food and drink.
He appointed the "fruit of trial."
He gave detailed order.
Mu-kaw-lee deceived two persons.
He caused them to eat the fruit of the tree of trial.
They obeyed not; they believed not Y'wa ...
When they ate the fruit of trial,
They became subject to sickness, aging, and death ..."
The Karen people had faithfully clung to their own folk religion, despite high pressured attempts on the part of the Burmese to convert them to Buddhism," and they had from the inception of their history, throughout their generations, expected a white brother, one who would bring a book authored by Y'wa the Supreme God.
The Greek term Deos (God) has gone through pronunciation/ geographical changes, to be Deos in one area, Deus in another, and Theos in a third. It was then only a minor step to Zeus, a major god in Greek mythology. Although the meanings have gradually changed, the original concept is readily traced to one common source.
This world-wide belief in monotheism explains how "illiterate yet practical minded, close-to-the-earth Santa/folk religionists insist so firmly that there is in fact an omnipotent and moral beneficent Creator."
Missionary, Don Richardson explains that such findings have "disturbed evolutionists more than any other cultural phenomenon." Evolutionary theorists insist that the concept of one Supreme Being was reached only after proceeding through more lowly beliefs such as fetishes, nature gods, and polytheism. They now find that the reverse is true, for the more "primitive" the tribe, the more advanced, their ideas are about one true God - monotheism!
Eons (many centuries) before God communicated with Abram(ham), and subsequently, through His progeny, Isaac and Jacob, and the Jewish people who were Jacob's descendants, there is evidence in literally thousands of known locations that He was known and worshipped among all His created, before they turned from Him, creating gods of their own fancy, patterned after their own imaginations, devising elaborate rituals and ceremonies and building vast structures to their gods.
This was done in rebellion against God, and it began at the tower of Babel. From there it went into Egypt, and eventually throughout the inhabited earth.
It was an Astrological planetary religion worshiping the moon, the stars and the other planets and stars visible to the naked eye, but before that men knew and worshiped the God who created them.
OPP lacked sufficient allotted memory per post to complete this article on research I did over twenty years ago...
If there is scientific proof, not just propaganda from self-serving Evolutionists and Atheists, disproving this information, please provide it.
This is the remainder of my article:
Primitive man's initial knowledge of the one true God is made very clear in the writings of missionary Don Richardson a Canadian Christian modern missionary, teacher, author and international speaker who worked among the tribal people of Western New Guinea, Indonesia beginning in the 1960s; in his book "Eternity In Their Hearts,", he challenges the smug conclusions of godless scholars, Huxley, Spencer, Tylor, and others who believed: "they had thoroughly debunked all pretensions about the supernatural origin of religion, as they claimed that Religion had evolved mentally, just as biological forms evolved physically.
Back on the Kalahari Desert, in the Ituri forest, and innumerable other locations, however; the young anthropologists were getting down to a deeper level of questioning. They would ask the animists: "By the way, who made the world?" and were startled to hear them respond, often with a happy smile, by naming a single Being who lived in the sky.
"Is he good or bad?" was a usual second question.
"Good, of course", was the invariable reply. "Show me the idol you use to represent him", the researcher might ask. "What idol? Don't you know that he must never be represented by an idol?"
This of course opposed the teachings of many modern scholars. However, as Don Richardson says: "They began discovering what thousands of missionaries had already known for a hundred years - that about 90% of the world's folk religions are permeated with monotheistic presuppositions.
"They knew, of course, that Huxley, Tylor and the others would be disappointed, not to mention embarrassed. Some researchers may have shelved this aspect of their research to avoid embarrassing their high priests, for these later revelations did not find their way into early textbooks. The result was that the public developed a collective "blind spot!" Andrew Lang was alone in protesting the suppression of this contradicting data."
Finally, Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt, an Austrian, set out in the 1920's to compile every "alias of the Almighty" discovered by explorers around the world. It took Schmidt an amazing six volumes totalling 4,500 pages to detail them all! A minimum of a thousand more examples have come to light since then. An approximate 90 percent or more of the folk religions on this planet contain clear acknowledgment of the existence of one Supreme God! Dr. Schmidt's classic "Der Ursprung der Gottesidee" (The Origin of the Concept of God) was finally published in 1934.
Anthropologist Gordon Fraser's words presented the facts of the matter to the public although it was almost intellectual suicide to oppose the doctrine of evolution and its high priests. Fraser spent much of his life extending Andrew Lang's and Wilhelm Schmidt's research, and G. Foucart's treatment of the subject in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics further confirms the conclusions of these three unblinded men: "The nature, role, and characteristics of this universal sky-god may be concealed under the most diverse forms, but he is always more or less recognizable to the historian of religions and always identical in essential definition. The sky-god has reigned everywhere and his kingdom still covers the whole of the uncivilized world. (He reigns over much of the civilized world as well as under different names.)
No historical or proto-historical motive can be assigned as a cause, and neither the migration of races nor the diffusion of myths and folklore affords the slightest justification of the fact. The universality of the sky-god and the uniformity of his essential characteristics are the logical consequence of the uniformity of the primitive system of cosmogony."
