Origins of Religion?

[Zealot]

What are the origins of religion? Some theories that I'm aware of are as follows:

- Man invented religious ideas to explain what was, at that time, unexplainable.
- The drive for survival is so strong that man invented religion to provide for this even after death.
- Assumption was a survival advantage. Assuming there was a lion a few meters away shaking the grass was better than assuming it was just the wind and this eventually manifested into religion.

What do you think? Are there any other theories around to add to this? Books? Links?

In addition, why did monotheism become particularly popular, even now converts are growing faster in Islam and Christianity than polytheistic religions.

[NGNM85]

What are the origins of religion? Some theories that I'm aware of are as follows:

- Man invented religious ideas to explain what was, at that time, unexplainable.
- The drive for survival is so strong that man invented religion to provide for this even after death.
- Assumption was a survival advantage. Assuming there was a lion a few meters away shaking the grass was better than assuming it was just the wind and this eventually manifested into religion.

What do you think? Are there any other theories around to add to this? Books? Links?

In addition, why did monotheism become particularly popular, even now converts are growing faster in Islam and Christianity than polytheistic religions.

I think you're pretty much on the money. My only contribution would be that, in addition to being failed sciences, religion is also a means to reinforce social customs, and mores.

I think the move to monotheism was symptomatic of human progress. As time goes on the circle of the inexplicable has continually shrunk, as science has taken claimed territory that was, once, the sole purview of sorcerers, and mystics. I think the move from one god, to many gods was, in part, symptomatic of this increasing understanding of the world.

[Ostrinski]

I heard something along the lines of a man painting a picture of a buffalo on the wall of a cave, then going out the next day and killing a bunch of buffalo, thus becoming the first shaman. This would fall under your first point.

[VirgJans12]

Back in the day, my history teacher told me that people needed to find a reason for everything. Someone had to blow the wind and make the sun go down. There's no way that could "just happen".

[Astarte]

Spirituality originated when self-realization first appeared in humans. Religion originated when the contradictions of alienation and class stratification yielded a state apparatus, organized religion was the ideology of the apparatus; i.e. the temple based city-states of ancient Sumer.

Monotheism grew as a response to pantheism which saw the world as it is - exoterically divided into several different objects - a supernatural deity was assigned to certain aspects of reality. In ancient China folk-religion gave rise to Taoism and Buddhism - the Tao as a monist "God", Buddha as embodiment of the Godhead. In India Brahman and Krishna and others like Kali eventually took on more monotheistic aspects - such as being the embodiment of the god-head - that all other gods were just alternative aspects of Brahman, or Vishnu, or Krishna, or Kali...

In Egypt monotheism was borne of Akhenaten's desire to undercut the power of the priest caste of Amon-Ra.

Amongst the Hebrews I believe it was a syncretism of Akhenaten's example and their rejection of the pantheisms of the Mesopotamian pagans, and all their trappings such as idolatry - the first thing Abraham did after the covenant was established was hew down the wooden idols of his father. Abraham came out of Ur.

[Zostrianos]

I once read an interesting theory about early Judaism (i.e. the tribal cult of the storm deity YHWH), according to which YHWH was originally an actual person, a clan leader who became so renowned that after his death the accounts of his life and deeds became progressively altered, and he became deified (see "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible", entry Yahweh). With the behaviour of YHWH in the Old Testament, often intervening directly in human affairs, it's quite possible that a lot of the accounts of YHWH's actions were based on those of a deified ancestor. It would explain YHWH's savagery in the OT, and all the accounts of mass murder that he commanded.

[El Chuncho]

I think the move to monotheism was symptomatic of human progress.

People are looking too deep into the shift from polytheism and monotheism in the West. Monotheism is no more progressive and intellectual than polytheism is, it just is that Abrahamic polytheist faiths got a push from the Emperor of Rome, and Zoroastrianism (the real main influence on Judaism, rather than Akhehatenism etc, in my opinion) was the faith of the Iranian Empire. Hinduism did start to connect its deities to one thing called Brahman, but Brahman is more a force than a personified being. In many ways Hinduism is a more advanced and complex (far more complex than Christianity or Judaism) form of pantheism.

Monotheistic faiths have not been as successful throughout history. The cult of Akhenaten didn't meet with much success in the long run, being replaced again with polytheism, and Akhenaten was a forgotten god till the discovery of Amarna.



I think the move from one god, to many gods was, in part, symptomatic of this increasing understanding of the world.

Not really. They didn't necessarily move from one god to many gods, due to more of an understanding of the world. The original system of belief was probably one of many gods or spirits, not of one god. However, often they would become henotheistic which is nearly monotheistic. This was often not at all progression and meant that followers of each religion would fight to prove that their god to be the strongest.

Also, monotheism is not necessarily progressive. It just meant that they connected every aspect of their life to an even less likely sole deity who was all seeing, all knowing and all powerful. Many of the non-polytheistic faiths were more progressive and scientific than, say, Christianity. In Hinduism, they have a more likely view of the afterlife (e.g. you do not have to just worship a god and be saved despite sinning constantly, you at least have to do good...though nor are you punished harshly for eternity, you always get more chances) and allow for atheism.

The fact that Hinduism included atheism (samkya) as an ''astika'' (orthodox) schools and allowed for scientific learning (invention of cataract surgery, the use of logic and reason for analysis and study, inoculation of smallpox, plastic surgery, seamless globes, the use of zero and the progressive number system we still use etc.). The fact that the India of Sushruta's day (6th century BCE) was more progressive and scientific than Christianity of later centuries shows that monotheism is not a progression... nor digression, they are just two different forms of religion.

[Zostrianos]

Monotheism wasn't a mark of human progress. Monism on the other hand certainly was. Among the Pagan philosophers of late Antiquity Monism (according to which all Gods and Goddesses are aspects of 1 single supreme being) became the standard religious viewpoint. Many historians have argued that Monism facilitated the shift to monotheism in the late empire, but pure monotheism itself ("there's only 1 God and all others are false") I think is intellectually inferior to monism. Monotheism in Old Testament times among the Hebrews was explained by many historians not as an evolved religious paradigm, but simply a symptom of tribal and ethnic traditions about national deities which were common in the ancient Near East.

[El Chuncho]

Monotheism grew as a response to pantheism which saw the world as it is - exoterically divided into several different objects - a supernatural deity was assigned to certain aspects of reality. In ancient China folk-religion gave rise to Taoism and Buddhism - the Tao as a monist "God", Buddha as embodiment of the Godhead.

