Pagan origins of Judaism

[shunyadragon]

Christianity IS an evolution of an older religion... Judaism. Although it is likely that Abraham lived in a polytheistic society, and we see plenty of cases where the Israelites fell into pagan worship, there is just zero evidence that either evolved from any sort of paganism.

Rational Gaze made the above statement in Techtonics. I challenge the view that there is 'zero evidence.' I believe that throughout the OT there is evidence of a direct link between Canaanite and Babylonian paganism. The Hebrews were originally a Canaanite pastoral tribe of the hills of Judea. The OT is full of descriptions of Canaanite Divinities, and pre-Babylonian myths indicating distinct origins of pagan cultures, and actual Canaanite text.

First point is the origins of Melchizedek

[One Bad Pig]

Rational Gaze made the above statement in Techtonics. I challenge the view that there is 'zero evidence.' I believe that throughout the OT there is evidence of a direct link between Canaanite and Babylonian paganism. The Hebrews were originally a Canaanite pastoral tribe of the hills of Judea. The OT is full of descriptions of Canaanite Divinities, and pre-Babylonian myths indicating distinct origins of pagan cultures, and actual Canaanite text.

First point is the origins of Melchizedek

There's a whole lotta speculation goin' on in that article, some of it nutty (e.g., the putative Zadokite-Levite conflict). There is no hint of any sort of pantheon in the Hebrew scriptures - only one God referred to in various ways, one of which is "El Elyon". The Documentary Hypothesis (and the History of Religions School in general), upon which much of this speculation seems to be based, is largely speculation based on faulty premises.

[Adrift]

There's a whole lotta speculation goin' on in that article, some of it nutty (e.g., the putative Zadokite-Levite conflict). There is no hint of any sort of pantheon in the Hebrew scriptures - only one God referred to in various ways, one of which is "El Elyon". The Documentary Hypothesis (and the History of Religions School in general), upon which much of this speculation seems to be based, is largely speculation based on faulty premises.

Not to mention that he's already demonstrated time and time again that he barely has a clue on this subject, even from a critical perspective.

[Jedidiah]

Not to mention that he's already demonstrated time and time again that he barely has a clue on this subject, even from a critical perspective.

Well if you assume the Bible is not trustworthy you can make up anything you like.

[Adrift]

Well if you assume the Bible is not trustworthy you can make up anything you like.

It wouldn't bug me so much if he was familiar with the works of those critical scholars he's (unintentionally) invoking (Michael Coogan, John Day, Mark S. Smith, William Dever, Ziony Zevit, etc.), but he hasn't actually read anything by them, so he's going by half skimmed google web searches, and whatever he can remember from showmeproof (who had read these scholars). What we end up with is a mishmash of actual critical scholarship mixed with a lot of shunya's own idiosyncratic and barely grasped understanding of the subject.

The worse part is that, anytime anyone critiques his understanding of the critical views that he's attempting to promote and defend, he seems to believe that you're critiquing the actual view. He has it in his mind that it's some sort of tricky Christian trap or debate technique. But that's not it at all. Some of us are simply familiar with the subject matter, and are trying to help him understand (and argue!) the context of his own claims.

It's all very frustrating, which is why I rarely engage in debate with him anymore. It's a lot like arguing with a child who has a coloring book understanding of particle physics, and the child insisting that he knows more than the guy who's read Weinberg, Feynman, and Kaku.

[shunyadragon]

There's a whole lotta speculation goin' on in that article, some of it nutty (e.g., the putative Zadokite-Levite conflict). There is no hint of any sort of pantheon in the Hebrew scriptures - only one God referred to in various ways, one of which is "El Elyon". The Documentary Hypothesis (and the History of Religions School in general), upon which much of this speculation seems to be based, is largely speculation based on faulty premises.

This is not an intelligible response. Melchezidek did indeed originated as the reference to a Canaanite God.

[shunyadragon]

It wouldn't bug me so much if he was familiar with the works of those critical scholars he's (unintentionally) invoking (Michael Coogan, John Day, Mark S. Smith, William Dever, Ziony Zevit, etc.), but he hasn't actually read anything by them, so he's going by half skimmed google web searches, and whatever he can remember from showmeproof (who had read these scholars). What we end up with is a mishmash of actual critical scholarship mixed with a lot of shunya's own idiosyncratic and barely grasped understanding of the subject.

The worse part is that, anytime anyone critiques his understanding of the critical views that he's attempting to promote and defend, he seems to believe that you're critiquing the actual view. He has it in his mind that it's some sort of tricky Christian trap or debate technique. But that's not it at all. Some of us are simply familiar with the subject matter, and are trying to help him understand (and argue!) the context of his own claims.

It's all very frustrating, which is why I rarely engage in debate with him anymore. It's a lot like arguing with a child who has a coloring book understanding of particle physics, and the child insisting that he knows more than the guy who's read Weinberg, Feynman, and Kaku.

Again, not an intelligible response.

[shunyadragon]

Well if you assume the Bible is not trustworthy you can make up anything you like.

Nothing made up, Melchezidek is indeed in Canaanite language and refers to a Canaanite God.

[Adrift]

Again, not an intelligible response.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking Jedidiah, but he apparently thinks I'm responding directly to his OP. He either doesn't understand that the post was not meant to be intelligible as it relates directly to the OP, or he simply doesn't know what the word "intelligible" means.

I can say that in all of my years of forum posting, I've never met anyone quite like him (and he can take that as he will).

[shunyadragon]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking Jedidiah, but he apparently thinks I'm responding directly to his OP. He either doesn't understand that the post was not meant to be intelligible as it relates directly to the OP, or he simply doesn't know what the word "intelligible" means.

I can say that in all of my years of forum posting, I've never met anyone quite like him (and he can take that as he will).

It is best to respond to the OP in a meaningful way, and avoid meaningless banter. It, of course, was not clear what you were referring to. Regardless I was referring to your post as having a lack of substance in responding to the intent of the thread.

[One Bad Pig]

This is not an intelligible response. Melchezidek did indeed originated as the reference to a Canaanite God.

Even your pop-level source isn't dogmatic on that!

[shunyadragon]

Even your pop-level source isn't dogmatic on that!

Meaningful references please!!!

[One Bad Pig]

It is best to respond to the OP in a meaningful way, and avoid meaningless banter.

Oh, the irony. You're the king of meaningless banter, shunya.

[One Bad Pig]

Meaningful references please!!!

Did you even read what you posted?

ETA: Here, I'll quote it for you.

Source: Britannica article

or

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Oh, the irony. You're the king of meaningless banter, shunya.

Air balls, no meaningful responses do far.