Putin has absolute control and runs his country like a Mafia boss. — Punshhh

Nonsense. He may or may not "run his country like a Mafia boss". That's pretty irrelevant given that this goes for most presidents across the globe, to be honest.

But "absolute control" sounds like polemical exaggeration. If you had "absolute control" in Russia, would you have a military that can't even beat Ukraine?

In 1940 Germany overran Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France in six weeks. Even Stalin was more efficient than Putin even though he was essentially a gangster and former train robber who used revolutionary Marxism to seize power.

You don't have absolute control when your armed forces and your intelligence chiefs perform the way Russia is performing in Ukraine.

The truth of the matter is that Russia has been a kleptocracy for half a century or longer. Putin is not Stalin, he has just got enough control over the oligarchs and other members of the kleptocracy to prevent them from taking over and to keep the country together and not under the control of international finance like in the 90's before he came to power.

The fact is that in 1957, when (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU, he said:

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

There was a lot of talk about “building a United States of Europe” and “rebuilding the Roman Empire” among politicians and technocrats at the time, especially in countries like France and Belgium.

European Coal and Steel Community president Jean Monnet himself set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

More recently, Carl Baudenbacher, former president of the European Free Trade Area, openly admitted that the EU is trying to rebuild the Roman Empire:

Under Trajan the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, encompassed the entire Mediterranean region, but also parts of present-day Germany, Britain, Romania, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The European Union is preparing to build a similar empire.
Roman law played an important role in the expansion of the Roman Empire; and the EU relies on the export of its law, and the extraterritorial effect of the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The EU has concluded bilateral association treaties with four former Soviet republics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia, under which these countries are aligning their legislation in important fields with EU law. The ECJ has a monopoly in the interpretation of treaty law which is identical in substance to EU law. Since each side can bring a dispute before the ECJ unilaterally, the European Commission may take a case to its own court and thus has a de facto right of surveillance over the associated states.
The same system is now to be set up for Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Syria …

The choice Britain faces if it wants an EU trade deal: either EFTA, or the Ukraine model – LSE Blogtest

But according to NATO propaganda, it’s OK for the EU to rebuild and expand the Roman Empire, but not for Russia to resist EU expansion ….

It is generally accepted by scholars that, while Jesus was a historical figure, David and Solomon are legendary. And if David and Solomon are legendary, so must be their “kingdoms”.

Indeed, Finkelstein & Silberman write:

Many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic “empire” is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan – and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon – can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, ever existed at all?
Until a few years ago, virtually all biblical archaeologists accepted the scriptural description of the sister states of Judah and Israel at face value. Yet as we have shown, the supposed archaeological evidence of the united monarchy was no more than wishful thinking. And so it was also with the monuments attributed to the successors of Solomon. Like the Solomonic gates and palaces, these royal building operations are now known to have taken place almost two hundred years after the reigns of those particular kings ….
David and his son Solomon and the subsequent members of the Davidic dynasty ruled over a marginal, isolated, rural region, with no signs of great wealth or centralized administration. It did not suddenly decline into weakness and misfortune from an era of unparalleled prosperity. Instead it underwent a long and gradual development over hundreds of years. David and Solomon’s Jerusalem was only one of a number of religious centers within the land of Israel; it was surely not acknowledged as the spiritual center of the entire people of Israel (pp. 124, 235).

Elsewhere, Finkelstein describes David’s supposed kingdom as “500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting – not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text” (R. Draper, “Kings of Controversy”, National Geographic, 2010).

The large structures excavated at Samaria, Jezreel, Megiddo, and Hazor, turned out to be not from the time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC) at all, but from the time of King Omri (884 – 873 BC) and his successors, whose capital city was Samaria. Moreover, the architectural style was that of North Syria, which shows the extensive foreign influence on the Kingdom of Israel at the time.

If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”?

It is clear from the archaeological and historical evidence that the Israelites did not initially have a unified political entity with a uniform religion. They were divided into many seminomadic tribes each with its own tribal leader and its own religious observances that followed the general Canaanite pattern. A temple may have existed at Jerusalem, but religion was not centralized and, even in the Temple, as stated in the OT, the God Yahweh was worshiped along with other deities.

Biblical scholars have demonstrated that these are not arbitrary isolated pagan practices, but part of a complex of rituals to appeal to heavenly powers for the fertility and well-being of the people and the land. In their outward form they resembled the practices used by neighboring peoples to honor and gain the blessings of other gods. Indeed, the archaeological finds of clay figurines, incense altars, libation vessels, and offerings stands throughout Judah merely suggest that the practice of religion was highly varied, geographically decentralized, and certainly not restricted to worship of YHWH only in the Temple of Jerusalem …
The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not – as the books of Kings imply – apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways – and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. As far as we are able to tell from the archaeological evidence of the northern kingdom, there was a similar diversity of religious practice in Israel (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 241, 247).

The situation only changed after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the conquest of its capital Samaria by Assyria in 720 BC. The southern kingdom of Judah, whose population had earlier amounted to barely a tenth of that of its northern rival, increased significantly with a large influx of refugees. Having escaped complete annihilation by paying tribute to Assyria, Jerusalem profited from Assyrian vassalage by integrating into the Assyrian Empire and transforming its economy from one based on the village and clan to cash-cropping and industrialization under state centralization. This enabled Judah to experience a period of unprecedented prosperity, to the point that King Hezekiah felt he could rise against his Assyrian masters. He was, of course, disastrously defeated.

The economic and social changes brought about by Judah’s integration into Assyria’s powerful empire, provided the conditions for the formation of a Jewish state centered on Jerusalem. With the development of a centralized administration and state bureaucracy also came increasing centralization and standardization of official state religion.

This doesn’t mean that the whole population immediately went over to Yahwist (or Yahweh-only) monotheism. This only happened after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 587 BC and the construction of the Second Temple. But the trend toward state-imposed monotheism seems to have started in the late 700’s and early 600’s BC, especially with the sudden “discovery” of the book with the “laws of Moses” by high priest Hilkiah.

As pointed out by Finkelstein & Silberman, the sudden discovery of the “book of the laws of Moses” coincided with the equally sudden spread of literacy in Judah and, crucially, with Assyrian suzerainty or vassal treaties which outlined the rights and obligations of a vassal nation (like Judah) to its sovereign (the Assyrian king), and which may have served as a model for similar sections in the Book of Deuteronomy:

To sum up, there is little doubt that an original version of Deuteronomy is the book of the Law mentioned in 2 Kings. Rather than being an old book that was suddenly discovered, it seems safe to conclude that it was written in the seventh century BCE, just before or during Josiah’s reign … Thus, ironically, what was most genuinely Judahite was labeled as Canaanite heresy. In the arena of religious debate and polemic, what was old was suddenly seen as foreign and what was new was suddenly seen as true. And in what can only be called an extraordinary outpouring of retrospective theology, the new, centralized kingdom of Judah and the Jerusalem-centered worship of YHWH was read back into Israelite history as the way things should always have been … (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 249, 281).

Indeed, the very concept of a monotheistic worship of Yahweh could have been inspired by Assyria’s national deity, the God Ashur, who like Yahweh in Malachi 4:1-3, was associated with a winged Sun Disk.

Significantly, the winged Sun Disk appears on the seals of the kings of Judah dating from the 700’s and 600’s BC, i.e. in the period the OT was composed:

The winged solar disk appears on Hebrew seals connected to the royal house of the Kingdom of Judah. Many of these are seals and jar handles from Hezekiah's reign, together with the inscription l'melekh ("belonging to the king"). Typically, Hezekiah's royal seals feature two downward-pointing wings and six rays emanating from the central sun disk, and some are flanked on either side with the Egyptian ankh ("key of life") symbol. Prior to this, there are examples from the seals of servants of king Ahaz and of king Uzziah.

Winged Sun – Wikipedia

The winged Sun Disk on Hezekiah’s royal seal, excavated at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount, is of particular interest as the OT account specifically ascribes the “reintroduction” of Mosaic monotheism to Hezekiah’s reign.

What is certain is that Hezekiah was an ally of Egypt (Isaiah 30:2) and the winged Sun Disk and Egyptian ankh symbol on his seal indicate Egyptian influence.

However, as shown earlier, representations of a winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult already at the suggested time of David and Solomon (11th-10th centuries BC).

Commenting on the origins of the new monotheistic religion, Finkelstein & Silberman write:

Sometime in the late eighth century BCE there arose an increasingly vocal school of thought that insisted that the cults of the countryside were sinful – and that YHWH alone should be worshiped. We cannot be sure where the idea originated. It is expressed in the cycle of stories of Elijah and Elisha (set down in writing long after the fall of the Omrides) and, more important, in the works of the prophets Amos and Hosea, both of whom were active in the eighth century in the north. As a result, some biblical scholars have suggested that this movement originated among dissident priests and prophets in the last days of the northern kingdom who were aghast at the idolatry of the Assyrian period. After the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, they fled southward to promulgate their ideas … (p. 248)

Since, admittedly, “we cannot be sure where the idea originated”, it could have originated in Egypt as suggested by a number of leading Egyptologists and other scholars. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the possibility should be considered, not suppressed.

In fact, it doesn’t make sense to say that monotheism was introduced to the Hebrews in Egypt by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), and at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Egypt.

The truth of the matter is that Egyptian culture was highly influential in the region. Egyptian art, architecture, technology, and religion were certainly influential on Canaan where Egypt maintained garrisons and administrative centers and built cities with houses, palaces, and temples. Canaanite elites who, during periods of Egyptian domination, were in close contact with their Egyptian overlords, would have been particularly exposed to Egyptian influence and in turn would have been in a position to influence organized state religion. It was customary for Canaanite rulers to send their sons to Egypt as hostages from where they would return, having received an Egyptian education, to become loyal vassals of Egypt.

As a seminomadic people, the Hebrews would certainly have looked to culturally more developed nations who already had the institutions that Hebrew culture lacked, such as monarchy and the centralized religion that came with it. In the same way they borrowed kingship and the concept of divine kings, they also borrowed religious concepts and practices from traditions that already had monotheistic or henotheistic tendencies, such as Assyria and Egypt, from which they evidently borrowed religious symbols like the winged Sun Disk.

It is clear to archaeologists, historians, and other scholars that the original religion of the Jews was a form of Canaanite polytheism that later underwent a long period of various stages of henotheism, monolatry, and monotheism, and that “Rabbinic Judaism” only emerged in the third century AD and became mainstream in the sixth century. Before this, the main form of Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism which, by definition, was Greek-influenced. This was the main form of Judaism at the time of Jesus. Additionally, various subforms of Hellenistic Judaism existed, as there was no official canon.

It follows that the basic fallacy committed by those who take the OT narrative at face value, aside from believing that all of it is true, is to assume that because key protagonists like Moses, David, and Solomon were “Jewish”, they must have been followers of Judaism. This is a fallacy (a) because there is no evidence that all of them were ethnic Jews (or even that they actually existed) and (b) because Judaism as we know it today simply did not exist at the time, as amply demonstrated by Finkelstein (winner of the Dan David Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of history) and other archaeologists, historians, biblical scholars, and Egyptologists.

In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. Indeed, as noted by leading Bible scholars like Moshe Weinfeld, the Book of Deuteronomy shows similarities to early Greek literature, in expressions of ideology within programmatic speeches, in the genre of blessing and cursing, and in the ceremonies for the foundation of new settlements.

It was customary among Greek tribes to found a city or country on the territory they settled by consulting the deity’s will (the Greeks had prophets specialized in interpreting divine will and communicating it to men, hence prophetes, “one who speaks for God”); by building an altar to the tutelary or tribal deity (see the construction of an altar to Apollo by the Greek settlers of Sicily, mentioned by Thucydides); by entering into a formal contract or covenant with the deity, etc., exactly as the Hebrews did at Sinai and Shechem:

It is indeed interesting that both types of public anathema — cursing the violaters of the oath and banning transgressors — are attested in Greek covenantal oaths. Thus, for instance, in the oath taken by the members of the amphictyony against Cirrha (the first «holy war», 590 BCE) we read:
‘If anyone should violate this, whether city, private man or tribe let them be under the curse ... that their land bear no fruit: that their wives bear children not like those who begat them, but monsters: that their flocks yield not their natural increase: that defeat await them in camp and court and their gathering place’
These blessings and curses are strikingly similar to the series of blessings and curses in Deut 28, 3-6.16-19 quoted above … (Weinfeld, “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents”).

Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the Egyptian God Amun-Ra was worshiped by other nations outside Egypt, especially the Greeks, to whom he had been known for centuries as Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon or Ammon), while the Romans later adopted him as Jupiter Ammon. The otherwise obscure biblical reference to “Emmanuel/Immanuel” makes sense when interpreted as “Amun-El” (or “Amun is El”), all of which shows that a syncretistic tradition existed that equated the supreme God of Egypt with the supreme God of Greece and the supreme God of Israel.

Hyginus, who had been a pupil of the Greek historian and scholar Alexander of Miletus, clearly connects the Egyptian God Amun with a foundation narrative. Diodorus describes Amun (Ammon) as the universal spirit that creates all things in nature, and also relates an account according to which Amun begat a son named Bacchus by the virgin Amalthea, and that Bacchus founded the oracle of his father Amun. Amalthea (“Maiden-Goddess”) is not only reminiscent of the Bible’s amla (“virgin” as well as “hidden one”) but is also equated with the Goddess Adrasteia, the personification of Destiny (or divine power). Again, this unquestionably shows spiritual teachings coached in symbolic and mythic language as was common practice in antiquity.

Above all, in his aspect as Truth or Ultimate Reality that is “hidden” to ordinary men, Amun-Zeus (Ammon) was the God of the philosophers (mentioned by Plato) but not the God of fundamentalist temple priests and the philosophically untutored masses for whom God could be nothing more than an anthropomorphic being, with supernatural powers, but nevertheless similar to humans in many respects.

There is no doubt that all this is highly inconvenient to some, as can be seen here, but the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about, who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO.

When one has God and righteousness on one's side, who can be against one?! — baker

Absolutely correct.

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' - The Guardian

America and its foreign-policy instrument NATO seem to always believe to "have God on their side". This is why IMO it can't be entirely wrong to define NATO as a jihadi organization. Though I'm sure NATO jihadis would disagree ....

I've explained my views already and don't wish to just to repeat them over and over — ssu

Yep, that's why you keep repeating your "views" over and over! :lol:

As for others being "trolls", I think that description fits you best. This is demonstrated not only by you constantly posting cut-and-paste "comments" with irrelevant pictures 24/7 but also by your geographical location in the Finnish outback which as everyone knows, is the traditional homeland of the trolls:

A troll is a being in Scandinavian folklore, including Norse mythology. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated areas of rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.
Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks in Scandinavian folklore, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight ...

Troll - Wikipedia

So, you may troll as much as you like, but you ain't gonna fool no one .... :rofl:

The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.

As stated in the Wikipedia article on the Exodus,

The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the story in the Book of Exodus is best understood as a myth and cannot be treated as history in any verifiable sense.[4] Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say that archaeology has not found any evidence for even a small band of wandering Israelites living in the Sinai: "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable [...] repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence" – Exodus - Wikipedia

The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. It is generally accepted that the material presented in the Book of Exodus is a blend of different and often contradictory strands that has undergone successive redactions.

For example, the Pharaoh refuses to let the Hebrews go, but relents after a series of plagues have visited Egypt (9:14 - 12:31).

However, even though he allows them to go, he pursues them with a large army (14:6 ff.).

At the same time, the Pharaoh is said to have “driven out” the Hebrews (12:39).

According to yet another strand in the same chapter, the Hebrews leave in goodwill and depart with gifts from their Egyptian neighbors including silver, gold, and clothing (12:35), etc.

There are numerous other problems. It is claimed that God appeared to Moses “in a burning bramble bush” (Exodus 3:2). Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time?

So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why.

To begin with, as shown by Finkelstein & Silberman, it is impossible for 600,000 Israelites to have spent 40 years in the Sinai desert (that separates Egypt and Canaan) without leaving a trace. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been found. On the contrary, the available evidence positively contradicts the OT version of events.

The heroic figure of Moses confronting the tyrannical pharaoh, the ten plagues, and the massive Israelite Exodus from Egypt have endured over the centuries as the central, unforgettable images of biblical history. But is it history? Can archaeology help us pinpoint the era when a leader named Moses mobilized his people for the great act of liberation? Can we even determine if the Exodus – as described in the Bible – ever occurred?
As we will argue in later chapters, the Israelites emerged only gradually as a distinct group in Canaan, beginning at the end of the thirteenth century BCE. There is no recognizable archaeological evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt immediately before that time … The earliest mention of Israel in an extrabiblical text was found in Egypt in the stele describing the campaign of Pharaoh Merneptah – the son of Rameses II – in Canaan at the very end of the thirteenth century BCE … The Merneptah stele refers to a group of people already living in Canaan. But we have no clue, not even a single word, about Israelites in Egypt …
From the time of the New Kingdom onward, beginning after the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Egyptians tightened their control over the flow of immigrants from Canaan into the delta. They established a system of forts along the delta’s eastern border and manned them with garrison troops and administrators … The border between Canaan and Egypt was thus closely controlled …
The possibility of a large group of people wandering in the Sinai peninsula is also contradicted by archaeology … One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material remains behind. But modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meagre remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. There is simply no such evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus in the thirteenth century BCE.
The conclusion – that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) … (The Bible Unearthed, pp. 48-63).

As the OT itself relates, the land of Canaan (comprising modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, southern Syria, and Transjordan) was home to various ethnic groups. The Philistines are said to have originated in Caphtor (Crete) (Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4) and appear to have settled in southwestern Canaan in the 12th century BC. They were soon assimilated into the local population, but preserved distinct cultural features for many centuries.

Most of the other groups, including the Hebrews, were local Semitic groups (related to the Phoenicians, Arameans, and Arabs) who had inhabited Canaan from times immemorial, to which Eurasian settlers were added between 2500 and 1000 BC. DNA data shows that modern Lebanese are genetically closest (more than 90%) to the Ancient Canaanites, and this is supported by the archaeological data.

In addition to being a great regional power, Egypt was also a prosperous country thanks to its Nile delta to which many people from adjacent areas migrated in times of drought and famine. One such group were the Hyksos (Egyptian Hekau Khasut, Foreign Rulers), originally from Canaan, who settled in the eastern part of the delta and eventually took over Lower (North) Egypt.

In around 1570 BC, Ahmose I, ruler of Upper (South) Egypt retook the North from the Hyksos and expelled them from the country, chasing them all the way to their southern Canaanite city of Sharuhen (near Gaza) which Ahmose besieged and razed.

Most writers in antiquity, including Josephus (Contra Apion I.90), tended to identify the Hyksos with the Hebrews. However, this has been ruled out for a number of reasons, such as the early date and the fact that the Hyksos culture was urban and connected with maritime trade and, therefore, inconsistent with the agricultural and pastoral culture of the Hebrews.

Nevertheless, an event of such magnitude must have left traces in the collective memory of Canaan and may have served as a basis for the Exodus myth (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times; Assmann, From Akhenaten to Moses). Ahmose himself, as head of state and supreme religious authority, may have inspired the Moses character in the OT narrative.

What is certain is that, as shown by the archaeological and historical evidence, Canaan at the time of the supposed “Exodus” was firmly under Egyptian control, which means that no “Israelite conquest of Canaan” could have taken place.

As Finkelstein & Silberman put it:

If, as we have seen, the Israelite Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, what of the conquest itself? The problems are even greater. How could an army in rags, traveling with women, children, and the aged, emerging after decades from the deset, possibly mount an effective invasion? How could such a disorganized rabble overcome the great fortresses of Canaan, with their professional armies and well-trained corps of chariots? … As with the Exodus story, archaeology has uncovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggested date of conquest, between 1230 and 1220 BCE. Although we know that a group named Israel was already present somewhere in Canaan by 1207 BCE, the evidence on the general political and military landscape of Canaan suggests that a lightning invasion by this group would have been impractical and unlikely in the extreme … (pp. 72, 76).

1230-1220 BC is the date suggested by scholars simply because (a) Exodus 1:11 mentions Israelite laborers involved in the construction of the city of “Raamses” which seems to refer to the city Pi-Ramses (“The House of Ramses”) built by Ramses II (ruled 1279-1213 (BC), and (b) the stele of Ramses’s son Merneptah mentions Israelites in Canaan at the very end of the century. While Hebrew and other Canaanite laborers employed in the Egyptian construction trade would have been pretty normal, “Israelite conquests” of (Egyptian-controlled) Canaan can be safely ruled out.