Actually, Buddhism is Indian (a nastika philosophy like Jainism (closely relative to Buddhism) and Charvaka) rather than Chinese, which is why the religious language of Mahayana is Sanskrit. Pali is the original language of Buddhism, and currently the language of Theravada. Buddha is an Indian word meaning ''Awakened'' and the name of the Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian name; he was born in what is now Lumbini Nepal to the Shakya tribe which is why he is called Shakyamuni (Shakya-Sage). Buddha is traditionally not connected to a godhead. He is seen merely as an enlightened soul who upon preaching parinirvana ceased to be as an egoistic soul.


In India Brahman and Krishna and others like Kali eventually took on more monotheistic aspects - such as being the embodiment of the god-head - that all other gods were just alternative aspects of Brahman, or Vishnu, or Krishna, or Kali...

Actually the Trimurti is Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, who are aspects of Brahman (often confused with Brahma in the West. Brahman is not an embodiment, he is god or the universe. More of a force than an actual being). Kali is not a main embodiment of the god-head, though she can be considered an avatar of Shiva or Shakti, who was a man-woman rather than just a man (though the sexes of the avatars are not important because, as gods, they are sexless as the god-head). Shakti, ''Great Divine Mother'' is the female embodiment of Brahman, alongside the more male - again Shiva is often a mix. He is androgynous and pretty hermaphroditic - aspect of the Trimurti.

[El Chuncho]

Monotheism wasn't a mark of human progress. Monism on the other hand certainly was. Among the Pagan philosophers of late Antiquity Monism (according to which all Gods and Goddesses are aspects of 1 single supreme being) became the standard religious viewpoint. Many historians have argued that Monism facilitated the shift to monotheism in the late empire, but pure monotheism itself ("there's only 1 God and all others are false") I think is intellectually inferior to monism. Monotheism in Old Testament times among the Hebrews was explained by many historians not as an evolved religious paradigm, but simply a symptom of tribal and ethnic traditions about national deities which were common in the ancient Near East.

I think universalism, the view that all gods are real or one, is more progressive (and tolerant) than the view that only one god is real which is found in many of the monotheistic religion (namely the Abrahamic ones as Zoroastrianism at least declares that all prayers go to Ahura Mazda and that all humans will be reunited with their Fravashi).

[Nox]

Watch Zeitgeist, religion is one of the few sections that they get absolutely spot on.

[El Chuncho]

Watch Zeitgeist, religion is one of the few sections that they get absolutely spot on.

Not necessarily. They make a lot of good points but it is not ''absolutely'' spot on. They make some mistakes and tie Christianity into Mithraism a little too strongly. Also, I believe they repeated the view that Jesus being ''son'' came from the ''Sun'' and then morphing to the ''Son''. This would not work as he is called ''the son'' in all languages since the earliest days. ''Sun'' (Old English ''sunne'') and ''Son'' (Old English ''sunu'') sound the same in English. In Greek the sun is ''huios'' and son is ''hyios'', pretty similar but not enough to get them confused because of semantics. Why would Jesus be the Sun and not the Son when he is the ''Son of God''.

Jesus was a Hebrew and spoke Aramaic. The earliest development of Christianity would have been with Aramaic speakers. In which case son and sun are not so similar in Aramaic.

[Astarte]

Actually, Buddhism is Indian (a nastika philosophy like Jainism (closely relative to Buddhism) and Charvaka) rather than Chinese, which is why the religious language of Mahayana is Sanskrit. Pali is the original language of Buddhism, and currently the language of Theravada. Buddha is an Indian word meaning ''Awakened'' and the name of the Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian name; he was born in what is now Lumbini Nepal to the Shakya tribe which is why he is called Shakyamuni (Shakya-Sage). Buddha is traditionally not connected to a godhead. He is seen merely as an enlightened soul who upon preaching parinirvana ceased to be as an egoistic soul.



Actually the Trimurti is Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, who are aspects of Brahman (often confused with Brahma in the West. Brahman is not an embodiment, he is god or the universe. More of a force than an actual being). Kali is not a main embodiment of the god-head, though she can be considered an avatar of Shiva or Shakti, who was a man-woman rather than just a man (though the sexes of the avatars are not important because, as gods, they are sexless as the god-head). Shakti, ''Great Divine Mother'' is the female embodiment of Brahman, alongside the more male - again Shiva is often a mix. He is androgynous and pretty hermaphroditic - aspect of the Trimurti.

Yeah, Buddhism is ultimately Indian - for me its easy to forget this, since I tend to focus too much on Chinese History when it comes to the East. You're right about Buddhism, Buddha generally is not any kind of Godhead, but in some sects of it like Amitabha Buddhism (Pureland sect) devotees are encouraged to chant "Amitabha Buddha" which in turn sends their consciousness to the Pureland - it seemed to me that this kind of thinking resembles the Gnostic enlightenment chants, as in the Gospel of the Egyptians in which Gnosis is attained by chanting and invocation. Too often I do convolute the idea of Gnosis/Enlightenment with the idea of the "Godhead", whereas they actually are more separate ideas.

But, on the other hand, the way I think of the Godhead is not by strict interpretation. I see it more in Jungian terms of self-realization - that is, the spiritual medium which leads one to achieve it determines the "true" identify of the Godhead for the initiate. That is why, for instance, Buddhism has such a transitory status as to whether it is a theistic or atheistic religion - because self-realization is found through the medium of Buddha's example, rather than his divine aspects - although, I believe Buddha would be considered a kind of Bodisattva which has its own kind of holy credentials attached to it due to past good Karma accumulated by the being in previous incarnations.

In terms of Hinduism, I was under the impression that there were many, many different Hindu sects devoted primarily to several different gods, and each one of those sects would apply the attributes of Brahman (chief god/creator god) to the particular deity they are devoted to. So, depending on which priests of which sects you talk to, I feel you may get a different story as to who is actually the chief God.

[Astarte]

Watch Zeitgeist, religion is one of the few sections that they get absolutely spot on.

I've seen and I am not sure how their interpretation explains anything more than the overt influence astrology has played on spirituality and religion.

