Abraham came from Ur

reddit are my fanboys but ive never used it myself. couldnt get the images to load

We have no hard evidence Abraham was even a real person That he came from Ur is even more suspect.

that said Judaism has it roots in the myths of Mesopotamia, altered to fit the new theology

Why don't you go back and see if they finished loading yet.

> Abrahamic religion and its fusion of different faiths

Can you expand on this?

He's pulling it out of his ass. He doesn't understand religion or mythology, he's just a teenager that took a World Religions course.

The idea that the Abrahamic faiths evolved from the already existing polytheisms of the local semitic peoples is standard academic consensus these days.

First, academia is irrelevant.
Second, origins of a religion are irrelevant.

Those are some nice objective standards you get there.

The origins of Judaism are relevant because if it was a product of history, as other religions are, then it wasn't divine revelation being handed down by God himself.

>academia is irrelevant
Get the fuck back to T_D and stay there you fucking imbecile.

>objective standards
Objectivity doesn't exist.
>as other religions are, then it wasn't divine revelation being handed down by God himself.
False, that's not how religions work.
DONT QUESTION MUH DOGMA ABLOOBLOO MUH TOURIST ATTRACTION RELIGIONS ;CCCCC

Well, modern civz started their, so whats your point?

>He was created by the cult of Yahweh to legitimize themselves in light of Cyrus the Great's conquest of Babylon.

Though his identity can be traced back through the J and E source.

You're a legitimate retard, that's for sure.

You literally can't provide a decent argument.

>Abrahamic faiths evolved from the already existing polytheisms of the local semitic peoples

as in the identity of YHWH was there and evolved or that YHWH came out out of local semitic people?

As a Karaite

I don't consider myself as a Mesopotamian, i rather see myself as a semite spiritually-wise

Wasnt the nigga just trading in Ur or some shit?

>Abrahamic religion is based on ritual sacrifice and slaughter

abrahamic religions r sacrifice based, moloch is one incarnation their sacrifice-feasting deities

they are all babylonian mystery religions sacrifice is the theme

No they aren'.

Sacrifice isn't unique to Babylon you turd. Sacrifice is forbidden in Christianity and Judaism.

As in Yahweh was originally just one god among many among a semitic pantheon, even had a consort, and was later a monolatrist god, and finally a monotheist god (standard theory is that contact with the Persians pushed them towards monotheism).

It's literally just we wuz civilization n sheeit. Hebrews were actually just the canaanites they claimed to have killed

>standard theory
Nobody cares about academics.

it is though. you're ad hominem can't change the fact that christianity is a product of the evolution of previous religions before it and therefore its features are entirely arbitrary and cannot possibly be sacred if it derives from religions that were polytheistic

It's not, stop miming what some idiot on reddit told you.

>I have no idea what I'm doing

Wrong, stop deluding yourself.

>he says on a board about academic subjects

Why are you here?

>le i use reddit as an insult meme XD!!!
I get you're trying to fit in, but stop trying so damn hard. Christianity is literally an offshoot of Judaism.

Many of these arguments are the standard of the academic world, though many within the spectrum will have different or modified opinions of what you've just presented.

>As in Yahweh was originally just one god among many among a semitic pantheon

Which one? The evidence for him even being in a pantheon is thin and lacking, he had already become synchronized with El by the time of the kingdoms. YHWH cannot be found in any other pantheon to say the least, he seemed like he was highly non-syncretic

>even had a consort

The standard idea proposed by Dever (and Olyan I think). Though evidence for his consortship is now disputed due to the analyzation of the nature of YHWH and his asherah (or asherim). Asherah as a consort deity presence was at near extinction in the region of Israel by the time of 11th century BC. Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions has been proposed to being an object of YHWH's which was called an asherah (asherah also means a wooden block).

>later a monolatrist god, and finally a monotheist god

I would disagree with this, since the definition of monotheist has lead to problems with defining the Ancient Israelites view of YHWH. The problem with this, is that if he did become a monotheistic god (which I presume is only ONE GOD THAT EXISTS) then it denies critical analysis of divine beings in Isaiah and also divine elohims in the dead sea scrolls. To say also that the Persians pushed monotheism is lacking. Zoroastrian texts are of medieval date around the 10th century, likely disconnected from it's original time period (though some Gathas and phrases may say otherwise). Two it also ignores so-called monotheistic passages in pre-exilic texts, whether these be Exodus 15 or Psalm 29 (showing incomparability/kingship) or they'd be mythic battle passages in which YHWH has full control over. Also additionally the lack of personhood among polytheistic deities is another key sign which was recognized for many years.