Still, the fact is that the myth of Moses exists and it must exist for a reason. So, it is right to look for some explanations for its existence. Given that Egypt was the dominant power, it seems reasonable to look at Egypt for the answer.

From the time of Ahmose I to Ramses III, Canaan was under increasing Egyptian control. Among the many pieces of evidence showing who was in charge of Canaan, one in particular illustrates the situation, namely a basalt statue of Pharaoh Ramses III seated on his throne, found at Beth-shean in North Israel, and dating from 1184-1153 BC.

Beth-shean (Scythopolis in the Hellenistic period) was a center of Egyptian administration in northern Canaan after its conquest by Thutmoses III, and the Egyptians built a succession of Egyptian-Canaanite-style temples there where Egyptian and Canaanite deities were worshiped. Temple construction was continued by Thutmoses’ great-grandson Amenhotep III who also built temples in other Canaanite cities where Egypt held garrisons. As Jerusalem (Urusalim) had an Egyptian garrison, it is likely that it also had an Egyptian temple. If so, a logical location for its construction would have been the Temple Mount ….

As the OT states, King Solomon was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh:

And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of Jerusalem round about (1 Kings 3:1).

This raises two important questions: (1) who was this son-in-law of the pharaoh and (2) what kind of temple might the pharaoh’s son-in-law build?

If Solomon was a Hebrew, the chances of his being the son-in-law of the pharaoh are as good as non-existent. This is because, as Egypt was the dominant power, it was customary for other monarchs in the region to give their daughters in marriage to Egyptian kings, but not the other way round. This is expressly stated in the correspondence between the Egyptian pharaoh and other kings (the so-called “Amarna Letters”) in which the latter complain that “since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage” (Letter 4, from Kadasman-Enlil I of Babylon to Amenhotep III).

These pharaohs' private letters expose how politics worked 3,300 years ago - National Geographic

Moreover, at the time under consideration, there was no Hebrew kingdom with the resources to build the kind of sumptuous temples and palaces as the OT alleges King Solomon to have done. On the contrary, Finkelstein, Silberman, and others dispute the very existence of a unified monarchy to begin with, the kingdom of Israel, with the capital at Shechem, and the kingdom of Judah, with the capital at Jerusalem, having developed independently of each other and after the supposed time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC).

Finkelstein & Silberman explain:

The material culture of the highlands in the time of David remained simple. The land was overwhelmingly rural – with no trace of written documents, inscriptions, or even signs of the kind of widespread literacy that would be necessary for the functioning of a proper monarchy. From a demographic point of view, the area of the Israelite settlement was hardly homogenous. It is hard to see any evidence of a unified culture or centrally administered state.
The area from Jerusalem to the north was quite densely settled, while the area from Jerusalem to the south – the hub of the future kingdom of Judah – was still very sparsely settled. Jerusalem itself was, at best, no more than a typical highland village …
The fascination of the Deuteronomistic historian of the seventh century BCE with the memories of David and Solomon may be the best if not the only evidence for the existence of some sort of an early Israelite unified state …
The historical reality of the kingdom of David and Solomon was quite different from the tale. It was part of a great demographic transformation that would lead to the emergence of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel – in a dramatically different historical sequence than the one the Bible describes …. (pp. 142-145).

As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king.

The ideal candidate for this role seems to be Amenhotep III who is known to have built many temples not only in Egypt but also in Canaan. A particular type of Egyptian temple consisted of (1) an entrance hall, (2) an inner chamber, and (3) a raised shrine. Other key elements included a porch flanked by towers, and winged figures referred to as “cherubs” in the OT (1 Kings 4:23-8). Outside Egypt, Canaanite temples followed the same tripartite plan, but incorporated a blend of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Syrian-Phoenician, and other elements.

The city of Shiloh, situated halfway between Jerusalem and Shechem, was the Israelites’ main cult center before the construction of the First Temple at Jerusalem, and the Ark is said to have been housed in a temple or sanctuary there before being moved to Jerusalem (1 Samuel 1:3). Similar temples in Egyptian-Canaanite style, dating from the fourteenth century BC, also existed at Beth-shean and may well have served as models for the First Temple. Temples with similar shrines in Palestine, Syria, and elsewhere were constructed into the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Going further back in time, we find pharaohs Thutmose III and Ahmose I, who also controlled Canaan, and who may have served as models for David (Twt/Dwd) and Moses (Ms/Moshe), respectively. During the reign of Ramses III (1186–1155 BC), Canaan was invaded by a coalition of foreign groups including Philistines (Peleset). Ramses successfully prevented the invaders from taking Egypt, but the Philistines settled in southwestern Canaan (“Philistia”) and then extended their rule northward into the Jezreel Valley and beyond, thus bringing most of Canaan under their control.

As Philistine power declined over the following centuries, Egyptian, Philistine, Assyrian, and local rulers were competing for control of Canaan, and it was against this background that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah gradually emerged in the highlands stretching from the Judean Hills in the south to Upper Galilee in the north. However, together with Philistine territories, they soon fell under Assyrian domination and in about 750 BC the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria, with part of its population being deported and another part fleeing to Judah. Judah itself avoided destruction by paying tribute, but Assyria was defeated by Babylon, and the Babylonians began to compete with Egypt over control of the region. In 587 BC Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon and destroyed along with the Temple, and some of the population was carried into captivity.

While there is some extrabiblical evidence for later Israelite rulers, there is none for David and Solomon, and even less for “Moses”. This suggests that David and Solomon were legendary figures modeled on Egyptian pharaohs, which is supported by the Israelites’ demand to be ruled by a king “like all other nations”, by the first Israelite king and his son (David and Solomon) being referred to by the title “son of God” in the Egyptian manner (Psalm 2:6-7), by Solomon’s marriage to a pharaoh’s daughter, etc.

The very name Solomon is traditionally interpreted as being derived from Hebrew shalom (“peace”) which refers to Solomon’s peaceful reign: “They called him Solomon (peace) because there was peace in his days” (Targum Sheni). However, this corresponds to Egyptian Amenhotep (Amn/Imn-Htp) which means “Amun is At Peace”, and in Hebrew this would be Shalom-Amun, abbreviated as Shelomoh/Shlomoh.

As explained earlier, the OT equates the Egyptian God Amun with the Hebrew God El in the phrase “Emmanuel/Immanuel” (Imn-u-El). Imn/Amn in Egyptian religion was the invisible or “hidden” supreme deity symbolized by the setting and midnight Sun, whose visible aspect (Ra) was symbolized by the rising and midday Sun.

The cult of Amun-Ra attained its highest point during the reign of pharaoh Akhenaten, when the God came to be worshiped as the sole deity, represented as a solar disk or orb. Egyptian pharaohs were not only heads of state but also religious leaders. As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries concerning the supreme deity known as Aten/Adon to the initiated and as Amun-Ra to ordinary believers.

The cult of Aten was eventually suppressed by the priestly class and Egypt reverted to its established religion. It is entirely conceivable that a leader of the Aten religion, who was a member of Egyptian royalty, recruited followers from among various ethnic minorities, including Hebrews, and this gave birth to or inspired a new monotheistic religion in Canaan and elsewhere.

Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh, he would have been in a position to promise Canaan (or, more likely, a certain territory within Canaan) to his followers in exchange for adherence to the tenets of his religion. Indeed, a pharaoh would have been regarded as “divine”, which would explain why the Sinai Covenant is believed to have been a contract between the followers of the new faith and God, and why the first two monarchs of this group were referred to by the title “son of God”.

At the same time, the true identity of the “Unseen Deity” remained “hidden” to the majority of the population who continued to worship the Sun (or some other celestial body, meteorological phenomenon, or anthropomorphic concept) as God.

In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God was preserved among members of the priestly class and was revealed to initiates from all over the Ancient World, including to Greek sages like Thales and was passed on to Plato, Aristotle, and their royal disciples like Alexander and his successors who regarded themselves as “sons of Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon)”.

Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. This is why he is correctly referred to as “Son of God”, “Light of the World”, “The Truth”, and “Embodiment of Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption”, etc. Moreover, the Truth not only had been hidden (or suppressed by fundamentalist rabbis and Temple priests) but remained (and remains) hidden to most people. Hence the OT reference to the “Hidden God (Amun) is El” and “birth from a virgin” (Isaiah 7:14) which is itself a play on the word alma which can mean “young girl” but also “the hidden one”.

Similarly, the Greek aletheia (“truth”) literally means “un-hidden” or “not hidden” (a, “not” + letho, “to be hidden”) and refers to Jesus being the visible or manifest aspect of the unseen, hence “the light of the world” that makes the truth known to those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear” (Matthew 11:15). It follows that, however inconvenient this may be to anti-Christians, the NT seems to be fundamentally correct when analyzed in the proper cultural and religious context.

Moreover, truth is not only ethical and religious, or philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual, but also religious-historical. By suppressing Jesus, the Temple Taliban also sought to suppress the history of the origins of the true faith originally professed by the prophets of old and disseminated by philosophers and spiritual teachers down the centuries.

However, truth eventually comes to light and, given that the OT itself admits that the Religion of Righteousness, which is the eternal divine truth, originated in Egypt and was taught to the Israelites by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed – excepts in certain quarters where darkness is preferred to light and untruth to truth ….

The anti-Christian position seems to be that Christianity is a criminal perversion of Judaism that shouldn’t have existed and must not be allowed to exist. This has its roots in the more extreme forms of Second-Temple Judaism which advocated the extermination of everyone who failed to comply with the newly-discovered “laws of Moses”:

When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, because they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and He will swiftly destroy you. Instead, this is what you are to do to them: tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, cut down their Asherah poles, and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His prized possession out of all peoples on the face of the earth (Deuteronomy 7:3-6)

If a man or woman among you in one of the towns that the LORD your God gives you is found doing evil in the sight of the LORD your God by transgressing His covenant and going to worship other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven—which I have forbidden— and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly, and you must bring out to your gates the man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you must stone that person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings, and finds its most recent manifestation in Islamic extremism and Shariah law.

The Koran says:

And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush (Al-Tauba (9), 5)

However, Talibanism and Jihadism are based on a false narrative fabricated by fundamentalist priests after the construction of the Second Temple and enforced only gradually, over the following centuries. In other words, Mosaic Judaism did not exist in Judah at the time of David and Solomon, and only took shape in the late Persian and Hellenistic periods.