"King Solomon said it much more concisely in Ecclesiastes 3:11: "(God) has also put eternity in the hearts of men!"
Tribe after tribe show theology in their hymns clearly consistent with the fact of one true God.
Here is one selection, from the Karen people of Burma:
"Y'wa is eternal, his life is long.
One aeon - he dies not!
Two aeons - he dies not!
He is perfect in meritorious attributes.
Aeons follow aeons - he dies not!"
These people actually acknowledge Y'wa as Creator in another hymn extolling Him:
"Who created the world in the beginning?
Y'wa created the world in the beginning!
Y'wa appointed everything.
Y'wa is unsearchable!"
Yet another hymn conveyed deep appreciation for Y'wa's omnipotence and omniscience, combined with regret that they lack a relationship with Him:
"The omnipotent is Y'wa; him have we not believed.
Y'wa created men anciently;
He has a perfect knowledge of all things!
Y'wa created men at the beginning;
He knows all things to the present time!
O my children and grandchildren!
The earth is the treading place of the feet of Y'wa.
And heaven is the place where he sits.
He sees all things, and we are manifest to him."
It almost seems that such people have the Bible record of creation before them, for Missionary Don Richardson states: "The Karen story of man's falling away from God contains stunning parallels to Genesis Chapter One:
"Y'wa formed the world originally.
He appointed food and drink.
He appointed the "fruit of trial."
He gave detailed order.
Mu-kaw-lee deceived two persons.
He caused them to eat the fruit of the tree of trial.
They obeyed not; they believed not Y'wa ...
When they ate the fruit of trial,
They became subject to sickness, aging, and death ..."
The Karen people had faithfully clung to their own folk religion, despite high pressured attempts on the part of the Burmese to convert them to Buddhism," and they had from the inception of their history, throughout their generations, expected a white brother, one who would bring a book authored by Y'wa the Supreme God.
The Greek term Deos (God) has gone through pronunciation/ geographical changes, to be Deos in one area, Deus in another, and Theos in a third. It was then only a minor step to Zeus, a major god in Greek mythology. Although the meanings have gradually changed, the original concept is readily traced to one common source.
This world-wide belief in monotheism explains how "illiterate yet practical minded, close-to-the-earth Santa/folk religionists insist so firmly that there is in fact an omnipotent and moral beneficent Creator."
Missionary, Don Richardson explains that such findings have "disturbed evolutionists more than any other cultural phenomenon." Evolutionary theorists insist that the concept of one Supreme Being was reached only after proceeding through more lowly beliefs such as fetishes, nature gods, and polytheism. They now find that the reverse is true, for the more "primitive" the tribe, the more advanced, their ideas are about one true God - monotheism!
alabuck wrote:
I hate to break your bubble, but most all of the s... (show quote)
Jul 16, 2017 09:54:26 #
Zeriah,
With all due respect to your research, you've tried to make a majority out of a minority.
From: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/34867/were-ancient-egyptians-secretly-monotheistic, plus several other links, we find many rather good rebuttals to your findings, which, are NOT held by the vast majority of modern archeologists, Egyptologist, and other historians of the Middle East. I would think, too, that from your posts, you are someone who believes very strongly in the Christian God. (Jews and Muslims don't believe in God having 3 parts, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.) as such, I believe your endeavor is to try to tie, at least, the "Father-God" to an Egyptian deity. Except for the brief period I mentioned in my original reply to you, again, the vast majority of archeologists, Egyptologist, and other historians of the Middle East disagree with your findings.
Too, your "cherry-picking" of a very few and very remote Polynesian peoples, who just happen to be monotheistic, shouldn't be used to try to draw just a vast conclusion regarding Ancient Egypt; especially since these Polynesian people had zero contact with ancient Egyptians nor had any knowledge of Egyptian monotheism. This, would be called a "coincidence." And, to try to tie it to religious texts from the Middle East is, in my opinion, very misleading, a mis-use of, and a mis-interpretation of the religious text and its context.
Also, why not try to involve some of our own Native Americans? Some of those tribes worshipped a "Great Spirit," a monotheistic-themed god. Early Christian missionaries to these tribes recorded as much and were successful at converting these particular Indians to Christianity by blending the Indian belief patterns in with Christian doctrine.
I'm sorry, Sir, but while I find the subject, itself, very fascinating, from my own reading of the subject-matter, plus my checking out the sources you used, I can't draw the same conclusions as you. Your sources are old and inaccurate and you're mis-reading of Scripture and other religious text leads to your wrong conclusion(s).
Kindest regards,
Alabuck
With all due respect to your research, you've tried to make a majority out of a minority.
From: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/34867/were-ancient-egyptians-secretly-monotheistic, plus several other links, we find many rather good rebuttals to your findings, which, are NOT held by the vast majority of modern archeologists, Egyptologist, and other historians of the Middle East. I would think, too, that from your posts, you are someone who believes very strongly in the Christian God. (Jews and Muslims don't believe in God having 3 parts, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.) as such, I believe your endeavor is to try to tie, at least, the "Father-God" to an Egyptian deity. Except for the brief period I mentioned in my original reply to you, again, the vast majority of archeologists, Egyptologist, and other historians of the Middle East disagree with your findings.
Too, your "cherry-picking" of a very few and very remote Polynesian peoples, who just happen to be monotheistic, shouldn't be used to try to draw just a vast conclusion regarding Ancient Egypt; especially since these Polynesian people had zero contact with ancient Egyptians nor had any knowledge of Egyptian monotheism. This, would be called a "coincidence." And, to try to tie it to religious texts from the Middle East is, in my opinion, very misleading, a mis-use of, and a mis-interpretation of the religious text and its context.
Also, why not try to involve some of our own Native Americans? Some of those tribes worshipped a "Great Spirit," a monotheistic-themed god. Early Christian missionaries to these tribes recorded as much and were successful at converting these particular Indians to Christianity by blending the Indian belief patterns in with Christian doctrine.
I'm sorry, Sir, but while I find the subject, itself, very fascinating, from my own reading of the subject-matter, plus my checking out the sources you used, I can't draw the same conclusions as you. Your sources are old and inaccurate and you're mis-reading of Scripture and other religious text leads to your wrong conclusion(s).
Kindest regards,
Alabuck
Jul 17, 2017 09:02:24 #
Hi Alabuck,
You are still missing the message of my post. It addresses a remote time in man's very early existence, before organized cities or religions, long before there were Jews or Muslims or Christians, or written Holy Books or Commentaries about those Holy Books over which to argue.
Job is the oldest book in the Bible, and the time I addressed is older than that.
Your referenced website is no more authoritative than OPP, by which I mean anyone can sign on, and give their opinion, and the question being ask would support my post much more than your attempted refutal of it. it pulled up one person asking a question, an individual who has read a book from the 18th century... and you consider my documentation to be old!!
There are no multitudinous professors or scientists on your website to function as "High Priests."
I agree with your referenced website's premise that everyone has an opinion and should be free to state it. Other than that, there is nothing on that site either conclusive or persuasive.
http://www.history.stackexchange.com/questions/34867/were-ancient-egyptians-secretly-monotheistic
You've prefessed your remarks by addressing yourself as "we." unless that is the imperial "we," you speak for the annonymous.
If you check your posts, Alabuck, we debated Scripture two or three years ago. I won.
As a believing Christian, I am more interested in why you would address any one of the three persons in the eternal Biblical Triune Godhead which is revealed in Scripture as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, and are of one essence, as an impersonal "part" or "parts"?
The totality of what the Jewish people failed to perceive about the God of the Tanakh, as well as what they believe today rests in their denial of God's complete revelation to them, most especially in the 1st century.
I love the Jewish people, and deeply regret what they believe, or more accurately have failed to believe. God has a future for them.
It is however, irrelevant to the post you've chosen to "cherry pick," nor does it change God's truth, which is for all men.
The god Muhammad invented is actually an evil trinity embodying 1)himself, and 2)the generic term for "deity," which is Al Alah, shortened to Allah, and 3) the "hajar ul Aswan," the ancient black stone embedded in the wall of the Ka'bah, which the Arab's had worshipped for literally thousands of years, and which Muhammad chose to retain in his old "new" religion.
They actually believe this cold dead stone will absorb all their sins, if, during their required Haj to Mecca, they will touch or kiss it.
Islam's god is Not the Jewish and Christian God of the Bible.
As for the Islamic people, I also love them, but abhor their evil religion, Islam.
During my professional career in Accounting, I had the privilege of working with a corporation owned and managed by Islamic people for several years, and at a later time, I was engaged by a Jewish organization for a few years.
There is nothing more fascinating than learning a culture different than one's own, and the personalities it has engendered, especially their religious beliefs.
On the whole, as individuals, the Islamic people are warmer, more hospitable, more mischievious, and more eager to please than are the Jewish.
Emboldened by 9/11 and our cowardly acquiescence to them, it is now unquestionably true that the Islamic are also more likely to kill you!
I do believe you've been reading too much Fake News, as you appear to be seeking a conspiracy or ulterior motive to my post which does not exist.
Your displeasure with and disapproval of this article is duly noted.
I said what I meant, and meant what I said.
Time does not change the truth, merely the number of people who are willing to accept it.
Go with God, Alabuck, the Christian God who loves you.
You are still missing the message of my post. It addresses a remote time in man's very early existence, before organized cities or religions, long before there were Jews or Muslims or Christians, or written Holy Books or Commentaries about those Holy Books over which to argue.
Job is the oldest book in the Bible, and the time I addressed is older than that.
Your referenced website is no more authoritative than OPP, by which I mean anyone can sign on, and give their opinion, and the question being ask would support my post much more than your attempted refutal of it. it pulled up one person asking a question, an individual who has read a book from the 18th century... and you consider my documentation to be old!!
There are no multitudinous professors or scientists on your website to function as "High Priests."
I agree with your referenced website's premise that everyone has an opinion and should be free to state it. Other than that, there is nothing on that site either conclusive or persuasive.
http://www.history.stackexchange.com/questions/34867/were-ancient-egyptians-secretly-monotheistic
Quote:
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer si... (show quote)
You've prefessed your remarks by addressing yourself as "we." unless that is the imperial "we," you speak for the annonymous.
If you check your posts, Alabuck, we debated Scripture two or three years ago. I won.
As a believing Christian, I am more interested in why you would address any one of the three persons in the eternal Biblical Triune Godhead which is revealed in Scripture as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, and are of one essence, as an impersonal "part" or "parts"?
The totality of what the Jewish people failed to perceive about the God of the Tanakh, as well as what they believe today rests in their denial of God's complete revelation to them, most especially in the 1st century.
I love the Jewish people, and deeply regret what they believe, or more accurately have failed to believe. God has a future for them.
It is however, irrelevant to the post you've chosen to "cherry pick," nor does it change God's truth, which is for all men.
The god Muhammad invented is actually an evil trinity embodying 1)himself, and 2)the generic term for "deity," which is Al Alah, shortened to Allah, and 3) the "hajar ul Aswan," the ancient black stone embedded in the wall of the Ka'bah, which the Arab's had worshipped for literally thousands of years, and which Muhammad chose to retain in his old "new" religion.
They actually believe this cold dead stone will absorb all their sins, if, during their required Haj to Mecca, they will touch or kiss it.
Islam's god is Not the Jewish and Christian God of the Bible.
As for the Islamic people, I also love them, but abhor their evil religion, Islam.
During my professional career in Accounting, I had the privilege of working with a corporation owned and managed by Islamic people for several years, and at a later time, I was engaged by a Jewish organization for a few years.
There is nothing more fascinating than learning a culture different than one's own, and the personalities it has engendered, especially their religious beliefs.
On the whole, as individuals, the Islamic people are warmer, more hospitable, more mischievious, and more eager to please than are the Jewish.
Emboldened by 9/11 and our cowardly acquiescence to them, it is now unquestionably true that the Islamic are also more likely to kill you!
I do believe you've been reading too much Fake News, as you appear to be seeking a conspiracy or ulterior motive to my post which does not exist.
Your displeasure with and disapproval of this article is duly noted.
I said what I meant, and meant what I said.
Time does not change the truth, merely the number of people who are willing to accept it.
Go with God, Alabuck, the Christian God who loves you.
alabuck wrote:
br br Zeriah, br With all due respect to your re... (show quote)
Jul 17, 2017 10:27:58 #
"If you check your posts, Alabuck, we debated Scripture two or three years ago. I won."
Your OPP name doesn't ring any bells with me. Perhaps you changed it. As for your "winning," you're jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate and prejudiced info. There are times I simply quit a discussion because the opposition won't listen to reason or because their position is so far out in left field as to warrent no more further effort from myself. IF we've "debated" in the past, then I'd suspect the latter reason to be true.
"It addresses a remote time in man's very early existence, before organized cities or religions, long before there were Jews or Muslims or Christians, or written Holy Books or Commentaries about those Holy Books over which to argue."
You claim that Egypt was monotheistic LONG BEFORE even the Book of Job was written and before cities and religions were formed. Well, then, please explain to me and any other readers just how your information is ascertained, not to mention, accurate. From your own words, this monotheistic Egypt was around long before the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were even united. This means, long before the invention of papyrus or even Egyptian hieroglyphics were developed and chiseled into stellas and/or walls. As such, just where are the "recorded histories" upon which your claim is based?
If you say, "oral traditions" (which, seems to be your only other avenue of "knowledge"), then you're treading in very weak ground. Just as there are many "forgeries" of ancient artifacts, there are also made-up ancient stories. Just look to Hollywood for some of the latest.
"As a believing Christian, I am more interested in why you would address any one of the three persons in the eternal Biblical Triune Godhead which is revealed in Scripture as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, and are of one essence, as an impersonal "part" or "parts"?"
My reference to "Father-God" comes from Christ's own words. He addresses God as His "Father" on several occasions. "My Father, which art in heaven ... ." "Only my Father knows the time ... ." Should I continue? If Christ, Himself, recognizes the "parts" of God, then why shouldn't we?
Additionally, man is shown God in His 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, singularly and in pairs. Moses saw either God the Father or the Holy Spirit (its open to debate which one) on the mountain, during both of God's revelations to Moses (the burning bush and when God passed by Moses). Others, in the Bible, were allowed to talk to God (it's presumed to be the Father).
In the New Testament, the "Son of God" came tomEsrth in ththe form of a man. Jesus, the Christ, was seen by hundreds, while on Earth. Also, when He was baptized, "... the Holy Spirit descended upon Him 'like' (or, 'in the form of,' depending on which translation one uses) a dove." So, we have this occasion when people "saw" TWO of God's aspects at the same time, the Son and the Spirit! THEN, we heard God, the Father say from Heaven, "This is my Son, in which I am most proud." WOW! All 3 aspects of God, at the same time! In the same place! I'll claim the Bible as my source. What's yours?
From my reading of your posts and positions, perhaps, in your study of the Bible, too much time has been spent on the "legalistic wording" of the Bible and not enough in understanding the "spirit" in which the words were written.
Your OPP name doesn't ring any bells with me. Perhaps you changed it. As for your "winning," you're jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate and prejudiced info. There are times I simply quit a discussion because the opposition won't listen to reason or because their position is so far out in left field as to warrent no more further effort from myself. IF we've "debated" in the past, then I'd suspect the latter reason to be true.
"It addresses a remote time in man's very early existence, before organized cities or religions, long before there were Jews or Muslims or Christians, or written Holy Books or Commentaries about those Holy Books over which to argue."
You claim that Egypt was monotheistic LONG BEFORE even the Book of Job was written and before cities and religions were formed. Well, then, please explain to me and any other readers just how your information is ascertained, not to mention, accurate. From your own words, this monotheistic Egypt was around long before the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were even united. This means, long before the invention of papyrus or even Egyptian hieroglyphics were developed and chiseled into stellas and/or walls. As such, just where are the "recorded histories" upon which your claim is based?
If you say, "oral traditions" (which, seems to be your only other avenue of "knowledge"), then you're treading in very weak ground. Just as there are many "forgeries" of ancient artifacts, there are also made-up ancient stories. Just look to Hollywood for some of the latest.
"As a believing Christian, I am more interested in why you would address any one of the three persons in the eternal Biblical Triune Godhead which is revealed in Scripture as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, and are of one essence, as an impersonal "part" or "parts"?"
My reference to "Father-God" comes from Christ's own words. He addresses God as His "Father" on several occasions. "My Father, which art in heaven ... ." "Only my Father knows the time ... ." Should I continue? If Christ, Himself, recognizes the "parts" of God, then why shouldn't we?
Additionally, man is shown God in His 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, singularly and in pairs. Moses saw either God the Father or the Holy Spirit (its open to debate which one) on the mountain, during both of God's revelations to Moses (the burning bush and when God passed by Moses). Others, in the Bible, were allowed to talk to God (it's presumed to be the Father).
In the New Testament, the "Son of God" came tomEsrth in ththe form of a man. Jesus, the Christ, was seen by hundreds, while on Earth. Also, when He was baptized, "... the Holy Spirit descended upon Him 'like' (or, 'in the form of,' depending on which translation one uses) a dove." So, we have this occasion when people "saw" TWO of God's aspects at the same time, the Son and the Spirit! THEN, we heard God, the Father say from Heaven, "This is my Son, in which I am most proud." WOW! All 3 aspects of God, at the same time! In the same place! I'll claim the Bible as my source. What's yours?
From my reading of your posts and positions, perhaps, in your study of the Bible, too much time has been spent on the "legalistic wording" of the Bible and not enough in understanding the "spirit" in which the words were written.
Jul 17, 2017 12:04:38 #
I seem to be getting on your last nerve, Alabuck. Why is that?
You don't bother me at all.
I joined OPP in April, 2013, and have never even considered changing my User name. Why would I? Why would anyone?
I know people sometimes do, but within three paragraphs, everyone knows who they are...
Let me emphasize what you just said about the one True God.
Orthodox Christian theology has always recognized that there is one true God, triune in nature; composed of three co-equal and co-eternal persons within the One Godhead.
If it were not so, before God created Heaven and Earth, and humanity, how could it have been true that "God is love?"
The Old and New Testament teach that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct persons in one Godhead with one essence, each co-equally holding the attributes of deity.
The Bible teaches that there is only one true God (Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:18; Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10, James 2:19; Mark 12:29 ).
In Genesis 1:26–27: "God said, 'Let us make man in our image' ... God created man in His image." Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, with both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to God’s image.
God is a plurality in unity. He is a trinity, a complicated concept for the finite human mind.
In Isaiah 48:12–16 the speaker describes himself as the Creator and that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. Christians in prayer and in worship are in the presence of God, the Father, through God, the Son, in the power of God, the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize His followers in the name, which is singular of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, meaning they are one. John’s Gospel relates that “the Word” is God who became fully man and fully God in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Many other verses combine together to teach that the One God is triune.
You don't bother me at all.
I joined OPP in April, 2013, and have never even considered changing my User name. Why would I? Why would anyone?
I know people sometimes do, but within three paragraphs, everyone knows who they are...
Let me emphasize what you just said about the one True God.
Orthodox Christian theology has always recognized that there is one true God, triune in nature; composed of three co-equal and co-eternal persons within the One Godhead.
If it were not so, before God created Heaven and Earth, and humanity, how could it have been true that "God is love?"
The Old and New Testament teach that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct persons in one Godhead with one essence, each co-equally holding the attributes of deity.
The Bible teaches that there is only one true God (Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:18; Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10, James 2:19; Mark 12:29 ).
In Genesis 1:26–27: "God said, 'Let us make man in our image' ... God created man in His image." Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, with both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to God’s image.
God is a plurality in unity. He is a trinity, a complicated concept for the finite human mind.