[Astarte]

I once read an interesting theory about early Judaism (i.e. the tribal cult of the storm deity YHWH), according to which YHWH was originally an actual person, a clan leader who became so renowned that after his death the accounts of his life and deeds became progressively altered, and he became deified (see "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible", entry Yahweh). With the behaviour of YHWH in the Old Testament, often intervening directly in human affairs, it's quite possible that a lot of the accounts of YHWH's actions were based on those of a deified ancestor. It would explain YHWH's savagery in the OT, and all the accounts of mass murder that he commanded.

Heh, maybe an ancient ancestor with a spaceship? Some of the things YHWH pulls off in Exodus like parting the Red Sea, and leading the Hebrews around the Sinai as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night seem far stranger than anything that could be attributed to an ancient ancestor. But who knows, its possible, even in the USA there are "tall tales" like Paul Bunyan being the 19th century Jolly Green Giant.

[tfb]

Christianity is only monotheistic according to christians.

[El Chuncho]

Christianity is only monotheistic according to christians.

Yeah, it is very loosely monotheistic. The godhead is in three, much like Hinduism and ancient Roman paganism. It puts more stock on one god-being (despite the trinity) than Hinduism, in the sense that Hinduism (usually) claims that everything is connected and part of the whole. Brahman can be taken as the universe itself rather than just a personified god like the Christian one.

[Zealot]

Even Christianity isn't fully monotheistic I would argue. The trinity sounds eerily pagan influenced IMO.

[Red 7]

Although I think a lot of the points here are valid - in the grander scheme of things I tend to view Religion as a kind of primitive intellectual process... It's the reification - and mystification - of objects and nature in general, as a direct result of our alienation from them (which includes a lack of understanding of their proper connections, relations and forms - something science now helps us understand etc).

So the structures of religion (and here I mean religious thinking, rather than the state institutional forms) evolve out of mans' struggle against nature, and their subjective alienation from aspects of it. I think you can see a lot of the points and comments made here fit well with this general alienation and reification process.

[El Chuncho]

Even Christianity isn't fully monotheistic I would argue. The trinity sounds eerily pagan influenced IMO.

That might be because Judaism ultimately descended from a ''pagan'' (Canaanite to be exact) faith (and thus more heathen ideas lingered in folk consciousness by the formation of Christianity), or it could have been inspired by the (more progressive, ironically) religion of Rome which had a trinity of main gods who protect Rome (one female, usually).

[Astarte]

That might BE because Judaism ultimately descended from a ''pagan'' (Canaanite to be exact) faith (and thus more heathen ideas lingered in folk consciousness by the formation of Christianity), or it could have been inspired by the (more progressive, ironically) religion of Rome which had a trinity of main gods who protect Rome (one female, usually).

I think Judaism had a lot of Canaanite influence later on after Joshua lead the Hebrews to the Levant (promised land). Abraham originally came out of Ur, which is in Southern Iraq - ie the Marshlands of Mesopotamia where the Sumerian civilization (clearly pagan/polytheist) was first established.

Interestingly, there is (or was until the second Iraq War) still a sect of quasi-Abrahamic gnostics known as the "Mandaeans" from the region who revere Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah and John the Baptist, while viewing Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad as all false profits. They also mourn for the Egyptians that were lost when the Red Sea closed on the Pharaoh and his army, and regard Jerusalem as a "city of evil".

Its also worth mentioning, to my knowledge at least, the first recorded instance of the "Trinity" is actually from ancient Egypt and was comprised of Osiris the Father, Isis the Mother and Horus the Child.

[El Chuncho]

I think Judaism had a lot of Canaanite influence later on after Joshua lead the Hebrews to the Levant (promised land).

Actually, ancient Hebrews, like Phoenicians, were a Canaanite people. Not THE Canaanites that are referenced in the Bible, but ones who spoke a Canaanite (Northwest Semitic > Canaanite > Hebrew) language and their cousins. Moabites and Edomites were also Canaanites.

Judaism descends ultimately from Proto-Semitic mythology (via Proto-Canaanite mythology), much as Hinduism and Roman theology descends from Proto-Indo-European mythology. The similarities between the Phoenicians, Canaanites and Hebrews have always really been there for the simply reason that they were all once the same people with the same language, religion and culture.

Joshua leading his people into the Levant is actually not really supported by history or archaeology, much like all of the Moses story, so I'd not really consider it when discussing Judaism, personally.


Abraham originally came out of Ur, which is in Southern Iraq - ie the Marshlands of Mesopotamia where the Sumerian civilization (clearly pagan/polytheist) was first established.

Abraham probably didn't really exist. The real ''Abraham'' was probably more a group of religious authorities that came from the land of Canaan, where I believe the Canaanite subgroup of Semitic came from. However, Sumerian mythology has a great influence on Afro-Asiatic religions, possibly even Egyptian.




Interestingly, there is (or was until the second Iraq War) still a sect of quasi-Abrahamic gnostics known as the "Mandaeans" from the region who revere Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah and John the Baptist, while viewing Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad as all false profits. They also mourn for the Egyptians that were lost when the Red Sea closed on the Pharaoh and his army, and regard Jerusalem as a "city of evil".

They might have been Iranians originally and their teachings do seem akin to Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism in some ways (dualism specifically), but they are, indeed, more famous for being a movement in Iraq.


Its also worth mentioning, to my knowledge at least, the first recorded instance of the "Trinity" is actually from ancient Egypt and was comprised of Osiris the Father, Isis the Mother and Horus the Child.

I have not heard of Egypts believing that (though I do know revivalists do; so maybe some scholars do believe that), but I have heard of the trinity of Amun, Ra and Ptah being interpreted . I am not entirely convinced that Egypt really did have a trinity, but as many religions did I am not entirely unconvinced either. The Sumerians may have had a trinity too with Enki, Enlil and Anku.

[Astarte]

Well, it seems the whole argument of where Judaism originated from in a way hinge around whether or not Abraham was a real person that left Ur and changed his name, culture and religion. In turn, without there having been an Abraham, there could not have been a Moses and Exodus since Abraham's line eventually found itself in Egypt via Joseph - I can neither prove nor disprove whether or not Abraham existed.

The Trinity between Osiris, Isis and Horus is a very basic birth/death/resurrection generative principle, and they are often depicted in Pharaonic art together - its based on the Myth of Isis and Osiris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Osiris_and_Isis)

I think the idea of primitive pagan trinities are pretty common, just like dualisms of deities are extremely frequent in world religions, since the process of 3 involves only adding a synthesizing mediator to the essential dualism of 2.