Indeed, as demonstrated by the mounting evidence produced by archaeologists, historians, and other scholars, the notion that the Hebrews were obediently complying with the “laws of Moses” is complete nonsense, particularly as they had no knowledge of such laws (given that they were admittedly “discovered” in the days of King Hezekiah) and that they continued to follow their traditional Canaanite religion until the destruction of the First Temple.

The Israel Antiquities Authority’s website on the OT texts found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) states:

Strikingly, some biblical manuscripts feature differences from the standard Masoretic biblical language and spelling. Additions and deletions in certain texts imply that the writers felt free to modify texts they were copying.

And according to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

Indeed, admissions of forgery are found in the OT text itself:

How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8).

In fact, the Book of Jeremiah appears to have originally been composed in the 500’s BC by Jeremiah, son of the priest Hilkiah, who had allegedly “discovered” the “laws of Moses”, and it was heavily edited by generations of scribes into the second century BC:

The book as a whole has been heavily edited and added to by followers (including perhaps the prophet's companion, the scribe Baruch) and later generations of Deuteronomists (M. D. Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 300).

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism, attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity.

It is a well-known fact that a popular form of religion from the Classical era onward was mystery cults consisting in secret teachings and practices that were observed in addition to those of conventional religion.

Though not a mystery religion as such, Christianity does have some elements in common with Classical mystery traditions. To begin with, the Gospels are full of symbolism pointing to esoteric content.

For example, it is clear that Jesus’ statements such as “I am the Light of the world” (Eimi to Phos tou kosmou), have more than one meaning. To a first-century AD person, the words “light of the world” meant, in the first place, the light of the Sun which illuminates the world.

On a higher level, “Light of the world” can refer to the Light of Truth that reveals a higher knowledge to those who are able to perceive and understand it.

As related in the NT, Jesus himself often taught in parables and, when asked about it by his disciples, he replied:

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand (Mark 4:11-12)

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says:

But we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom (he apokekrymmene sophia), which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinth 2:6-8).

And in the Second Epistle:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Similarly, Origen makes many references to mysteries, e.g., “the secrets of wisdom and the mysteries of knowledge”, and stresses the secret meaning of Scripture:

Then there is the doctrine that the scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God and that they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also another which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this point the entire Church is unanimous, that while the whole law is spiritual, the inspired meaning is not recognised by all, but only by those who are gifted with the grace of the Holy spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge (On First Principles I 8).

Commenting on Paul’s Epistles above, Origen says:

And, speaking generally, we have, in accordance with the apostolic promise, to seek after ‘the wisdom in a mystery’ …. (On First Principles IV, II.6)

And:

The perfect shall behold the glory of the Lord ‘face to face’ by revelations of mysteries” (I IV, 1).

Indeed, the Classical mystery traditions were not only known as “the mysteries” (ta mysteria), but also as “the perfections” (telea or teletai), due to the fact of being the rites or instructions through which the initiate attained the ultimate goal of life (telos) by becoming perfect (teleos).

And becoming morally and spiritually perfect was also the goal of Jesus’ teachings:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism.

Perfection in Christianity, as in Hellenistic philosophy, is not to be attained through religious rituals and sacrifices, but through an inner conversion or transformation (metanoia) or, in Plato’s words, a “turning around of the soul” (periagoge) towards a higher reality:

This organ of knowledge [inner eye] must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theater, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being (Rep. 518c).

This inner conversion, transformation, or “turning around of the soul” is only possible through a refocusing of attention away from this world and toward the next.

Like the philosophical life of Classical tradition, Christian life is a life oriented toward the next world and toward moral and spiritual perfection as a means of achieving everlasting life in Paradise in the company of God and other divine beings (Angels or Gods).

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say.

In any case, the reorientation toward afterlife advocated by Christianity, shows the common ground the new religion shared with the mystery traditions. And, like the latter, the former seems to have mainly developed in urban areas such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Caesarea, etc.

According to Luke,

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and the news about Him spread throughout the surrounding region. He taught in their synagogues and was glorified by everyone (4:14-15).

He clearly could read from scripture and, as Luke states, “All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips” and “Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent. And He continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea” (Luke 4:43-44).

Jesus’ actions are inconsistent with the claim that he was an ignorant and uneducated peasant. In fact, as a member of the urban artisan class he most likely was literate and had a sufficient degree of education to be able to discuss religious matters with leading members of the urban community.

Already at the age of twelve, we are told that:

They found Him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers (Luke 2:46-47).

Indeed, the urban artisan class was far from ignorant and uneducated. Artisans naturally sought an urban setting in which to pursue their professional career because it offered a broader patronage system. But the same urban setting that had greater economic potential, also offered greater opportunities of acquiring knowledge, including literacy and contact with the educated classes, and even with other cultures.

Archaeological evidence from first-century Galilee shows a degree of familiarity with writing even in small villages, for example, Aramaic words and even Greek abecedaries inscribed on local ossuaries and ceramic pottery. Another key evidence indicating close interaction between Jewish and non-Jewish communities is provided by the use of Roman and Tyrian coins in addition to local ones.

In sum, the presence of Roman and Greek communities, as well as Hellenized Jews in Roman Palestine, the widespread use of the Greek language, the theaters, gymnasiums, hippodromes, and Pagan temples built by Herod the Great, the Hellenistic-Roman-style cities built by his son Herod Antipas, the cults of Dionysus and Heracles observed for centuries at nearby Scythopolis, Tyre, and Alexandria, etc., etc., all show that it makes little sense to claim that no Greek influence on Jesus’ teachings was possible.

After all, Israel is a very small country and, with people traveling and communicating, exchange of information including cultural interchange, becomes inevitable.

To recap, it is beyond dispute that all or most of Jesus’ teachings are consistent with Hellenistic tradition which was on the rise at the time.

Equally beyond dispute is that Herod I a.k.a. Herod the Great, ruler of Judea, was a Hellenized client of Rome. He had received a Greek education at the Greek school at Jerusalem attended by the Jewish aristocracy, bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek inscriptions and symbols including sunburst, and built theaters, hippodromes, and large Pagan temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Omrit (or Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus).

The Temple of Caesar Augustus at Caesarea Philippi - Associates for Biblical Research

It goes without saying that the theaters and hippodromes built by Herod were not exclusively for a Roman and Greek audience but also for Greek-speaking and Hellenized Jews, and represented avenues through which Greek culture could spread to the non-Greek population, in addition to Greek gymnasiums and schools, travelling philosophers and spiritual teachers, etc.

The historical and archaeological evidence clearly indicates a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual background to the Jesus story – with Greek as the universal medium of communication.

Indeed, what makes Jesus’ teachings unique and lends them a genuinely universal character that goes beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries, is that they are not only consistent with Hellenistic tradition but some of them, e.g., “son of God”, are equally consistent with Jewish and Egyptian tradition.

The Israelites admittedly had no king and had expressly requested a king to be appointed over them “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5). The foremost nation at the time was Egypt whose kings controlled Canaan. Therefore it was entirely logical for the Israelites to borrow the Egyptian model of kingship which was the most authoritative, most ancient, and most prestigious at the time.

In Ancient Egyptian tradition, the king or pharaoh was both head of state and supreme religious authority. Being responsible for maintaining divine order on earth, the king was a manifestation of God and actually referred to as “Son of God”. The Sun-God Ra (or Re) being the chief deity, “Son of Ra” became official title of Ancient Egyptian kings.

Kings David and Solomon’s being called “Son of God” in the OT is entirely consistent with the Israelites’ adoption of the Egyptian model of kingship, and indeed, with Solomon’s and the kings of Judah’s observance of a solar cult as described in the OT.

In the same way different people today have different conceptions of God, various interpretations of this solar cult existed, ranging from the Sun being seen as a symbol or metaphor for a monotheistic deity, to the Sun being seen as a manifestation of a chief deity in a polytheistic pantheon. After all, it is highly doubtful that the majority of the Israelite population which consisted of uneducated farmers and shepherds, would have grasped such abstract concepts as an invisible, all-powerful, and sole deity.

In any case, as shown by the archaeological evidence (Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun) and by OT statements, the Israelite God Yahweh was indisputably associated with the Sun for many centuries, including during the Hellenistic period and well into the Christian era.

Regarding Jesus’s claim to be the “Son of God”, if he was a descendant of King David, which he may well have been, he had a legitimate claim to that title.

Indeed, according to Jewish tradition, King David had been born in Bethlehem, which is why the NT refers to it as “the City of David” (Luke 2:4), and the future Christ, Messiah, or Savior King was expected to be a descendant of King David.

It follows that if Jesus was a descendant of King David, Israel’s first divine king and “Son of God” (Psalm 2:7), then he was correctly described, or described himself, as “King of the Jews” and “Son of God”. And if the people, including Herod, believed (rightly or wrongly) that Jesus was a descendant of David, then it made perfect sense for Herod to fear being dethroned and to seek Jesus’ death. After all, Herod also ordered the killing of his own son.

Interestingly, in support of the claim that Jesus was the expected King of the Jews and the Messiah, the NT not only invokes Jesus’s birth in the City of David (Bethlehem), but also refers to Isaiah’s prophecy that “a virgin shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Why would Jesus be called “Emmanuel”? Matthew 1:23 states that this word (“Immanuel” in Hebrew) means “God (El) is with us”.

However, “Imn” is the Egyptian spelling for Amun (Sun-God Amun-Ra), which means that in an Egyptian-Israelite context, and considering the Egyptian origin of Israelite kingship, “Emmanuel” can be interpreted as “Amun-u El”, i.e., “Amun (Amun-Ra) is El (the Lord). (See A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its relation to the Egyptian, Vol. 1, p. xxvi.)

We must further consider that El was the supreme Canaanite deity who, as stated in the OT, was the original God of the Hebrews (who were themselves Canaanites):

And Elohim spoke to Moses and said: I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai but by my name, Yahweh, I was not known to them. And I also established my covenant with them (Exodus 6:2-4).

Clearly, at the time when the Hebrews were “in Egypt”, and before the covenant, their God was El. And El’s symbol was the bull - which may also have been influenced by similar Egyptian cult images. Thus it makes perfect sense for the Hebrews to have made and worshiped a golden calf (figurines of which have been excavated in Israel) at Mount Sinai and to have said “This, O Israel, is your God who brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 32:3). This is supported by the fact that their leader Aaron had no hesitation in complying with their request and immediately made the statue and announced a religious festival.

As for Moses, he was an Egyptian (or Hebrew brought up as an Egyptian). Therefore he naturally spoke no Hebrew (which is why he used Aaron as translator) and had little knowledge of Hebrew religion, which is why it was necessary to be explained to him who God El was.

If Moses did actually become angry on descending from the mountain, and this is not a later interpolation, he couldn’t have been angry with the Hebrews for "going Pagan" as they merely followed their ancestral, Canaanite religion. He was angry because he had expected them to follow the new religion which he clearly regarded as superior.

What religion this was is impossible to determine at present given that the “laws of Moses” were “discovered” many centuries later. However, it seems reasonable to assume that he had been initiated into the higher forms of Egyptian religion during his childhood at the royal palace and that, therefore, (a) this religion was a higher form of the cult of Amun-Ra, knowledge of which was reserved to royalty, and (b) it was more evolved than the religion of the Hebrews.

In any case, it makes sense for Amun-Ra, the supreme God of Egypt, to be equated with El, the supreme God of the Hebrews. And, as already noted, even after the Hebrew God came to be called “Yahweh” instead of “El”, he continued to be associated with the Sun, especially on more popular levels of the religion, and was described as riding on and above the clouds, while his name was read “Adon/Aten” which in Egyptian religion referred to the Sun Disc or Orb (Itn) as a symbol of the deity.

Moreover, Egyptian amun (imn) literally means “hidden” which refers to the “hidden” or “unseen” aspect of God. Egypt’s supreme deity Amun-Ra was a self-created being with two aspects, a visible one represented by the rising and mid-day Sun (Ra), and an invisible one represented by the setting and night Sun (Amun).

On a higher level, therefore, “Emmanuel” specifically equates the Hebrew God El with the Egyptian God Amun. In connection with Jesus, this refers to the revelation of a doctrine that was, or had become, “hidden”, “secret”, or suppressed among the Jews. Indeed, the cult of Amun had spread far beyond Egypt, so that in addition to the Hebrew Amun-El there was also a Greek Amun-Zeus or Zeus-Amon, whom Alexander the Great regarded as his divine father. Jesus represented the spirit of that religious renaissance in Israel and sought to initiate a movement that was at once timeless and in line with the cultural and spiritual developments of his time.

Though Jewish writings like the Babylonian Talmud tend to refer to Jesus (Hebrew “Yeshu”) in derogatory terms, they seem to link him with Egypt, by claiming that “Jesus the Nazarene went to Alexandria, Egypt, and practiced magic (i.e. worked wonders)” or “brought magic from Egypt”, and by referring to him as “Jesus son of Joseph Pandira/Pantera” (Sanhedrin 107b; Hullin 2.22-3).

Such references were later removed under Christian pressure. However, “Pandira/Pantera” is very obviously a non-Hebrew word and, in view of the Egyptian context under consideration, the Egyptian royal epithet “Pa-Ntr-Ra” (“The-God-Ra”), by which Egyptian kings were known, must be regarded as a more likely alternative. Thus “Jesus son of Joseph (and) Pandira (Pa-Ntr-Ra)” clearly refers to his having a human and a divine father, a fact Justin Martyr alluded to in defense of Christian teachings (1 Apology 21).

The adoration of new-born Jesus by “three wise men from the east” bearing gifts (Matthew 2:1-11) is another tradition reminiscent of Egypt, as royal vassals and allies from lands to the east of Egypt used to bring gifts to the Egyptian rulers (and less often, if at all, to Hebrew ones).

As stated earlier, Nazareth is another element in the NT narrative that connects Jesus with Egypt, Nazareth being situated on the ancient trade route from Heliopolis (the City of the Sun) in Egypt to Damascus in Syria.

Indeed, the whole narrative from Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt in infancy or youth, and the various teachings pointing to Egyptian religion, to Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, suggests the true historical origins of Christianity, emerging from Egypt and proceeding via Hellenistic Palestine to Damascus, Athens, Rome, and beyond ....

I think it depends on how we define "God". To some, God is ultimate reality.

In Plato, the divine is associated with truth and knowledge (Republic 508e1-4), and similar statements are found in the NT: “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6), etc.

Let's look more closely. — Fooloso4

Yep, let's look more closely at your confused and irrational statements! :lol:

I said "he got killed by the Temple Taliban", i.e., by the high priest and his allies who persuaded Pilate to execute Jesus as related in the NT.

I never said "he got killed by Herod". Herod wanted to eliminate a child believed by some to be the rightful "King of the Jews". However, he didn't kill Jesus because Jesus was taken to Egypt by his family and returned after Herod's death (Matthew 2:20-1) while still a young child.

Herod simply feared a potential challenger to the throne. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. And nothing whatsoever to do with Herod being "pro-Roman" or "anti-Jewish" or anything!

Incidentally, Pilate didn't send Jesus to the Herod who had ordered the killing of the children of Bethlehem but to his son, Herod Antipas.

Also, Pilate didn't sentence Jesus for his own religious reasons, but for the religious reasons of the Temple Taliban who objected to Jesus' claiming to be the Son of God. That's why he washed his hands and said “I am innocent of this man’s blood; It is your responsibility!” (Matthew 27:24). As far as Pilate was concerned, he wanted to avoid civil unrest instigated by the Temple Taliban.

And yes, the fact is that ultimately, the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won.
Which shows why fanaticism isn't a good idea and why Jesus' more inclusive views were right.

Nope, I'm not "avoiding" anything at all. YOU are denying the fact that NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant in Hellenistic tradition at the time of Jesus and before, which is why there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on Jesus' teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians.

The Greek origin of most of these teachings is precisely why they were rejected by fundamentalist rabbis, even though some of them, e.g., "Son of God" do occur in the writings of the Essenes and even in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions:

During the period of David and Solomon (tenth century B.C.), the most formative period for Israel’s monarchy, close ties existed between Tanis, the 21st Dynasty capital, and Jerusalem […] These seals suggest that Israel looked to Egypt for inspiration regarding kingship. Israel’s fledgling monarchy had no royal archetypes of its own to draw on, and Egypt was its closest and most influential neighbor. It seems natural that Israel would appropriate language and motifs of kingship that were compatible with its monotheistic worldview.

Son of God - From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus, Biblical Archaeology Review, 13:3, 1997

Egyptian inscriptions read:

“[Sun-God] Re has installed the King
on the earth of the living
for ever and ever …”

And the king is called the “beloved and only Son of God”

‘AXIAL’ BREAKTHROUGHS AND SEMANTIC ‘RELOCATIONS’ IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Egyptian Hymns and Prayers) (uzh.ch)

The OT states in very clear and unambiguous terms that the Israelites demanded to have "a king like all other nations" (1 Samuel 8:4-5). And that's exactly what they got, see David and Solomon (Psalm 2:6-7):

I have set my king upon my holy mountain of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me [King David], ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [i.e., created or appointed] You

So, if Jesus was a descendant of King David as stated in Matthew 1:1-16, then he was correctly following tradition!

Moreover, the OT says:

The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7: 14).

So, arguably, the NT does have a point in some key respects.

Unfortunately, the dictatorial Temple Taliban were control freaks who thought they could control what people believed and history shows where that led to - the Temple was obliterated and its location is currently under the control of a new Taliban with the same outdated ideas .... :grin:

According to Western propaganda, Russia is supposed to be a "totalitarian dictatorship". But, apparently, a unit of Russian riot police is suing its bosses for wrongful dismissal after being fired for refusing to invade Ukraine:

Russian riot police officers fired for refusing to invade Ukraine take bosses to court - Telegraph

Meantime, Biden has called for regime change in Russia by saying that "Putin cannot remain in power":

Biden’s comment on Putin’s future ‘could complicate matters,’ says former CIA director - Independent

And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that Putin should be assassinated:

Lindsey Graham calls for Putin to be assassinated by someone close to him: ‘Is there a Brutus in Russia?’ - Independent

Imagine the international outcry if Putin had called for Biden to be toppled or killed ....

Any view that could be construed as Russian or anti-Ukraine is met with censorship of the highest order. — NOS4A2

Not only that, but Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. As one Twitter user infamously put it, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

Obviously, it isn't about "letting people believe things", it's about knowingly MAKING people believe things that aren't true!

Even the White House is using TikTok "influencers" (read NATO jihadis) to manipulate public opinion:

TikTok Influencers Get Spotlight in Information Battle Over the Russia-Ukraine War - WSJ

but for now I need to go do a little partying; forget about people actively trying to bring about World War III, if only a little while. — boethius

Great idea. I think the anti-Russia jihadis and trolls have grown fat enough to not need any further feeding for the next year or two. :smile:

It's as if their intention is to draw the fire to themselves, and then Nato will go to Russia. — baker

Apparently, this is technically called "conspiracy theory" in high philosophical circles, especially those frequented by men of great knowledge, learning, and judgement. Alternatively, it must be "Russian propaganda". So, you better be careful what you say ....

When Alexander in 333 BC conquered the Persian Empire including what had earlier been the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the country fell under Greek control and influence (though this influence had started earlier). Jews were attracted to Greek culture, went to the theater, frequented gymnasiums (which also functioned as educational institutions), attended sporting events, participated in sacrifices to the Greek Gods, adopted Greek names and customs, and studied Greek literature and philosophy.

Greek education which included classical literature like Homer conferred equal rights with the Greeks. At Alexandria Jews underwent initiation into the Hellenistic mystery cults. Elsewhere Jews participated in sponsoring Dionysian festivals (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism).

In Judea itself, in addition to many ethnic Greeks (Yevanim), there were growing numbers of Hellenized Jews (Misyavnim), estimated to have amounted to about a third of the population.

Whilst traditionalist Jews felt that the Hellenists threatened their culture, the Hellenists thought that the traditionalists held back cultural and religious progress. This resulted in tensions between Judaism and Hellenism and led to a civil war between the two groups, the Maccabean revolt, and the rise to power of the Hasmonean dynasty (140 BC - 37 BC).

However, though the Hasmoneans were Jews, it would be wrong to believe that this was the end of Greek influence. Judea remained at first a vassal of the Greek Seleucid Empire (which controlled Syria and Babylon), its kings bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek symbols, had royal palaces with Greek architectural features (including heated bathhouses, swimming pools, and triclinia with dining couches), and the entire administration was run by people with Greek names.

Under the Hasmoneans the Hellenization process gradually resumed and Hellenistic-influenced, Greek-language literature, e.g., the Book of Wisdom, began to appear at this time.

As Hengel points out:

Under the later Hasmoneans the leading circles in Jerusalem again came more strongly under the influence of Hellenistic culture. Hellenistic education and style of life once again gained ground in Jerusalem even before Herod. Herod himself seems to have been to the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were probably instructed. At an advanced age he then pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of Nicolaus of Damascus; he also had his sons brought up completely in the Greek style.
That Homer was recognized as the canonical book of Greek education in Jewish Palestinian circles even later is shown by the criticism made by the Sadduccees, reported in Jad. 4.6 and coming from the first century AD - ‘We object against you Pharisees that you say that the holy scriptures make the hands unclean whereas the books of Homer (ספרי המירם) do not make the hands unclean.’ Here the term ‘books of Homer’ is probably already a stereotyped description of Greek literature in general, and we may see here a sign that it had found a way into the everyday language of Palestinian Jews a long time before.

Greek thought was available not only through books like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey but also through the dramatic performances held at the theaters in the Greek cities of Galilee and other parts of Roman Palestine, and through traveling philosophers and missionaries. After all, Palestine was a Roman province. Herod I (72 BC – 4 or 1 BC) had renovated and expanded the Jerusalem Temple, but he also introduced games and spectacles, and built theaters and hippodromes in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Jericho, with the clear aim of culturally integrating Palestine with the rest of the empire.

There is no doubt that fundamentalist rabbis were opposed to such developments, but the political leadership was fully aware that it could not afford to isolate the country or risk being perceived as anti-Roman by Rome.

Both the Greek city of Sepphoris (the capital of Galilee rebuilt by Herod’s son Antipas) and the nearby town of Nazareth (located at only three miles distance), were close to the ancient trade route between Egypt and Damascus. Like Sepphoris, Capernaum, which was at the center of Jesus’s ministry in Galilee, was a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual city. Dora, situated on the coast west of Nazareth (about 11 miles away), was a Pagan Greek city with large Hellenistic temples, etc.

Moreover, Alexandria which had a large Jewish community, was the cultural center of the Hellenistic world, as well as home to several popular religious cults. Though located in Egypt, it was within easy reach from Palestine with which it had close trade and cultural links.

By the time of Jesus, Hellenism was a considerable cultural force in Roman Palestine. Notwithstanding “the laws of Moses”, written or oral, Judaism was not a strictly codified, monolithic religion. Different groups and individuals had different attitudes toward Greek culture and religion. Greek thought was far from universally proscribed and access to it was available to those who had an interest in widening their cultural and spiritual horizon.

In any case, key NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant at the time of Jesus and there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on his teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians. On the contrary, it is more consistent with the evidence to regard Jesus as a teacher operating within an already-Hellenized social and cultural environment.

I think it is obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The fact is that the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won. This may be inconvenient to anti-Christian activists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Get over it.

whataboutism
/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/
nounBRITISH — Wayfarer

Well, it's nice to see that you care about Ukrainians. I'm sure Ukrainians care a lot about their Australian brothers and sisters, too.

However, IMO emotions shouldn't be allowed to cloud judgement. It doesn't follow that if you label someone's counterargument "whataboutism" you render it invalid. You still have to explain why the West is waging economic jihad on Russia for invading Ukraine, but not on China for invading and annexing Tibet, or on Turkey for invading Cyprus and Syria, etc., etc.

In fact, NATO's Stoltenberg even tried to justify Turkey's actions by claiming that Turkey has "legitimate security concerns":

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

So, according to NATO, and to NATO jihadis in general, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish territories in Syria, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine!

Plus, whichever way you choose to answer this, the fact remains that the West's sanctions on Russia show that the world's economy and finances are dominated by America and its client states. And, this in turn shows (a) that there is no democracy and equality in the world, and (b) that nations who don't want to submit to US dominance have a right to resist.

If Jesus preached strict adherence to the Laws and prophets he would not have accepted the existence of men who become gods or gods — Fooloso4

If you keep swallowing and regurgitating your own illogical garbage and digging yourself in deeper and deeper, you'll soon drown in your own crap.

If Jesus had preached "strict adherence to the Laws and prophets" as understood by the religious authorities, he wouldn't have got killed by them in the first place, you twat!

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God (John 5:18,10:25-38) which the Temple Taliban twisted into charges to the effect that he claimed to be the "king of the Jews" in order to get the Roman authorities involved and have him executed.

Jesus' teachings also included moral perfection instead of rituals and sacrifices (Matthew 5:48); resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25); future life in paradise instead of Sheol (Luke 23:43), etc. As pointed out by Justin Martyr, such teachings were already found in Hellenistic tradition.

I think it is evident from Jesus' statements that he was a pretty open-minded person who took the best from all traditions to forge a powerful and inspiring message to the world.

Obviously, his teachings were rejected by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists, but they were accepted by sufficient numbers of Jews and non-Jews to start a religious movement that sought to unite all believers and establish a universal faith, which is exactly what Christianity became.

You refuse to accept this because, as a committed anti-Christian, you like to paint Jesus (and, presumably, all Jews) as a narrow-minded and petty fanatic who couldn't have been a Christian and who would have rejected everything "Pagan" or Greek including language, philosophy, and culture!

It certainly doesn't make sense for Christians to have "falsified" and "Paganized" the teachings of some Jewish fundamentalist when many other religious teachers of all denominations and creeds were available for that purpose. In fact, they could have easily composed a random set of teachings and claimed that they came from God as others had done before, even without a teacher.

It follows that your spurious claims are not only unsupported by the evidence, but they don't stand to reason. So, as far as I am concerned, you haven't got a leg to stand on. But you can keep walking (or digging) on all fours if it makes you happy .... :grin:

Who is doing the bombing, here? — Wayfarer

Who is freezing Russia's foreign reserves, confiscating Russian assets, disconnecting Russia from SWIFT, denying Russia access to credit, etc., etc.?

Is that what they did when China invaded and annexed Tibet? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Kurdish territories in Syria and Iraq???!!!

I see what you're trying to say, but why the duplicity, hypocrisy, and the double standards?

But I agree that this thread is a waste of time and probably best suited for old-age pensioners and the unemployed. Oh, and NATO jihadi trolls .... :wink:

1. I wasn't talking about the "causes" but about the fact that the West is currently waging economic warfare on Russia, as acknowledged by analysts.

2. What you are implying is that Russia must subordinate itself to a world economic system dictated by the West and, in particular, by America. In other words, the deal you're advocating is "open your economy to Western dominance or we wage economic jihad on you".

IMO that's the modern equivalent of Britain's gunboat diplomacy in the days of the empire: "buy our goods or we bomb you"! :smile:

And I'm accused of spouting propaganda. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But analysts do call it "economic war":

The Toll of Economic War - Foreign Affairs

The West is trying to destroy Russia’s economy. And analysts think it could succeed - CNBC

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire on Tuesday told a French radio station that the aim of the latest round of sanctions was to “cause the collapse of the Russian economy”

Don't you guys read papers in Aussieland?

You obviously have zero knowledge or understanding of textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter.

I think I have demonstrated (1) that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value and (2) that the notion that the Jews in general were resistant to Greek thought or impervious to its influence is total bogus.

As per the OP, the issue at hand is Greek influence on Jesus. IMO Jesus' belief in moral and spiritual perfection (Matthew 5:48), resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25), Hades (Matthew 16:18), etc., is best explained as Greek influence.

The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. — Fooloso4

Well, that's precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to Greek influence on Jesus and other Christians!!!

So, I think what you urgently need is someone to teach you English. Or maybe a psychiatrist. So long & take care, Mr Foolo .... :smile:

I think the excessive focus on Ukraine should not be allowed to distract attention from the larger picture which is that this isn't just between Russia and Ukraine. The West - led by America and Britain - is actually at war with Russia. It may be "only" economic and financial war for now, but it's war all the same. And it's also an info and intelligence war with the West controlling the global media and supplying Ukraine with intelligence on Russia's moves, etc.

None of this has to do with the US, which has tried to get them to spend more unsuccessfully for decades, and everything to do with Russia and China acting aggressive enough to scare them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think you quite understand the relationship between Germany and the US. Scholz was at first against cancelling Nord Stream 2 but changed his mind after Biden told him he was going to put an end to it.

During a press conference on Feb 7, when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” Nord Stream 2.

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Yes, Germany and Japan are increasing their defense expenditure, but they do so to America's advantage!

If Germany were to build a proper military for itself, complete with nuclear systems, and kick the Americans out of the country, or just declare itself neutral, it would be a different matter. But as things stand, it isn't.

And I'm glad that you are glad. It could be worse .... :wink:

So it's really innaccurate to describe what is published by the non-Russian media as propoganda. — Wayfarer

There are lots of inaccurate statements people make on forums. It's no different from other social media. Especially on a super-fast-moving thread like this with some members apparently posting nearly 24/7, there is nothing you can do about it.

Pretty hopeless, really, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Probably wisest to keep a safe distance ....

That's probably right. But how many Russians do you see on this thread (or forum)?

And, funny enough, you may see the mods as pro-Russian. but I tend to see them (or most of them) as pro-Western.

And, no, I'm not "pro-Russian", just anti-NATO and anti-US hegemony. And definitely against world government. But I better not even mention that as it's supposed to be "conspiracy theory" and against the "rules" .... :wink:

The moderators can label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. — Wayfarer

There is white, grey, black, and many other types of propaganda:

White propaganda – Wikipedia

Black propaganda - Wikipedia

I don’t know about that particular concentration camp survivor, but there are literally hundreds of instances of fake news relating to Ukraine.

Even the Western media, the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, etc. has pointed out that Western platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and others are full of fake news:

Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC

And Ukraine's TV news channels have been taken over by Zelensky, so it would be hard to find independent and verifiable info unless you are there and see something with your own eyes.

Not if they use the Poles as cannon fodder. That would be achieving two goals with one blow — baker

Correct. What is important to bear in mind is that the Chief Jihadi entity is America who created and leads NATO as an anti-Russian and anti-German organization, and expects its proxies and client states to do most of the work on America's behalf.

It's the same mentality Britain had in WW1 when it expected Russia to flatten the Germans after which the French would finish them off and the Brits would go in with a small expeditionary force to claim "victory" over the Germans and add Germany's African colonies to the empire. The Americans have inherited not only much of the British Empire but also the mentality.

You're so hyped up that it clouds your judgment. — baker

Don't you know, the only thing you're likely to come across in the Finnish outback is reindeer in the winter, giant mosquitoes in the summer, and some isolated trolls in between. Judgement would be the last thing to expect .... :smile:

That's clearly not pro-Putin or pro-Russia. In some earlier discussion elsewhere, I also saw him commenting negatively on Putin. — baker

Absolutely. I have repeatedly said that I'm against Putin's policies like his alliance with Turkey which is a neo-fascist state with a long history of racism, slavery, and genocide, as well as being a NATO member.

Racism in Turkey – Wikipedia

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

And, of course, saying that Crimea has never been Ukrainian is stating a historical fact, not being "pro" or "against" anyone. I also repeatedly said that I believe in free and independent countries and continents.

And I don't see anything wrong with giving Crimea, which has been Russian for centuries, back to Russia, and the same goes for areas within Ukraine that are inhabited by ethnic Russians, IF that's what those areas want.

Unfortunately, you can't reason with NATO's zombified jihadis and activists on steroids. Complete waste of time, to be quite honest ....

If a person’s presumed existence is unsupported by independent evidence, then that person is likely ahistorical.

History has records of a pharaoh Ah-Mose(s) I, who was Egypt’s national hero, but not of a Hebrew leader of that name. In fact, “Moses” itself is an Egyptian word meaning “son” or “heir” (“ms”) to which the Greek ending “-es” was later added, as already recognized by Philo and Josephus.

ms – Wiktionary

Egyptian “ms” (Hebraized as “moshe” and Hellenized as “moses”), was often added to the name of a deity to form a personal name. In this case, Ah-Mose(s) birth name was “Jah” or “Aah” (the word for “moon”) + “ms”. On being crowned king, he assumed the official title Nb-Pehti-Re (“Lord-Strength-Sun”).

The OT does mention a prophet Amos and an “Amoz”, but the information provided is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the origin of the name or the identity of the character(s). Quite possibly, Amos/Amoz is a distorted memory of Ah-Mose(s) as is Moses himself. It must be remembered that as pharaoh, Ah-Mose(s) was not only the head of the Egyptian state, but also the religious leader.

Another OT name that may be linked to Pharaoh Ah-Mose is King Mesha of Moab. However, as with Moses and Amos, the evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.

All that can be said is that, unlike the historical Pharaoh Ah-Mose who was Egypt's political and religious leader, the Hebrew Moses is a legendary and, possibly, ahistorical figure.

Indeed, having been under Egyptian control for centuries, the whole of Canaan and particularly the Israelites (who allegedly had lived in Egypt) must have preserved some memory of a great leader like Ah-Mose in the same way Persians preserved memories of Alexander the Great, for example.

However, just as Alexander in Persia’s national memory became Iskandar/Sekandar and son of a Persian king, not a Greek, so also Israelite memory of Ah-Mose gradually began to fade and was reconstructed centuries later when a new national consciousness had rendered Jewish history inconvenient or embarrassing and a conscious effort was made to erase and rewrite it to fit a new political and religious ideology. The result was that Ah-Mose became Moses.

Additionally, as the OT text was composed centuries after the supposed time of “Moses”, and underwent subsequent editing, it is impossible to form an objective idea of the kind of religion he introduced, if any. This means that “the religion of Moses” is necessarily a retroactive construct.

This being the case, all we can do is to go by what evidence we have. The OT (2 Kings 22:8) states that “the book of the laws of Moses” was mysteriously “discovered” in the Jerusalem Temple by a priest named Hilkiah in the reign of King Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). We are also told that on the basis of that book the “original religion of Moses” was reinstated.

Now this event supposedly took place at the end of the First Temple period. Indeed, the Book of Kings was apparently composed in the 600’s BC and edited in the 500’s BC, after the destruction of the Temple.

So, what had been the religion of the Israelites prior to the "discovery of the laws of Moses"? The OT tells us exactly. It was a polytheistic religion centered on a solar deity (Sun-God) and his female consort Anath or Asherah a.k.a. “Queen of Heaven”. On the Island of Elephantine, there was even a Jewish temple dedicated to Yahweh and Anath.

Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine - JSTOR

The OT also states that Sun worship was introduced by King Solomon, the builder of the First Temple, and promoted by his successors, the kings of Judah. This logically means that Sun worship formed a central part of Judaism throughout the First Temple period (957 BC to 587 BC), in other words, for the entire history of Judaism as official religion of the Jewish state!

The “Queen of Heaven” is equally mentioned as a central deity. Following the destruction of the First Temple and the deportation of the Jews to Babylon, Hilkiah’s son Jeremiah wrote his own book in which he described the religion of the Jews:

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven (Melekheth ha-Shamayim), [i.e., sacrificial cakes in her image] and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods (Jeremiah 7:18).

Jeremiah condemned this and cited it as the reason for the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. But in the same book we are told that the people in fact rejected the “religion of Moses” which the priestly elite apparently sought to enforce, as well as the claim that God was punishing them for following traditional religion:

We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm (Jeremiah 44:17).

This is a point also made by leading archaeologists like Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) who note that the periods corresponding to the reign of “renegade kings of Judah” were actually periods of relative peace and prosperity, which is inconsistent with claims of “divine displeasure”. Indeed, it makes little sense for God to allow traditional religion for centuries and then suddenly show his “wrath” and “punish” the people by sending in the Babylonians.

Many Israelites incorporated these aspects of religious practice—a female consort, carved images of the divinity—into the worship of their god, Yahweh. They did this even long after Solomon is said by the Bible to have built an exclusive home in Jerusalem for Israel’s god.

Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel · The BAS Library

As a matter of fact, the existence of a Goddess cult in Israelite religion has been suppressed for many centuries with words like “grove” being routinely substituted for “Asherah” in OT translations:

The name Asherah appears forty times in the Hebrew Bible, but it is much reduced in English translations. The Vulgate in Latin provided lucus or nemus, a grove or a wood. From the Vulgate, the King James translation of the Bible uses grove or groves instead of Asherah's name. Non-scholarly English language readers of the Bible would not have read her name for more than 400 years afterward – Asherah Wikipedia

In addition, archaeological evidence shows that Jewish homes had house altars for cult images, like all other peoples in the region.

It follows that the modern concept of ancient Judaism as “the religion of Moses” is a highly idealized, i.e., imaginary one that is inconsistent with the evidence and with logic alike.

What remains to be considered is the religion of the Second Temple. The Temple was rebuilt in 516 BC. But at this point Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, the Persians having taken over the Babylonian Empire. So, the official religion of the empire was Zoroastrianism and traditional religion continued to be observed throughout the region.

Cult images seem to have gradually disappeared from Jewish homes, but there were still scriptural references to Yahweh associating him with the Sun and, in 333 BC Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, initiating the Hellenistic period that produced Hellenistic Judaism:

Hellenistic culture had a profound impact on the customs and practices of Jews, both in Judea and in the diaspora. These inroads into Judaism gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism which sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism - Wikipedia

The evidence shows that the Hebrews were Canaanites and that their original religion and culture were Canaanite in character. In addition, Canaan was controlled by Egypt for many centuries, followed by Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. While the majority of the population naturally preserved its ancestral, i.e., Canaanite religion, the political leadership was influenced by the religions of their successive overlords (see the kings of Judah’s Sun-God seals), and this influence may have spread to some extent to the rest of the population.

In any case, there is no evidence that Judaism in its current form existed at any time in Ancient Israel. Hellenistic Judaism was a Jewish-Greco-Roman cult. And Rabbinic Judaism only began to replace Hellenistic Judaism in the 500’s AD.

So, the Judaism of Jesus’ time was not very different from Greco-Roman or Hellenistic religion. There was a central Temple at Jerusalem where animal sacrifice was practiced as in Greek and Roman religion. There was no emperor worship. God Yahweh was worshiped but he was probably associated to some extent with the Sun which was a prominent deity throughout the region as it had been for centuries, and which explains why Palestinian Jews saw Hellenistic representations of the Sun-God (or Yahweh as the Sun) in their synagogues as entirely acceptable and normal.

If this had been such a “scandalous” practice as some believe today, there would have been records of strong opposition to it. But no such opposition existed, because Jews were largely Hellenized, however inconvenient this may sound at present.

The problem, then, is cultural and psychological. People start with a retroactive construction of Judaism as a purely monotheistic and uniquely “Jewish” religion introduced in Canaan by “Moses” and his followers, and from this they extrapolate all kinds of conclusions that are not only unsupported but positively contradicted by the evidence. For example, the claim that the Jews (or their Hebrew/Canaanite ancestors) rejected all external influence.

The truth of the matter is that Hebrew religion and culture were heavily influenced by the religion and culture from which they emerged, i.e., the religion and culture of Canaan and surrounding areas. We know that the Hebrew calendar was borrowed from Babylon and that the Hebrew months were later given Babylonian names which they bear to this day:

Rabbi Hanina said: the month names came up with them from Babylon (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 1:2, 56d).

As Canaan had been under Egyptian control for many centuries, the Hebrews prior to the adoption of the Babylonian calendar seem to have used an Egyptian-style calendar in which the months were referred to by numbers. Similarly, though Passover is said to commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, it also has parallels in the Egyptian spring festival Shemu and the Babylonian New Year’ festival (which fell in the month of Nisannu, March/April).

Even the term “messiah” (Hebrew mašíaḥ) seems to be of Egyptian origin, the word msh (messeh) being connected with the ritual anointing of Egyptian kings. As the OT states, the Israelites, who admittedly did not have a king until that time, specifically requested to have a king “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5).

Like all other peoples, Jews have always borrowed from other cultures and continue to do so. It’s time to let go of silly prejudices and acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus and his disciples may well have been influenced by Hellenistic concepts such as striving to become morally and spiritually perfect (teleios) as taught by Socrates and Plato, that are not found in the Hebrew Bible but appear in Greek-influenced Jewish thinkers of the first century AD like Philo of Alexandria.

Even resurrection (anastasis) has close parallels in Greek religion:

In ancient Greek religion a number of men and women became physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius was killed by Zeus, only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality - Wikipedia

Early Christians were naturally aware of this. For example, Justin Martyr wrote:

When we say Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus (1 Apol. 21).

Ultimately, by incorporating teachings from various traditions such as those of Greece and discarding others, Christianity was able to offer a powerful and timely message with a universal appeal, thus becoming a world religion, whilst Judaism in its Rabbinic form went in the opposite direction, rejecting Hellenism and remaining a self-centered national cult increasingly focused on the “Exodus” and “law of Moses” narrative.

From what I can see, the only one that is backpedaling here – to pre-kindergarten levels of discourse – is you! :rofl:

For your information, Haaretz isn’t “my authority”, I merely quoted the article as an example of mainstream knowledge of which you appear to be ignorant.

By “Judaism” I meant Judaism in its historical form in the period under discussion, i.e., from its beginnings in Ancient Canaan, not Modern Judaism which is a totally different story!

“A Roman cult” can be ANY cult observed by inhabitants of the Roman Empire, e.g. the worship of a particular deity. “Imperial cult” is the worship of the emperor. They are two TOTALLY different things. Hellenistic Judaism was the former but not the latter. Very simple and easy to understand - to normal people, that is.

Hellenistic Judaism “flowered” in the 4th and 5th centuries in the sense that it increased in influence and appeal, not that it started at that time! A plant sprouts, grows, and flowers at successive points in time without ceasing to be the same plant. Hellenistic Judaism was established before Jesus, it was growing at the time of Jesus and flowered after him. Are you sure English is your first language???

You are trying to backpedal on your claim that they worshipped the literal sun. — Fooloso4

You are confused. First they worshiped the Sun as God, then God as the Sun, and then God as God. And later some turned to Marx .... :smile:

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus. — Fooloso4

Nonsense. It became more influential after Jesus, but it started centuries earlier. The region had been under Greek control from around 300 BC:

All Judaism after the conquests of Alexander was Hellenistic Judaism. The Hellenistic period begins with the conquests of Alexander, but when did it end? In one sense, it continued under the Romans and even encompassed the Byzantine period, ending only with the Islamic conquest.

Lester L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism

As to the Roman cult — Fooloso4

Nope. NOT "the Roman cult", but "a Roman cult".

Indeed, Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult

It was a form of the Roman cult. Or, more precisely, a Greco-Roman cult (hence "Hellenistic Judaism") in which the Jewish God was artistically represented as the Greek Sun-God and, presumably, associated with the Sun, just as among Christians Jesus was represented in a similar way to God Apollo, i.e., as a beardless young man with long hair and a solar halo around his head:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/%22The_good_Shepherd%22_mosaic_-_Mausoleum_of_Galla_Placidia.jpg

The Jewish population, though not the Christian, was everywhere exempted from the loyal duty of emperor worship. Following the destruction of the Second Temple there was a tendency among the rabbis to mitigate various laws concerning idolatry, which was no longer considered a threat to the Jewish community. Nevertheless these same rabbis continued to reject any compliance with the imperial cult.

Emperor Worship - Jewish Virtual Library

Though Jews adopted aspects of the Roman or Greco-Roman cult, it doesn't mean they adopted emperor worship. There is nothing unclear there except to the ignorant and the confused ....

Nah, the issue isn't that he's more intelligent than me, but that he's more intelligent than philosophers of great learning and judgement, especially two-headed ones. He also appears to have some knowledge of "shifting things". Perhaps he did mean shape-shifting reptilians, as you suggested.

Sure. The question remains though as to what Biden meant:

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube

It seems to be something of a mystery. And if even philosophers of the greatest learning and judgment like those here don't know, what chance do mere mortals have? Biden must have an intelligence far superior to all of us ....

I see. Well, never mind, it's all a theory (or an old hat), anyways ... :smile:

Wow. I think his hat may be beginning to fall off now ... :wink:

Why don't you tell? It's your theory. — jorndoe

It isn't "my" theory any more than it is yours.

It's a political term that refers to world governance, as often used by Western (and sometimes other) politicians:

New world order (politics) - Wikipedia

But I'm not a politician, so you better ask Biden (or Baden) ....

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it. — baker

Not necessarily. I think a certain degree of objective observation and honesty is sufficient.

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Slavic people. Take English "Polack" or German "Polacke" for Polish people, or German "Kanake" for South-East Europeans in general, for example.

Polack - Wiktionary

Having said that, Slavic peoples sometimes use derogatory terms for each other, which probably adds to being looked down on by non-Slavs.

However, I don't view "conspiracy research" as irrelevant, just that (from my point of view at least) it's more a journalism activity than philosophical or political project. — boethius

That's exactly why, personally, I prefer to analyze it in terms of a conflict between geopolitical spheres of interests. The "conspiracy" may or may not exist but the conflict is generally acknowledged and beyond dispute.

Philosophy, after all, must be based on facts, otherwise it's just idle speculation. And the more facts are available for analysis, the better. US dominance of international organizations especially in the fields of security, trade, and finance, for example, is not disputed by scholars. See US Hegemony and International Organizations, Oxford University Press (2003), etc.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West.

And that is when hysteria, hype, and agit-prop begin to be substituted for rational debate, and meaningful discussion becomes impossible, no matter what forum you happen to be on.

This, of course, is facilitated by the media and its political masters or collaborators. Take Zelensky's claim that the end of the world has arrived or that Russia is trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people in a "final solution", for example:

They are saying these words again — ‘the final solution’ — in relation to us, the Ukrainian nation ... it was said at a meeting in Moscow ...

From there to "Putin wants to take over the world" is not far .... :smile:

All of this stands in opposition to your claim that they worshipped the sun as a god. — Fooloso4

The OT says they did in the First Temple period!

And you're obviously unable to grasp the concept of "Hellenistic Judaism". Regarding Hellenized synagogues in Israel, the Haaretz article says very clearly:

These shuls and their mosaics only seem strange when compared to the later synagogues of Rabbinic Judaism, but they are perfectly in line with the Roman cults of the period. Indeed, Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult.

So in this respect the existence of the zodiac and the portrayal of the Jewish god as a solar deity in synagogues was in line with the general thrust of Roman religion during the period.

The bottom line is that it’s hardly surprising that Roman-Byzantine synagogues portrayed the sun, or Yahweh as a solar deity: The Jews who prayed there were essentially Romans and this is how the Romans of the period envisioned and portrayed the supreme god.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-the-metamorphosis-of-the-sun-god-in-ancient-synagogues-in-israel-1.9157775

No one is saying that the Jews worshiped the Greek or Greco-Roman Sun-God, though some Jews may have done just that, in the same way some modern Jews worship Jesus.

But the Jewish God they worshiped was "portrayed as a solar deity", exactly as in the First Temple period and before, because that was how Hellenistic Judaism, the dominant form of the religion, conceived of God at the time.

The article states in unambiguous terms:

It was not Rabbinic Judaism, which would eventually become Judaism as we know it but at the time was only taking shape on the sidelines of the Jewish world. The Jews who prayed in these and other synagogues belonged to what was then the mainstream of Judaism but is now long forgotten: Hellenistic Judaism.

Can't you read??? Rabbinic Judaism, or what you counterfactually choose to imagine Judaism "must have been" at the time, did not exist. It's something that emerged centuries later, after the decline of Hellenistic influence and the rise of Christianity and Islam.

I bet you even walk on all fours. Or maybe on a zimmer frame .... :smile:

"New World Order"? If so, ye' can't be serious. — jorndoe

True, the term "World New Order" does get mentioned from time to time by our overlords, but it's not an established fact that it's anything more than something "cool" to say they made up drinking on the golf course one day. — boethius

Here's Biden announcing a "New World Order" led by America in Business Roundtable address:

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube

Was he just about to say "We're going to impose a New World Order", but slightly changed the phrasing?

In any case, maybe it isn't Russia who's behind the NWO agenda, after all ....

Of course you are doing that, only so long as it's in line with YOUR idea of "arguing against the pro-NATO narrative". :smile:

Anyway, carry on arguing, I'm not preventing you, am I? I was simply replying to @boethius.

However, focusing on this historical minutia would be missing the forest for the trees. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler ... fascism was simply a popular movement and that's what brought about WWII, in conjunction with post-WWI policies that brought about the great depression. — boethius

I don't think that was what I was focusing on at all. On the contrary, my focus was on the larger picture which is the conflict between rival world powers. Without the rivalry between America and Russia, which is a continuation of the previous rivalry between Britain and Russia, there would be no conflict over Ukraine.

Anyway, from what I see, there are at least three anti-Russian threads on this forum, including this one. So, I honestly don’t understand why there is so much fear and panic when someone posts one comment that disagrees with the pro-NATO narrative. I find it quite odd, actually.

As I said, maybe the best solution would be for the mods to post comments on our behalf and we just sit and watch – or, even better, we can ignore the “discussion” and the forum …. :grin:

Well, Russia makes up a very large percentage of the world's Slavic population. And NATO is admittedly anti-Russia.

Plus, my question was addressed to @baker, not to you, so I don't see why there was a need for you to intercept it and put an "antisemitic" spin on it.

Moreover, I NEVER said NATO is only anti-Russia or anti-Slavs. On the contrary, I've repeatedly said NATO is also (or even primarily) anti-German.

It’s a well-known fact that NATO was created by America “to keep Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay - NATO

But the way I see it, Russia is equally entitled to create a military organization to keep America out of Europe. Likewise, Germany is entitled to create an organization to keep America and Russia out of Europe, etc., etc.

I don’t think America should have more rights over Europe than Russia or Germany. On the contrary, Russia should have more rights over Europe than America, and Germany as a Central European country, should have more rights over Europe than both Russia and America.

The problem is that America and its client states Britain and France have always hated Russia for having its own interests. First, they hated Russia for being “czarist”, then they hated it for being “communist”, and now they hate it for being “Nazi” or “Stalinist”. Or, perhaps, “Nazi” and “Stalinist”. Or, maybe, just for being Russian!

And the same goes for Germany. America, Britain, and France hated Germany for wanting to be an independent country, then they hated it for being “militaristic”, then for being “Nazi”, and now they hate it for not being militaristic enough and for refusing to play the role of NATO’s attack-dog against Russia!

Plus, as stated before, America and Russia invaded Germany in 1945. The Russians eventually left but the Americans are still there. Why can’t America just get out and leave Germany and Europe alone???

Why must Europe be an American colony? Why doesn’t America go and colonize China, India, Africa, or some other place like Afghanistan? Why Europe? Is it because Europeans have been brainwashed into seeing America as the master race that has a “God-given right” to rule over them?

IMO if America wants Russia to stay out of Europe then it should lead by example and go home first. And take its British and Turkish poodles with it. Unfortunately, that's impossible because the whole point of NATO is "to keep the Americans in Europe"!

If by "saner points" you mean parroting the mandatory pro-NATO line, then this should be stated in the OP. Anyway, I've got better things to do, so don't let me interrupt your "discussion" ....