>there is no textual or physical evidence the older faiths came up with the myths the abrahamic faiths plagiarised
wew lad

So?
>fit in
I've been here longer than you. I've probably been here longer than you've had pubic hair.
>evidence
Doesn't exist.

>what is utnaptishim
>what is the adam & eve cylinder seal

>utnaptishim
Irrelevant

Evidence doesn't exist, it's an ideological construct.

>I've been here longer than you.
That's what all the cancerous newfags say.

could it not be possible that each of those religions Christianity descended from held some fragment of truth, and that Christianity is the completed tapestry of those truths?

Keep telling yourself that.
no that would be FUCKIN STUPID THERE IS NO GOD DUH

>utnaptishim
>adam & eve cylinder seal

what does that have to do with Abraham?

>no that would be FUCKIN STUPID THERE IS NO GOD DUH
you claimed its features were arbitrary on the basis that it evolved from other things, so i debunked that. Think critically user, instead of dismissing shit that does not agree with what you believe. are your fingers arbitrary because they evolved from primates?

You debunked nothing
>evolution happens
Top ideology

>no that would be FUCKIN STUPID THERE IS NO GOD DUH

gettin awfully salty here

The argument from authority is still a fallacy lmao

definitely a shit-poster or just retarded.

anybody i dont like must be le troll or le stupid haha NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH ME

So what?

You seem like a troll because you're basing your argument off of opinion rather than conclusive evidence you normie

>Derr Science exists and tells the real truths, religion is stupid
Every scientist knows that part of the scientific method is that it is a collection of accurate THEORIES, not complete truths

>evidence is good becuz muh ideology
Science is ideology, theories are ideology.

>macro image
>posting Trump, wow I'm so cool guys!!!

if both the garden of eden and the flood story are memes, what are the chances abraham isn't one either?

They aren't memes, you sperg.

They obviously are. One was put to stone 2200BC and the other on tablet in 1300BC, whereas the torah was first written in 500BC. And those older sources on the genesis myths deliver a very different perspective than the abrahamic take. What happened? Did God change his mind? Or is that the abrahamic version got it all wrong? Or maybe, just maybe, it's all fucking oral tradition memes that the jews adopted and reworked into their patriarch/ancestor worship.

I would have also mentioned the literary and poetic uncanny parallels between genesis 1-3 and the opening of the enuma elis as well, or the syncretism of zoroastrianism with judaism which led to the jews adopting the concepts of the messiah, of cosmogonic dualism between good and evil and of the afterlife (courtesy of the babylonian deportations of 750BC and 600BC).
But it doesn't seem like you're interested in the origins your myths and simply want to confirm your bias.

No, stop shitposting.

...

>arguments are good because reddit sed so

>the mainstream historical and archeological consensus are now reddit
ok kid, back to /pol/ with you

Yes, they are
>kid
I'm twice your age.

Just saying "no ur wrong" is not a valid rebuttal, I know you're just baiting for (You)'s but you could at least try a little harder. And if you're truly a bonafide retard who rejects academic historical research why the fuck are you on Veeky Forums?

its not valid because muh reddit

>Which one?

Canaanite, as far as I've ever heard.

>rest of post

That's pretty interesting. I'm not an expect on this subject. Have you done a lot of research on this?

>I'm twice your age.

Then it's all the more shameful that you're acting like someone half his age.

anybody acting a way i dont like is le dumb

I've done tons of research on these issues. I read everything whether liberal or conservative works on the issue. Additionally the Canaanite pantheon is lacking due to archeological evidence. I don't wholly deny a pantheon but yhwh lacks a presence in it. The only thing that we have that is close to a pantheon is the taanch statue circa 1000bc, which features Baal and asherah. Though it seems more like a common statue for a household than an official religious one. I'll get back to you in a moment since I've got some things to do.

That's an argument from possibility. We don't know nor do I know of any evidence of such. Since Abraham appears in the J and E source. It's better to presume it could come from a Canaanite source (but that's also conjecture)

Tips fedora

>Because you were there when they created the Abraham myth weren't you?

The thing is I'm not even saying that you are wrong. Maybe he is a myth maybe he isn't, the point is you are putting every bit as much faith in your claim that he was not a real person as people who believe in him are.

You presented no evidence to back up this claim and act like everyone who doesn't believe you are somehow idiots and you are the superior mind.

Please keep that shit on Reddit and don't bring it here. Prevent facts or well grounded series with some type of supporting evidence. By not doing so you become a hypocrite and are too stupid to understand this.