But there is much influence on Genesis, especially, having to do with Sumerian religion - the Flood myth of Utunapishtim especially, in which Ea over hears Enlil plotting to destroy humanity via a flood and Ea (Enki) tells Utunapishtim to build an Ark - but the Levant and Mesopotamia are very close, and have always had much interaction.

[Zealot]

without there having been an Abraham, there could not have been a Moses and Exodus

As far as I know, archaeologists have basically given up the search for evidence of an Exodus and what evidence that has been provided is pretty obscure. It's probably safe to conclude that it never happened or at the very least nowhere near the way described in the Bible.

[Zostrianos]

F.M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-Myth-Hebrew-Epic-Religion/dp/0674091760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326535961&sr=8-1) in my opinion is a must read for anyone studying the origins of Judaism. It proves that Judaism was a product of Canaanite polytheism. Many motifs found in the Bible (including the passing of the Red Sea in Exodus) are reflected in older Ugaritic literature, and the Hebrew Bible and Canaanite texts often use the same expressions and epithets in reference to the chief Deity or Deities.

[Zealot]

F.M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-Myth-Hebrew-Epic-Religion/dp/0674091760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326535961&sr=8-1) in my opinion is a must read for anyone studying the origins of Judaism. It proves that Judaism was a product of Canaanite polytheism. Many motifs found in the Bible (including the passing of the Red Sea in Exodus) are reflected in older Ugaritic literature, and the Hebrew Bible and Canaanite texts often use the same expressions and epithets in reference to the chief Deity or Deities.

Thanks for that I managed to find a copy online :p

Also, I just remembered one other theory I've heard of, so-called "madman theories". For example, a few years back someone gave me an article that attempted to prove Prophet Muhammad was an epileptic. Now I have a hard time believing those claims but it would be interesting if psychohistorians or others have made similar analyses with biblical prophets.

[Zostrianos]

Thanks for that I managed to find a copy online :p
Also, I just remembered one other theory I've heard of, so-called "madman theories". For example, a few years back someone gave me an article that attempted to prove Prophet Muhammad was an epileptic. Now I have a hard time believing those claims but it would be interesting if psychohistorians or others have made similar analyses with biblical prophets.

I saw that in a documentary a few years back, its name escapes me, where it said that some neurologists' opinions on Muhammad's visionary experiences could reasonably be explained as epileptic fits

[El Chuncho]

Well, it seems the whole argument of where Judaism originated from in a way hinge around whether or not Abraham was a real person that left Ur and changed his name, culture and religion. In turn, without there having been an Abraham, there could not have been a Moses and Exodus since Abraham's line eventually found itself in Egypt via Joseph - I can neither prove nor disprove whether or not Abraham existed.

Actually, Moses could have existed with different ancestors. I mean, Old English kings claimed descent from Woden. Family trees were in their infancy in the Early Middle-Ages so they were very primitive at the time of the Torah and other Hebrew sources.

However, I do not believe Moses existed either and if he did his story would be at least 97.9% (and that is generous) inaccurate. There never was an exodus from Egypt and the Egyptians never had a massive population of Jewish slaves. Th pyramids were made by paid-workers not slaves, and most of these workers were not of the Jewish faith.


The Trinity between Osiris, Isis and Horus is a very basic birth/death/resurrection generative principle, and they are often depicted in Pharaonic art together - its based on the Myth of Isis and Osiris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Osiris_and_Isis)

That is one interpretation of the relationship of those gods based on that myth and a few other sources. But I have never been convinced with grouping Osiris, Isis and Horus into a trinity and I do not think the Egyptians themselves did. Osiris, Isis and Horus are connected and appear together in the story, but they were probably worshiped in the same fashion of other Egyptian gods in the pantheon. Isis was simply the wife of Osiris and Horus his son, so they are connected (Father-Mother-Son), but the trinity is loser than the Trimurti and the Christian Trinity because they are not just aspects of the same god or idea.



But there is much influence on Genesis, especially, having to do with Sumerian religion - the Flood myth of Utunapishtim especially, in which Ea over hears Enlil plotting to destroy humanity via a flood and Ea (Enki) tells Utunapishtim to build an Ark - but the Levant and Mesopotamia are very close, and have always had much interaction.

Kigal and Sumerian praises have parallels in Judaism too. Sumeria was a major influence on the development of most of the Semitic religions, much as Iranian would later be. Sumer and Iran were the most powerful nations in western Asia, in their respective eras, so their influence was wide reaching, along with that of Egypt and Greece (a later influences on Judaism).

[El Chuncho]

F.M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-Myth-Hebrew-Epic-Religion/dp/0674091760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326535961&sr=8-1) in my opinion is a must read for anyone studying the origins of Judaism. It proves that Judaism was a product of Canaanite polytheism. Many motifs found in the Bible (including the passing of the Red Sea in Exodus) are reflected in older Ugaritic literature, and the Hebrew Bible and Canaanite texts often use the same expressions and epithets in reference to the chief Deity or Deities.

Definitely true. Judaism is put on a pedestal by Zionists and some non-Zionists alike (such as some non-Zionist Jews...for obvious reasons) but it descends from previous religion just as any other. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism descend from the Proto-Indo-European religion, and thus Judaism is ultimately traceable to the Proto-Afro-Asiatic religion (via Canaanite and then Proto-Semitic).

[Astarte]

Actually, Moses could have existed with different ancestors. I mean, Old English kings claimed descent from Woden. Family trees were in their infancy in the Early Middle-Ages so they were very primitive at the time of the Torah and other Hebrew sources.

However, I do not believe Moses existed either and if he did his story would be at least 97.9% (and that is generous) inaccurate. There never was an exodus from Egypt and the Egyptians never had a massive population of Jewish slaves. Th pyramids were made by paid-workers not slaves, and most of these workers were not of the Jewish faith.

While the Pyramids were probably not built by Hebrew Slaves ... you actually think they were built by "paid-workers"? What were they paid with?

I've always been told it was more corvee labor that built the pyramids. I.E. The state extracted labor from the population for a certain amount of days out of the year as a form of tax, and the only pay the corvee laborers received during their time of work for the state were bowls of rations and shelter.

The Psalms also have a lot of similarities to Akhenaten's hymns to the Aten sun-disk.

Personally, I am not quite ready to say that there was no Abraham as;

Abraham was allegedly one man living in approximately 2000 BC. The city of Akkad, the capital of the Akkadian empire, from 2300-2100 BC or so still has not been found, and to expect for archaeology to find the remains of a family who moved from Ur to Harran and then to Canaan is a little unreasonable - seems ignoring that Genesis says they came from Ur, and found their way to Canaan at such an early date is the easier route to take since A. It discredits the founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by claiming Abraham never existed, and B. simply makes it seems the Hebrews were always from Canaan, which their own records/mythology denies. The early Hebrews hated Sumer, and Babylon, and all the Mesopotamian pagan states - why would they purport falsely to be originally from Ur if they were really from Canaan? What is the advantage of associating themselves with Ur? It is, to be sure, a cleaner hypothesis on several different levels, but in my opinion, I am not inclined to believe it. I'm interested in reading the book Poimandres recommends though, next time I'm at my old university library I will take it out.

[Zealot]

While the Pyramids were probably not built by Hebrew Slaves ... you actually think they were built by "paid-workers"? What were they paid with?

I remember some time back about a tablet that was found containing the names of workers and their whereabouts. One entry indicated that a worker was taking time off because of some health issue, something that a slave would obviously not be entitled to.

In this (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html#who) National Geographic article it is said:


Contrary to some popular depictions, the pyramid builders were not slaves or foreigners. Excavated skeletons show that they were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors.


The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week.


In addition, in this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/11/us-egypt-antiquities-tombs-idUSTRE6091E720100111) article an Egyptian archaeologist found that the tombs of the workers were actually located directly next to the King's pyramid along with graffiti saying they were "friends of Khufu".

[GallowsBird]

Those who built the pyramids, were indeed not (generally) slaves, they were farmers and their labour was used to build the pyramids during the month in which the nile flooded. They would generallly, like most "free" workers in the land of Kemet, be fed and paid in grain. Those who died building the pyramids were buried in a style denoting that they were free and respected for their work. Many did however die young.

EDIT: Here is an article I found with an online search that mentions the aforementioned graves: http://news.discovery.com/history/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.html

[Astarte]

I remember some time back about a tablet that was found containing the names of workers and their whereabouts. One entry indicated that a worker was taking time off because of some health issue, something that a slave would obviously not be entitled to.

In this (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html#who) National Geographic article it is said:


Contrary to some popular depictions, the pyramid builders were not slaves or foreigners. Excavated skeletons show that they were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors.


The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week.


In addition, in this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/11/us-egypt-antiquities-tombs-idUSTRE6091E720100111) article an Egyptian archaeologist found that the tombs of the workers were actually located directly next to the King's pyramid along with graffiti saying they were "friends of Khufu".

I'm not proposing they were slaves by any means. I am proposing that they were corvee laborers, which entails an entirely different mode of production based on centralized state, or landed noble power drawing on segments of the population as a tax which is different from slavery, feudalism or capitalism. The ancient Chinese empires, and Incans, to name a couple others, likewise used corvee labor. In the ancient world projects that took monumental amounts of highly coordinated labor usually were produced via this mode; the Great Canal built by the Sui dynasty is also an example of an ancient building project built by state coordinated corvee labor.

Egyptian corvee teams would take names like this "Friends of Khufu" or "Menkaure is Drunk" - some have said that the laborers, kind of jollily took these unit names of their own accord, but that seems more of a bourgeois interpretation of history than a Marxist one - more than likely the names of the labor teams were assigned from some segment of the ruling class or another.

I'd also be interesting in knowing what kind of "tombs" these laborers were buried in - that is, how elaborate versus utilitarian are they and were there any religious objects found with the bodies.

EDIT: In the article Gallows bird presents Hawass says, and I have heard him say it before, that the builders of the pyramids were "paid" laborers. In a way I feel he is making the same mistake Herodotus made, only on a qualitatively higher level. Herodotus assumed the builders were slaves because as a Greek the private-property slave ownership mode was what he primarily knew ... Hawass calls the laborers "paid", and to 21st century readers this sounds like capitalistic wage for labor exchange, when I highly doubt the "wages" were anything more than rations and basic necessities since the labor was extracted as a seasonal corvee tax ... rather than explain the corvee system Hawass's "simplification" serves only to add more vagueness to the ancient Egyptian economic mode.

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically questions like this and "bible archaeology" make me break out in itchy rashes as a historian.

can any of this shit be ACTUALLY confirmed?

[manic expression]

Egyptian corvee teams would take names like this "Friends of Khufu" or "Menkaure is Drunk" - some have said that the laborers, kind of jollily took these unit names of their own accord, but that seems more of a bourgeois interpretation of history than a Marxist one - more than likely the names of the labor teams were assigned from some segment of the ruling class or another.
I doubt an Egyptian official would name a unit of workers "The King's Drunkards". It seems pretty certain they took their own names and had an esprit de corps.

The majority of the workers only took part in the construction process for a few months, then they went back home.


EDIT: In the article Gallows bird presents Hawass says, and I have heard him say it before, that the builders of the pyramids were "paid" laborers. In a way I feel he is making the same mistake Herodotus made, only on a qualitatively higher level. Herodotus assumed the builders were slaves because as a Greek the private-property slave ownership mode was what he primarily knew ... Hawass calls the laborers "paid", and to 21st century readers this sounds like capitalistic wage for labor exchange, when I highly doubt the "wages" were anything more than rations and basic necessities since the labor was extracted as a seasonal corvee tax ... rather than explain the corvee system Hawass's "simplification" serves only to add more vagueness to the ancient Egyptian economic mode.
I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_01.shtml) interesting:

The standard Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) ration for a labourer was ten loaves and a measure of beer.

The article goes on:

In any case, the pyramid town, like all other Egyptian towns, would soon have developed its own economy as everyone traded unwanted rations for desirable goods or skills.

[Astarte]

I doubt an Egyptian official would name a unit of workers "The King's Drunkards". It seems pretty certain they took their own names and had an esprit de corps.

The majority of the workers only took part in the construction process for a few months, then they went back home.


I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_01.shtml) interesting:

The standard Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) ration for a labourer was ten loaves and a measure of beer.

The article goes on:

In any case, the pyramid town, like all other Egyptian towns, would soon have developed its own economy as everyone traded unwanted rations for desirable goods or skills.

That was an excellent read.


Effectively, it seems, the pyramid served both as a gigantic training project and - deliberately or not - as a source of 'Egyptianisation'. The workers who left their communities of maybe 50 or 100 people, to live in a town of 15,000 or more strangers, returned to the provinces with new skills, a wider outlook and a renewed sense of national unity that balanced the loss of loyalty to local traditions.

Read "a wider outlook" as, perhaps they were told, at least partially, about what the purpose of the Pyramid was? That its purpose was that of an ascensionary vehicle for the Pharaoh after death? Perhaps this also had an influence on their spiritual outlook in general, and in turn caused an elevation of their espirit de corps?


The splitting of task and workforce, combined with the use of temporary labourers, was a typical Egyptian answer to a logistical problem. Already temple staff were split into five shifts or 'phyles', and sub-divided into two divisions, which were each required to work one month in ten.


The sacred precincts of the Giza pyramid village cemetery were defined by the 'Wall of the Crow', a massive limestone boundary which separated the land of the living from the land of the dead. The main pyramid village lay outside this wall, close by the valley temple of the Great Pyramid.

Would it be safe to say that the priest-caste, and administrators of the temples often had equal or perhaps even political power exceeding that of the Pharaoh at times? From the essay it sounds like the direct administration of the building of the national project was being carried forth by the temples and their bureaucracy.

Final thing, on "Drunkards of Menkaure" and "Menkaure is Drunk" - I have seen it mentioned in both phrasings, but, and this is just an assumption, "Menkaure is Drunk" does not necessarily have to be derogatory - beer was an essential part of life, and drunkness simply meant abundance and wholeness. So, it seems it could almost be saying "Menkaure is full", or "Menkaure is satisfied in excess", or something along those lines.

I have heard from a few sources that the ancient Egyptian laborers had high morale, and I had always discounted it, but maybe it is so.

[El Chuncho]

Would it be safe to say that the priest-caste, and administrators of the temples often had equal or perhaps even political power exceeding that of the Pharaoh at times? From the essay it sounds like the direct administration of the building of the national project was being carried forth by the temples and their bureaucracy.

The power of the priests varies from era to era. We have to remember that Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years. However, the Pharoah (nswt) was usually the Hem Netjer, High Priest. The most powerful priest in the land.

Some information can be found here: http://www.philae.nu/philae/priesthood.html


I have heard from a few sources that the ancient Egyptian laborers had high morale, and I had always discounted it, but maybe it is so.

I am not sure about that and I try to discount people trying to project emotions into the past. However, for the time they were well paid with food when the Nile flooded and they could not farm. The construction of the pyramids was not the evil act it is in the Bible, it was an act of ''mercy'' - in as much that the authorities kept the workers busy and paid well for their time, rather than just forcing them as slaves.




Abraham was allegedly one man living in approximately 2000 BC. The city of Akkad, the capital of the Akkadian empire, from 2300-2100 BC or so still has not been found, and to expect for archaeology to find the remains of a family who moved from Ur to Harran and then to Canaan is a little unreasonable - seems ignoring that Genesis says they came from Ur, and found their way to Canaan at such an early date is the easier route to take since A. It discredits the founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by claiming Abraham never existed, and B. simply makes it seems the Hebrews were always from Canaan, which their own records/mythology denies. The early Hebrews hated Sumer, and Babylon, and all the Mesopotamian pagan states - why would they purport falsely to be originally from Ur if they were really from Canaan? What is the advantage of associating themselves with Ur? It is, to be sure, a cleaner hypothesis on several different levels, but in my opinion, I am not inclined to believe it. I'm interested in reading the book Poimandres recommends though, next time I'm at my old university library I will take it out.


But there is no historical or archaeological evidence for any of that, it is merely based on the presumption that a mythological character did exist (the fact that the West often takes claims in the Bible at face value is another example of putting Judaism on a pedestal).

Judaism denies that they were from Canaan but that does not make it true and they are a Canaanite people, which is a demonstrable fact. They disassociated themselves from the Canaanites proper because they were their main rivals, whereas the people of Akkadian were seen as a great nation which most other Middle-Eastern nations emulated. It is similar to Celtic tribes claiming they descend from Hercules and Romans claiming descent from Troy. Foundation myths are usually not at all true.

And discrediting Abraham is meaningless. The non-partisan study of history is more important. Why should historians dart around Hebrew mythology for fear of proving elements of it false? If Abraham is proven to not exist, that is not the fault of those seeking historical truths.

If Abraham should be considered true with no evidence, why not Woden, said to have given humans runes (much as Abraham is said to have given Hebrews the true religion), or Gilgamesh? Judaism (and its offshoots) should be treated like any other faith, from European heathen religions to those of the Papuans.

[Astarte]

The power of the priests varies from era to era. We have to remember that Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years. However, the Pharoah (nswt) was usually the Hem Netjer, High Priest. The most powerful priest in the land.

Some information can be found here: http://www.philae.nu/philae/priesthood.html



I am not sure about that and I try to discount people trying to project emotions into the past. However, for the time they were well paid with food when the Nile flooded and they could not farm. The construction of the pyramids was not the evil act it is in the Bible, it was an act of ''mercy'' - in as much that the authorities kept the workers busy and paid well for their time, rather than just forcing them as slaves.





But there is no historical or archaeological evidence for any of that, it is merely based on the presumption that a mythological character did exist (the fact that the West often takes claims in the Bible at face value is another example of putting Judaism on a pedestal).

Judaism denies that they were from Canaan but that does not make it true and they are a Canaanite people, which is a demonstrable fact. They disassociated themselves from the Canaanites proper because they were their main rivals, whereas the people of Akkadian were seen as a great nation which most other Middle-Eastern nations emulated. It is similar to Celtic tribes claiming they descend from Hercules and Romans claiming descent from Troy. Foundation myths are usually not at all true.

And discrediting Abraham is meaningless. The non-partisan study of history is more important. Why should historians dart around Hebrew mythology for fear of proving elements of it false? If Abraham is proven to not exist, that is not the fault of those seeking historical truths.

If Abraham should be considered true with no evidence, why not Woden, said to have given humans runes (much as Abraham is said to have given Hebrews the true religion), or Gilgamesh? Judaism (and its offshoots) should be treated like any other faith, from European heathen religions to those of the Papuans.

I like your argument, and I am not going to counter it because I can't. If anything, as someone who greatly admires Egypt though, my projection of emotions into the past would have led me to take the high morale of the corvee route. Instead I assumed they were low morale because A. Every other corvee in the world I have ever read about has been coerced forced labor. and B. It seems the temporary workers who died on the job were buried in mass graves.

Finally, no where in the Bible does it mention the construction of the pyramids. You are confusing the Bible for the movie Exodus or something. So, my assumption of the Egyptian corvee being brutal is not Biblically based, but rather based on corvees historically. But if Egypt was different, that works for me too, and is something I need to investigate thoroughly.

The difference in why it pertains to reality as to whether or not people think Wotan or Abraham were real is because Abrahamic religion still makes up 2/3 of the Earths religious populous, while Wotanism does not. The basis of the worlds most populous religions; Christianity and Islam would be uprooted - ultimately it wouldn't be a bad thing, but expect more resistance to the idea than if you were trying to discount the existence of Wotan.

Also, how was the act of building the Pyramids an act of mercy? Seems more like the taking of the entire resources of a nation and using them for the self-aggrandizement of one ruler. Its happened several times in history. I suppose Emperor Qin Shihuang's tomb costruction was an act of mercy as well? And how is it that the Egyptian Official and priest classes would have been able to enslave their domestic population; that is literally enslave, as in the slave based mode of production? The corvee was the dominant economic mode in terms of mass national projects in much of the ancient world - none of these projects were built by way of slave labor. Even the aquaducts in Rome were only partially built by slaves - and in Rome slavery was the dominant mode.

Finally, about the priest caste having equal or exceeding power of the Pharaoh at the time of the most ancient history of Egypt, I think this is likely as this caste had the knowledge and organizational bureaucracy to carry forth such projects for the Pharaoh as in the case of Imhotep, the builder of the first pyramid.

[El Chuncho]

It seems the temporary workers who died on the job were buried in mass graves.

Indeed, the poor in Egypt never had great burial customs, because the Pharoah was the one who granted people passage into the afterlife anyway. The mass graves - well, more of a tomb with more than one person rather than what we think of as a mass grave - of workers were more extreme than usual, but done for necessity because they didn't need to even separate the dead because they were not Pharoahs or higher ranking civil servants. The workers had no real reason to be against their comrades.


Finally, no where in the Bible does it mention the construction of the pyramids.You are confusing the Bible for the movie Exodus or something. So, my assumption of the Egyptian corvee being brutal is not Biblically based, but rather based on corvees historically. But if Egypt was different, that works for me too, and is something I need to investigate thoroughly.

That is true. It is more a presumption that people have. But it is true that indentured workers built palaces and all sorts of buildings. There is really no reason or evidence to believe that the Hebrews ever built anything in Egypt or performed manual tasks. And as William G. Dever points out in 'What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?', we have too much evidence that Israel was occupied heavily for centuries and thus a 40-year Exodus from Egypt is likely.

The Exodus story might have been anti-Egyptian propaganda during the war Judah had with Egyptians. Whatever the case, the Egyptians never mentioned the Exodus story, which they would have judging by how much Pharoahs liked to record the disasters and wars in the reigns of their predecessors.



The difference in why it pertains to reality as to whether or not people think Wotan or Abraham were real is because Abrahamic religion still makes up 2/3 of the Earths religious populous, while Wotanism does not. The basis of the worlds most populous religions; Christianity and Islam would be uprooted - ultimately it wouldn't be a bad thing, but expect more resistance to the idea than if you were trying to discount the existence of Wotan.

Indeed, Woden/Wotan/Odin has followers but not as big. Changelling the view that Abraham was not real - or at least very different is real - would meet with more resistance, but that should not phase historians. We are not saying he didn't exist, just that there is no evidence for his existence and certain beliefs about his life are likely to be false based on our knowledge of the development of Semitic languages and cultures.


Also, how was the act of building the Pyramids an act of mercy?

It was only a loose act of mercy. The officials knew that the people of the Nile valley would not be able to work and get food to feed themselves and families.


Seems more like the taking of the entire resources of a nation and using them for the self-aggrandizement of one ruler.

The thing is that it gave those who couldn't work due to the flooded Nile, the opportunity to get some work and food. It was not like they just wasted everything on the actual construction itself. If they forced the workers to create them without giving them food and shelter, it would have been more of a waste. It was arguably a waste of resources (namely rock), but culture was different then, they had a strong religion that permeated much of everyday life. It was just good that they did not allow the people to starve, as they would have done without the construction projects.



I suppose Emperor Qin Shihuang's tomb costruction was an act of mercy as well?

No because the workers didn't have their farms and workplaces flooded, and needed grain to live. They were taken from more worthwhile construction efforts, as far as I know. In Egyptian the people employed for the construction of things like pyramids were those who didn't have any job to perform at that time.


The corvee was the dominant economic mode in terms of mass national projects in much of the ancient world - none of these projects were built by way of slave labor. Even the aquaducts in Rome were only partially built by slaves - and in Rome slavery was the dominant mode.

I am not arguing that the building of periods or that the Egyptian monarchy were good things, merely that the workers were not really slaves but ones payed in grain and kept occupied whilst the Nile valley flooded. The Egyptian authorities could have done worse by forcing them to leave their work and homes to build things like pyramids. They didn't, they do people who would otherwise be sitting around starving, and gave them grain for construction work.


Finally, about the priest caste having equal or exceeding power of the Pharaoh at the time of the most ancient history of Egypt, I think this is likely as this caste had the knowledge and organizational bureaucracy to carry forth such projects for the Pharaoh as in the case of Imhotep, the builder of the first pyramid.

Imhotep oversaw the construction of the pyramid because he was also an architect. His power didn't exceed the Pharoah and it is not likely that the power of priests would exceed the power of the Pharoah for the simply reason that the Pharoah was seen as semi-divine and the high priests (Hem Netjer) of the gods.

Imhotep did appear on Pharoah Djoser's statue, indicating he was beloved and respected of the Pharoah, but he was always a lesser to the Pharoah. He was revered and respected in his own right because he was polymathic, being more than just an architect but also a physician and engineer. He was one of the view officials to actually be granted a divine status.

The priests were more overseers than rivals to the Pharoah's power. Of course, they would have made important decisions, but they did with the Pharoah's permission. It is not a good thing, but the Pharoah did seem to have more actual power than more modern monarchs.

[Astarte]

I think we agree on more than is probably apparent to people reading this thread. I agree corvee laborers are almost always way better off than slaves, and the Egyptian corvee was mild compared to some found elsewhere. Good points.

[Zav]

Monotheism became popular due to conquest and forced conversion by various states, predominantly Persia and the Roman Empire.

[Revolution starts with U]

You guys are wrong. The pyramids were built as a power station, not some giant burial chamber. C'mon, this is cutting edge science! :lol:

All kidding aside tho: You know the pharohic authority could have done something better for their people than making them build Giant tombs during the flood... they could have NOT confiscated all the grains and other foods produced throughout the seasons and just let the people keep it.... crazy, I know. But I wish someone would try it, just once.

Oh, and the Jews were the Hyksos. They created the Exodus myth to hide their true identity so the Pharohs could forever rule the world.


.... does anybody think I need to stop watching fringe science/history Youtube videos? :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Anyway, on the topic of the origins of religion...

It's clear, at least in Mesopotamia, that the earliest towns arose around temple sites of the time. Religion clearly predates civilization (civ as we define it. I have my hypothesis of a neolithic "civilization" as evidenced by Gobekli Tepi, but it lacks many of the key foundations of traditional definitions of civ).

Here's the problem. When we think of hunter gatherers we think of people constantly roaming the landscape with no "home." But HGs tend to actually have a summer home, and a winter home, and only the hunters go far outside this range. Now, what is clear is that there was neolithic trading from as far as Europe to as far as India, so these hunters ranged pretty far.
Anyway; They probably built these temples at one of their homes, probably winter when things calm down more. As time goes by and agriculture develops, people have less and less need to actually leave the site, and it becomes a town.

So, the origins of religion... probably outside of our scope right now. But I can tell you it is almost intrinsically tied in with the history of civilization (as we define it).

[El Chuncho]

I think we agree on more than is probably apparent to people reading this thread.


Sometimes people can mistakenly view good discussion as arguments. ;) Discussions are rare on the often needlessly hostile internet.




I agree corvee laborers are almost always way better off than slaves, and the Egyptian corvee was mild compared to some found elsewhere. Good points.

Thank you.

Indeed, even the actual slaves of Egypt found life easier than, say, in urban Roman society or in Greece. That doesn't excuse slavery at all, but it should put the life of Egyptian corvee labourers into perspective. In some ways the corvee system of ancient Egyptian was not as bad as more modern corvee systems, which is very sad, indeed, as society is meant to progress.

[El Chuncho]

You guys are wrong. The pyramids were built as a power station, not some giant burial chamber. C'mon, this is cutting edge science! :lol:

You are wrong...















They were UFO landing pads.:cool:

[El Chuncho]

They probably built these temples at one of their homes, probably winter when things calm down more. As time goes by and agriculture develops, people have less and less need to actually leave the site, and it becomes a town.

So, the origins of religion... probably outside of our scope right now. But I can tell you it is almost intrinsically tied in with the history of civilization (as we define it).

You make some very valid points.

Religion, or at least spiritual beliefs do predate civilization. Early man had burial customs, which usually included painting the body with red (or yellow in areas without red) ochre...something still practiced with tribal cultures to this day. Burial customs seem to have always been associated with spirituality or why else would man go to the trouble? If a man is just dead and gone, then why pay the ultimate respect to the body and adorn it in colours and items?

Some form of religion has always been with man and all religious ultimately would descend from the same beliefs because they do not just come from nowhere. Does this mean that man should be religious? No. Does it mean he shouldn't be religious? Not necessarily, but I would advise those who hold spiritual beliefs to be more secular and free with them. If a religion impedes the growth of man, puts a block on progression, it should be done away with or transformed into something that can be more free and less restrictive to humanity (or those who wish to believe that there is an afterlife or gods).

[Zostrianos]

I think a factor that contributed to religious impulses in early man were dreams: without understanding the intricacies of the human mind, primitive cultures deduced that there was another world intertwined with our own, which could be accessed during sleep. Hallucinogenic substances and entheogens must have played a part as well, as they are used even today in many traditional cultures in a shamanic context to gain access to the other world.

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't forget that aliens came down 400k years ago and genetically modified Homo Erectus into a gold mining slave for their benefit; we now call that homo sapiens sapiens.

... youtube education :rolleyes:

[Zostrianos]

Don't forget that aliens came down 400k years ago and genetically modified Homo Erectus into a gold mining slave for their benefit; we now call that homo sapiens sapiens.

... youtube education :rolleyes:

I think Scientology is based on a similar theory...

[Astarte]

Don't forget that aliens came down 400k years ago and genetically modified Homo Erectus into a gold mining slave for their benefit; we now call that homo sapiens sapiens.

... youtube education :rolleyes:

Actually, that is unmistakably the theory of Zecheria Sitchin...

But in any event, these are pretty weird;

http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/alien-beings.jpg

http://xfacts.com/old/ovni2.jpg

http://ancientaliens.5u.com/images/igigi3.jpg

[RGacky3]

Traditionally (according to the scriptures) Judaism was'nt a religion pre-Moses and the Mosaic law, and the nation of Israel did'nt exist before then either, Judaism and the nation started (biblically) with the mosaic law and the covenant. Pre Moses it was just semetic people that may or may not have worship YHWH alone or with other Gods.

[Astarte]

Traditionally (according to the scriptures) Judaism was'nt a religion pre-Moses and the Mosaic law, and the nation of Israel did'nt exist before then either, Judaism and the nation started (biblically) with the mosaic law and the covenant. Pre Moses it was just semetic people that may or may not have worship YHWH alone or with other Gods.

Biblically, the Covenant was established with Abraham, and not Moses.


1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord aappeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

4 As for me, behold, my acovenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

In the Bible, the 12 tribes of Israel came from the the descendants of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was one of the sons of Abraham. The 12 tribes are usually taken for the "nation of Israel".

Jacob, again, according to the Bible, is the father of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, who in turn were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel.

[RGacky3]

Biblically, the Covenant was established with Abraham, and not Moses.


The promise went to Abraham, Abrahams decendants were all over the place, and the vast majority of them were not religiously Jews or Isrealites.

Again, the tribes came from Jacob, but they were not a coherent nation or having a coherent religion before the Mosaic covenant came around.

Also the actual national israelites probably contained a shitload more than just the decendants of Jacob (infact I'd venture to say that the literal decendants of Jacob were in the vast minority).

[znk666]

God exists...
In your head.