The phenomenology of the historical jesus.

[outhouse]

Let me source pre monotheism for you as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _and_Judah

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan and may have been brought north to Israel by the Kenites and Midianites at an early stage.[81] After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East.[82]


Just like Karen says LOL

[Sheshbazzar]

3:1-5 Several things made the folly of the Galatian Christians worse. They had the doctrine of the cross preached, and the Lord's supper administered among them, in both which Christ crucified, and the nature of his sufferings, had been fully and clearly set forth. Had they been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, by the ministration of the law, or on account of any works done by them in obedience thereto? Was it not by their hearing and embracing the doctrine of faith in Christ alone for justification? Which of these had God owned with tokens of his favour and acceptance? It was not by the first, but the last. And those must be very unwise, who suffer themselves to be turned away from the ministry and doctrine which have been blessed to their spiritual advantage. Alas, that men should turn from the all-important doctrine of Christ crucified, to listen to useless distinctions, mere moral preaching, or wild fancies! The god of this world, by various men and means, has blinded men's eyes, lest they should learn to trust in a crucified Saviour. We may boldly demand where the fruits of the Holy Spirit are most evidently brought forth? whether among those who preach justification by the works of the law, or those who preach the doctrine of faith? Assuredly among the latter.

outhouse john's faith confession.

[Clive]

Try comparing Armstrong on Mohammed with Shoemaker or Holland. Crone?

And your wiki article is discussing Israelite monotheism. What is "Israelite"? I was arguing that came from somewhere that actually is not mentioned in the wiki article - Persia.

And you have moved the goal posts.

I do not understand how it is you allege you are experienced at studying to some form of academic standard, then you reference Armstrong and Henry!

It is also fascinating how you seem to miss and derail the points of discussion.

I was proposing that one god concepts are also socially constructed, as a very important facet of how to run an empire, but all you have done is quote some of the earlier pre imperial belief processes of certain tribes.

[Clive]

And how exactly did Zara influence monotheism in Judaism who worshiped Yahweh? Before and after these Iranians?


Greek cultures had little to do with the evolution of monotheism. But your welcome to share some info, if you think you have any.
outhouse

No idea how two huge empires that are now at least two and a half thousand years old - (been around the British Museum lately?) had any effect on some tribes in the Western Levant!

[Robert Tulip]

Derailing and missing the point is not fascinating, it is rude, and deserves to be ignored, at best.

[Clive]

Outhouse, I have been rereading your posts, do you realise you are arguing with yourself about this? Why, are you getting a glimmer that it might be story and play and ritual all the way down?

[Clive]

I have come across a Bachelor's degree study of Israeli monotheism that interestingly does not reference Finkelstein!

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/vi ... ona_theses

Finkelstein begins his first lecture with a review of the research and writing on the history of Israel over the last century. He rejects the work of the American school as represented by William F. Albright. He characterizes this as attempting to use archaeology to prove the Bible. Finkelstein also rejects what he terms as the "minimalist" school of scholars who have sought to fix the creation and writing of the Old Testament largely in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. In place of these he argues for his "centrist" position. This view understands the period of Josiah (c. 640-609 B.C.) as formative for everything before it. In other words, the scribes of Josiah's age created or rewrote the "Bible" to conform to the concerns and religious values of Josiah's time. Therefore, events closer to this period, such as things that the Bible would place in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries B.C., are deemed more reliable. Those described earlier are of little value and only occasional historical worth. For Finkelstein the key role of archaeology becomes the defining touchstone by which all biblical matters are to be evaluated.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/t ... al-israel/

Jesus looks like the product of a later rewrite of the Bible!

[Clive]

And if archaeology is the touchstone by which all biblical matters are to be evaluated, why do Churches face East?

[Sheshbazzar]

I do not understand how it is you allege you are experienced at studying to some form of academic standard, then you reference Armstrong and Henry!
It is also fascinating how you seem to miss and derail the points of discussion.

This happens when one attends lectures and 'studies' religion at ORU, or equivalent.

[outhouse]

Try comparing Armstrong on Mohammed with Shoemaker or Holland. Crone?

.

Nope, I heard she sucks there. And I have no reason to study anything about the plagiarizing pedophile warrior.

What is "Israelite"?

If you don't know, you have no business debating it.

I was arguing that came from somewhere that actually is not mentioned in the wiki article - Persia.

Not very well you were not. Nothing without the use of imagination

I was proposing that one god concepts are also socially constructed

Really?

Then how come you miss Armstrong also makes that case, as the people would become semi henotheistic during war times?


You proposed, then did not support your position.

It is also fascinating how you seem to miss and derail the points of discussion.

To me, it is because you don't have a clue what your even debating, and I cannot follow your imagination.