>edgy

if the premise before abraham is proven not to be hebrew/canaanite and to be copied from other cultures, then it goes beyond the probability argument and the abrahamic faith can be dismissed as manmade. The myth of abraham itself is probably ancestor worship thrown into the mix. As always there is probably a kernel of truth to it, just like the mycenean minotaur myth which probably retells their rebellion/campaign against the minoeans. But you can't just say "oh well eden and noah are obviously borrowed myths but since you cant trace some of what happens later in the story, then the whole thing must be true and you're just making an educated guess". If the foundation myths are false, then what is buult upon them cannot be credible either.

Christians can't even agree on the nature of christ. Hell they killed or tried to kill any others who had different views of christ than themselves. Divine word of god my ass, more like kike toilet paper.

holy fuck you're retarded I don't need to prove a negative. You are asserting Abram and the myths are 100% real. So prove them. Dismissed nigger

>tips mitre

Tell me from what Hebrew traditions or apostle scripture do Easter and Christmas come from?

>CHRISRTKEKS BLOWN OUT EVERY YEAR ALL YEARS
>RELIGION OF PEASANTS AND PLEBS SO GO PICK MY COTTON YOU DUMB NIGGER

>if the premise before abraham is proven not to be hebrew/canaanite and to be copied from other cultures

no evidence of such source being copied, especially (what I was arguing) the abrahamic narrative. Plus even today, the ideas of the adam and eve narrative and the Noah's ark story is a mixed bag. Scholars don't accept wholecloth influence or coping from the ancient texts. Though my position of the antediluvian sources (Genesis 1-11) is:

1. first Oral tradition
2. second polemic responses to deities of different nations
3. thirdly Babylonian influence

But even then, today no scholar I know of believes a panbabylonism hypothesis (a literal taking of meso works). Second, several scholars have doubted if the influence from mesopotamia works were present there, since they've recognized that function and narrative contradict with each other when parallel, Alan Millard, John Walton and Kenneth A Kitchen (the father of modern egyptology) have all critique the large babylonian influence of these texts. Personally I don't 100% hold to this position.

> The myth of abraham itself is probably ancestor worship thrown into the mix.

Evidence please, I know no such evidence found in the journals, if J and E source provide the story of Abraham the most (which they do) then it would have been impossible to do so since by the time it was written YHWH was a national deity with exclusivist ideals.

>But you can't just say "oh well eden and noah are obviously borrowed myths but since you cant trace some of what happens later in the story, then the whole thing must be true and you're just making an educated guess".

But did I make that? I never agree it to be true or not, but we don't know 100% where the source came from and scholars are divided on this issue and I am to, don't put words where they are.

Additionally here's what actual scholars think about Abraham and I want you to note what you said about it being ancestral worship

At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities (LUTHER 1901; MEYER 1906, cf. WEIDMANN 1968: 89–94) or in terms of astral myth (GOLDZIHER 1876:109–110, 122, 182–183; JEREMIAS 1906), particularly Abraham, since he was associated with centres of the Mesopotamian →moon cult (Ur and →Haran). →Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham’s father →Terah with the p 4 moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham’s place of origin (Josh 24:2), mythological interpretation of the Abrahamcycle plays no role in recent discussion

Itt: christians getting shrekt

part 2

Recent scholarship has become increasingly sceptical about the historicity of Abraham and the patriarchal era (THOMPSON 1974; VAN SETERS 1975; BLUM 1984:491–506; KÖCKERT 1988:300–323). Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuchal traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places (Shechem →Thukamuna, Gen 12:6–7; →Bethel, Gen 12:8; 13:3–4; Mamre, Gen 13:18; Beersheba, Gen 21:23; Moriah / Jerusalem?, Gen 22:2; 1 Chron 3:1); he came either from Ur or from Haran in Mesopotamia (Gen 11:27–32; 15:7); his pastoral and sedentary life is mainly concentrated in the environment of the Negev (Beersheba, E) and/or Hebron (Mamre, JP) and he was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23:1–20, JP; 25:1–7, P). Traditio-historical research basically agrees that his connections with Haran, Shechem and Bethel are of a secondary character and originated when tradition identified Abraham as the father of Isaac and ancestor of the Northern tribes (→Jacob; NOTH 1948: 112–127). The traditions of Mamre and the ancestral tomb of Machpelah near Hebron possess, however, a certain credibility. The traditions about Abraham, the Hebrew, who lived near the →Terebinths of the Amorite Mamre (Gen 14:13 with parallel accounts in Gen 13:18; 14:18; 18:1; 23:1, 19) suggest that the cult of Abraham was originally at home around Hebron (ALT, KS 1, 54–55; JEPSEN 1953–54:144, 149). See Dictionary of Deities and Demons: subject Abraham.

>An actual intelligently constructed series of posts from a clearly well-read poster who justifies points from experience with sources.