In Isaiah 48:12–16 the speaker describes himself as the Creator and that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. Christians in prayer and in worship are in the presence of God, the Father, through God, the Son, in the power of God, the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize His followers in the name, which is singular of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, meaning they are one. John’s Gospel relates that “the Word” is God who became fully man and fully God in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Many other verses combine together to teach that the One God is triune.
alabuck wrote:
"If you check your posts, Alabuck, we debated... (show quote)
Jul 17, 2017 12:23:02 #
"God is a plurality in unity. He is a trinity, a complicated concept for the finite human mind." Yet, you seem to claim to have a lock on it. Excuse me if I accept that my "finite mind" can't fully conceive our triune God, except through His Word in the Bible.
As I said earlier, you appear to have a rather legalistic view of Christianity. I, and most others, look to the Bible for the "spirit" of the Word. Want proof? How many people are in here discussing your viewpoints? Not many.
So, go on and claim another "victory." I never have tried to give too effort to discuss religion with "legalistically-centered" folks. From my experience, they never can get away from their narrow-minded concepts about God and how one can be saved. (Hint: only by God's grace.) It's their way or the highway. It reminders me of the Phrases.
Have a blessed day
As I said earlier, you appear to have a rather legalistic view of Christianity. I, and most others, look to the Bible for the "spirit" of the Word. Want proof? How many people are in here discussing your viewpoints? Not many.
So, go on and claim another "victory." I never have tried to give too effort to discuss religion with "legalistically-centered" folks. From my experience, they never can get away from their narrow-minded concepts about God and how one can be saved. (Hint: only by God's grace.) It's their way or the highway. It reminders me of the Phrases.
Have a blessed day
Jul 17, 2017 13:59:13 #
I totally reject my posts being "legalistically-centered." They are Sola scriptura.
You're "remindered of the "Phrases???"
You're "remindered of the "Phrases???"
alabuck wrote:
"God is a plurality in unity. He is a trinity... (show quote)
Jul 18, 2017 22:26:35 #
Madam or Sir, there has been no claim on my part to "have a claim" as you have so eloquently phrased it, on absolutely anything.
That is an ill-founded projection on your part.
Attack what I have said, rather than your dreary opinion of what it somehow all means.
It is God, the Holy Spirit who inspired every word of Scripture. They are not His words, however, for Jesus, who is equally the One God, and the living Logos, said the permanent helper He would send would not speak on His own, but would take of "mine," and give to His Apostles, who would then record those words for all mankind throughout time.
This anonymous nameless "spirit" of the word which you extoll is suspect, for without spiritual discernment, any old spirit will cheerfully deceive you.
If you are referencing God, the Holy Spirit, then call Him the Holy Spirit so that those who have been seduced by the spirit of this world will understand there is a profound difference.
My only victory is that of every Christian, Eternity with the Almighty, by whom all Christians have been sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 1:13-14
13 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."
As to your self-professed finite mind, it is obvious that I was speaking of every human being's finite mind. In no way did I exclude myself! You have been given no reason to think otherwise.
The next time you wake up with an urge to deliberately twist and misrepresent another's words; before going out into the world, stand before a mirror, and argue with yourself.
Not many people are ever in the Spiritual and Religious section. Many posts receive no comment at all. Most of the people who post here do so to please God, not man.
If the goal were to seek a vast audience, the posts would be placed on Facebook or Twitter, or uploaded as a "selfie" video to YouTube, not on OPP.
When discussing Biblical Christianity, I'm not discussing a "religion," but the living God who loves you, and who has no wish that any man should perish but that all should come to the saving knowledge of and faith in His blessed Son, and His plan of salvation for them.
Jesus said "Narrow is the way, and few there are who will find it."
IMHO, you wouldn't recognize a "legalistic view," if slapped in the face with one.
That is an ill-founded projection on your part.
Attack what I have said, rather than your dreary opinion of what it somehow all means.
It is God, the Holy Spirit who inspired every word of Scripture. They are not His words, however, for Jesus, who is equally the One God, and the living Logos, said the permanent helper He would send would not speak on His own, but would take of "mine," and give to His Apostles, who would then record those words for all mankind throughout time.
This anonymous nameless "spirit" of the word which you extoll is suspect, for without spiritual discernment, any old spirit will cheerfully deceive you.
If you are referencing God, the Holy Spirit, then call Him the Holy Spirit so that those who have been seduced by the spirit of this world will understand there is a profound difference.
My only victory is that of every Christian, Eternity with the Almighty, by whom all Christians have been sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 1:13-14
13 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."
As to your self-professed finite mind, it is obvious that I was speaking of every human being's finite mind. In no way did I exclude myself! You have been given no reason to think otherwise.
The next time you wake up with an urge to deliberately twist and misrepresent another's words; before going out into the world, stand before a mirror, and argue with yourself.
Not many people are ever in the Spiritual and Religious section. Many posts receive no comment at all. Most of the people who post here do so to please God, not man.
If the goal were to seek a vast audience, the posts would be placed on Facebook or Twitter, or uploaded as a "selfie" video to YouTube, not on OPP.
When discussing Biblical Christianity, I'm not discussing a "religion," but the living God who loves you, and who has no wish that any man should perish but that all should come to the saving knowledge of and faith in His blessed Son, and His plan of salvation for them.
Jesus said "Narrow is the way, and few there are who will find it."
IMHO, you wouldn't recognize a "legalistic view," if slapped in the face with one.
alabuck wrote:
Zemirah: "God is a plurality in unity. He is ... (show quote)
Jul 19, 2017 10:21:45 #
"When discussing Biblical Christianity, I'm not discussing a "religion," but the living God who loves you, and who has no wish that any man should perish but that all should come to the saving knowledge of and faith in His blessed Son, and His plan of salvation for them."
You're not discussing "... the living God ... ," You're discussing your interpretation of Him. Deny it all you want, but, our belief in Christ IS A RELIGION. We disagree over our interpretations of Him.
From my point of view, you've done nothing but add to the concept that Christians are the most hypocritical and 2-faced people on the planet. If your "love" is demonstrated by your willingness to bash me and others over the head because we don't share your specific religious views, then you ARE behaving like a Pharisee.
BTW, the Bible is NOT the "word" of God. It's the INSPIRED Word of God. It was written by men who sought to FOLLOW God and NOT to think they ARE God by trying to force their OPINIONS about what God is, does and thinks on anyone who happens have a different view-point. Each of us is given the authority, by God, to view God as we, each, intrepret His Word. Martin Luther challenged similar views of yours held by the Roman Catholic Church. They, too, thought that everyone must think, do and believe, just as they taught - no exceptions.
While I applaud you enthusiasm, YOUR views are YOUR views. You're allowed to have them and keep them. I'm allowed my own views to follow and keep.
Another of my views is that I'm NOT a follower of "Pauline theology." PAUL, while chosen by Christ to witness to the Gentiles, was, still, at heart, a Pharisee. Many of his writings/opinions were as legalistic as yours are. As such, I choose to place far more emphasis on the Words of Jesus (red print). With Christ, being the Son of God, His words carry far more weight than Paul's do, in my humble opinion.
I don't know what kind of religious training you have had (if any) or if you are a seminary-trained minister. As for myself, I am a "Certified Lay Minister" with the PCUSA. I have had study and training in theology. But, I was taught to think about how to demonstrate being a Christian and NOT by being able to quote chapter and verse just to prove a theological point that most folks couldn't care less about.
Everything Christ taught was centered around 2 commandments: love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind and soul and, love your neighbor as yourself. There were no caveats placed on "neighbor," either. That meant everyone and everybody; saints and sinners, alike. And, Jesus never once tried to scare people into accepting Him. Nor, did he bash anyone who was critical of Him, with the exception of the Pharisees and money-lenders in the Temple. Not because of WHAT the money-lenders were doing, but, WHERE they were doing it at, HIS FATHER'S HOUSE!
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. I can't see us agreeing on much as I oppose your legalistic-based opinions most vigorously. So, let's just keep it that way.
I'm done with you for now. Have a blessed day.
You're not discussing "... the living God ... ," You're discussing your interpretation of Him. Deny it all you want, but, our belief in Christ IS A RELIGION. We disagree over our interpretations of Him.
From my point of view, you've done nothing but add to the concept that Christians are the most hypocritical and 2-faced people on the planet. If your "love" is demonstrated by your willingness to bash me and others over the head because we don't share your specific religious views, then you ARE behaving like a Pharisee.
BTW, the Bible is NOT the "word" of God. It's the INSPIRED Word of God. It was written by men who sought to FOLLOW God and NOT to think they ARE God by trying to force their OPINIONS about what God is, does and thinks on anyone who happens have a different view-point. Each of us is given the authority, by God, to view God as we, each, intrepret His Word. Martin Luther challenged similar views of yours held by the Roman Catholic Church. They, too, thought that everyone must think, do and believe, just as they taught - no exceptions.
While I applaud you enthusiasm, YOUR views are YOUR views. You're allowed to have them and keep them. I'm allowed my own views to follow and keep.
Another of my views is that I'm NOT a follower of "Pauline theology." PAUL, while chosen by Christ to witness to the Gentiles, was, still, at heart, a Pharisee. Many of his writings/opinions were as legalistic as yours are. As such, I choose to place far more emphasis on the Words of Jesus (red print). With Christ, being the Son of God, His words carry far more weight than Paul's do, in my humble opinion.
I don't know what kind of religious training you have had (if any) or if you are a seminary-trained minister. As for myself, I am a "Certified Lay Minister" with the PCUSA. I have had study and training in theology. But, I was taught to think about how to demonstrate being a Christian and NOT by being able to quote chapter and verse just to prove a theological point that most folks couldn't care less about.
Everything Christ taught was centered around 2 commandments: love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind and soul and, love your neighbor as yourself. There were no caveats placed on "neighbor," either. That meant everyone and everybody; saints and sinners, alike. And, Jesus never once tried to scare people into accepting Him. Nor, did he bash anyone who was critical of Him, with the exception of the Pharisees and money-lenders in the Temple. Not because of WHAT the money-lenders were doing, but, WHERE they were doing it at, HIS FATHER'S HOUSE!
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. I can't see us agreeing on much as I oppose your legalistic-based opinions most vigorously. So, let's just keep it that way.
I'm done with you for now. Have a blessed day.
Jul 19, 2017 20:47:53 #
TexaCan
Loc: Homeward Bound!
Zemirah wrote:
Madam or Sir, there has been no claim on my part t... (show quote)
Thank you for your 'teaching' posts! I am a 68 year old retired woman who has believed in Jesus Christ as long as I can remember, however I did not study the Bible until I was involved in a car accident that put me spending a lot of time on the couch or on the patio most of the time. I had a burning desire to study prophecy although up until that time I was scared to touch it! I have no doubt that I was urged in that direction. I have spent a couple of hours reading your posts by using the User List. Thank you for taking the time to teach different information that you felt compelled to share with us. It's too bad that Alabuck seems to have the need to follow and disrupt your threads, then run away when it gets too much for him. Thank you for defending those of us that believe the whole bible and believe that every word is inspired by God written through man. I hope you continue, I have no trouble ignoring his attempts to discredit you by stretching the truth and attempting to intimidate you and run you off. Thank you, BJW
Jul 20, 2017 04:38:29 #
Hi BJ,
I too am officially retired.
Although it surely didn't initially seem so, through your auto accident, perhaps God gave you the best part, as you have had time to dwell in His presence; for as He speaks to you through His word, and you speak to Him through your prayer, you have true communication.
You honor me by elevating my posts to "teaching posts." It's most kind of you.
As to the possibility of my being intimidated by the poster who assumes the username of "Alabuck, please perish the thought."
It is an exciting time to be alive. Twenty five (1/4)% to thirty three (1/3)% of the Bible is considered prophecy, with Fifty (1/2)% of those prophecies fulfilled, and the remaining awaiting fulfillment.
The daily newspaper speaks of ancient prophecy which is now coming alive.
The interactions between Russia, Iran, Syria and Turkey are breathtaking, while Europe is shapeshifting before our eyes.
I, too, spent years neglecting Bible Study. The Good Lord, figuratively, had to hit me with a two" by four" to get my attention.
You are several years younger than I, surely, God has stored up tasks for you, through the strength that He will provide.
I traveled through the great state of Texas years ago by automobile, and was impressed; there is soooo much road to cover.
I too am officially retired.
Although it surely didn't initially seem so, through your auto accident, perhaps God gave you the best part, as you have had time to dwell in His presence; for as He speaks to you through His word, and you speak to Him through your prayer, you have true communication.
You honor me by elevating my posts to "teaching posts." It's most kind of you.
As to the possibility of my being intimidated by the poster who assumes the username of "Alabuck, please perish the thought."
It is an exciting time to be alive. Twenty five (1/4)% to thirty three (1/3)% of the Bible is considered prophecy, with Fifty (1/2)% of those prophecies fulfilled, and the remaining awaiting fulfillment.
The daily newspaper speaks of ancient prophecy which is now coming alive.
The interactions between Russia, Iran, Syria and Turkey are breathtaking, while Europe is shapeshifting before our eyes.
I, too, spent years neglecting Bible Study. The Good Lord, figuratively, had to hit me with a two" by four" to get my attention.
You are several years younger than I, surely, God has stored up tasks for you, through the strength that He will provide.
I traveled through the great state of Texas years ago by automobile, and was impressed; there is soooo much road to cover.
TexaCan wrote:
Thank you for your 'teaching' posts! I am a 68 ye... (show quote)
Jul 20, 2017 05:07:26 #
The Presbyterian Church, or PCUSA, is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination known for its progressive stance on doctrine.
Your stated opinion that anyone who opposes you is wrong is understandable.
Most everyone privately thinks that those who disagree with their firmly held beliefs has to be in error.
Turning your Christian faith into a religion is your prerogative. You cannot force it onto me. That is bullying.
The Bible says that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." There is no mention of anyone being given a "lay ministry." Please!!!
Since the General Assembly of your Presbyterian Church USA, approved the ordaining of non-celibate homosexuals to your ministry in 2010, "Christianity Today" reports: "The projected membership decline is equivalent to the denomination closing 1,000 churches a year, every year, for five years. That would cut the number of PCUSA churches in the country literally in half."
I suggest you remove the "beam" from your own and your denomination's eye, rather than harass me for my Biblical faith.
Your stated opinion that anyone who opposes you is wrong is understandable.
Most everyone privately thinks that those who disagree with their firmly held beliefs has to be in error.
Turning your Christian faith into a religion is your prerogative. You cannot force it onto me. That is bullying.
The Bible says that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." There is no mention of anyone being given a "lay ministry." Please!!!
Since the General Assembly of your Presbyterian Church USA, approved the ordaining of non-celibate homosexuals to your ministry in 2010, "Christianity Today" reports: "The projected membership decline is equivalent to the denomination closing 1,000 churches a year, every year, for five years. That would cut the number of PCUSA churches in the country literally in half."
I suggest you remove the "beam" from your own and your denomination's eye, rather than harass me for my Biblical faith.
alabuck wrote:
"When discussing Biblical Christianity, I'm n... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.