What the fuck board am I posting on again?

see

Confirmed retard

Nobody cares about stupid fucking morons who seriously think that Veeky Forums is an appropriate place to argue the merits of the abrahamic faiths.

More likely that it's all just stuff people made up to explain their place in the world and natural phenomena that they didn't understand fully.

>sacrifice of Lamb of God Jesus, Isaac, Jephthah's daughter,
>being this returded

Christ is referred to by his apostles as "the Lamb of God", the one to whom all sacrifices

its ancient pagan ritual sacrifice ("trial by fire" ) to moloch rebranded as redemption/endure persecution

the sacrificial lamb to the molochites

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions

In Judaism, the qorban is any of a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah. The olah (the "holocaust" or burnt offering).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter

circumcision is a blood ritual

>circumcision is a blood ritual

I would assume for modern Judaism and not Ancient Israelite thought? Since primarily circumcision to the Israelite people was a sign of commitment and covenant of YHWH and his people.

>no evidence of such source being copied, especially (what I was arguing) the abrahamic narrative.
So the sumerians and akkadians were those who copied it instead? Evidence please.

>But even then, today no scholar I know of believes a panbabylonism hypothesis (a literal taking of meso works).
Panbabylonism got btfo because it overreached but the initial assumptions on which it's built are quite sound. Elohim's Eden, the antideluvian account of Abel & Cain, the Flood, the Enlil/Elil/Elohim connection are all backed by evidence and all precede the earliest written biblical accounts by millenia in half of those cases.

The relationship IS unclear however, at least in terms of physical evidence. We have nothing backing up that the hebrews indeed copied the myths (or that they didn't). So what's left in terms of concrete evidence is a clear mythological relationship possibly going back as far as the 3rd millenium (adam&eve cylinder/eten&emesh dispute tablet), the nature of which eludes us. What I have seen modern scholars argue is more along the line of a heretical/sectarian split than simply foreign proto-hebrews adopting a myth foreign to them. An early reformation of faith if you will where the aggressive aspects of the enuma elis were purged and accompanied by syncretism of other sumerian city states.

"Neo-panbabylonists" can't force others to believe jews copied the sumerian myths, but they can force you to acknowledge both cultures have the same myths (or rather the core of them pre-abraham) and that one culture does predate the existence of the other as far as current archeology tells us.

Though it's interesting you rejected the sumerian hypothesis but then went on to list Abraham as an early sumerian deity from Ur turned patriarch.

>So the sumerians and akkadians were those who copied it instead? Evidence please.

Did I assume it? No I didn't make wind of such a claim of abraham being copied, I'm not the one claiming that the Adam and Eve works or the Noah narrative is considered 100% original, I'm not Kaufmann who thought that the Israelites were 100% unique.

> the Flood, the Enlil/Elil/Elohim connection are all backed by evidence and all precede the earliest written biblical accounts by millenia in half of those cases.

never denied it or put forth a position claim that the antediluvian narrative was considered a non-influence work that came first before them (the tower babel is clear evidence of it being exilic), the parallels are obviously there and as I said I'm don't hold the most conservative positions where it wasn't influence or adapted.

>"Neo-panbabylonists" can't force others to believe jews copied the sumerian myths, but they can force you to acknowledge both cultures have the same myths (or rather the core of them pre-abraham) and that one culture does predate the existence of the other as far as current archeology tells us.

it's not like I didn't acknowledge this, Ugarit for starters helped the Israelite polemise Baal by claim YHWH was the cloud rider.

>Though it's interesting you rejected the sumerian hypothesis but then went on to list Abraham as an early sumerian deity from Ur turned patriarch.

Never did, read BOTH POSTS again
>Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham’s place of origin (Josh 24:2), mythological interpretation of the Abrahamcycle plays no role in recent discussion

you'll see that I'm responding to the claims that Abraham worshipped as an ancestor. No one believes the early hypothesis' of the patriarchs as deities. I put a part two which shows that Abraham had multiple strands of traditions from Israel.

Covenants in were sometimes sealed by sacrificing a living being, with the implication that the party who breaks the covenant will suffer a similar fate.

The Abraham covenant is part of a tradition of covenantal sacrifices, which dates back to the third millennium BC. Those that are slaughtered in the covenant in Genesis 15 are considered a sacrificial offering

In Hebrew, the verb meaning "to seal a covenant" translates literally as "to cut"

the mohel then sucks the sacred blood part of this blood ritual ancient sacrifice-based blood ritual

the genocide of Jews throughout history has been justified as redemption through sacrifice, trial by fire

this has been downplayed to portray a humanistic side to moloch worshiping

There's evidence for the flood, though.

There is plenty of evidence for localised floods (not surprising really), not a worldwide flood.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth