Je bil Freud prvi, ki je rekel, da si je judovstvo sposodil iz atenizma?

Je bil Freud prvi, ki je rekel, da si je judovstvo sposodil iz atenizma?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Zdi se, da vsak vir, ki ga omenjam, pripisuje Freudu. Je bil kakšen prejšnji zagovornik?

Spoznal sem, da je prvotno napisano vprašanje grozljivo nejasno. Ne iščem učenjakov pred Freudom, ki je rekel "to zelo spominja na monoteizem" Iščem dokument pred Freudom, ki je rekel "Judje so si monoteizem sposodili pri Atenu in tukaj je predpostavljena vzročna zveza."


V: Je bil Freud prvi, ki je vzpostavil povezavo med monoteizmom in Atonom?

V tem vprašanju je vključenih nekaj negotovosti.

Če želite vedeti, kateri zahodni raziskovalec je prvi odkril, da je bila Ehnatonova verska reforma v Egiptu "nekako" monoteistična: opaziti moramo, da je pri odkritju le nekaj postaj: 1714 Claude Sicard najde stelo v Amarni, 1799 Napoleon prinese Egipt preteklost v modo med evropskimi raziskovalci, 1826 John Gardner Wilkinson in James Burton obiščeta kraj in ga dokumentirata, 1828 Champollion obišče kraj samo za en dan, 1845 Karl Bunsen objavi 3 zvezke, ki zajemajo mesto Egipta v svetovni zgodovini, potem pa že Karl Richard Lepsius o tem ste pisali morda želim vedeti leta 1851. "Über den ersten Aegyptischen Götterkreis und seine geschichtlich-mythologische Entstehung. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1851." Čeprav v tem delu misli, da je Ehnaton duhovnik Re in le, da so prepoznavne močne težnje po monoteizmu.

Če želite vedeti, ali je bil Freud prvi v zvezi s tem, kar bi lahko imenovali monoteizem v starem Egiptu, z monoteizmom v starem Izraelu? Potem je odgovor, da je bil Freud dovolj drzen, da je ugibal, da je bil Mojzes sam Egipčan, ne pa Izraelec ali Hebrej, dovolj drzen, da je zamislil idejo, da so Mojzesa na koncu ubili Hebrejci zaradi svojega radikalizma. Freud je bil pol stoletja navdušen opazovalec egiptologije in je ves čas na ta način razveseljeval ideje. Kajti takoj, ko so se prizadevanja za izključnost v Ehnatonovih verskih reformah pokazala v štipendijskih ugibanjih, so divjala, da bi jo povezali z judovsko zgodovino.

Razen očitnih razlik in razlik med verskimi tradicijami so vzporednice med versko zgodovino Egipta, Izraela in drugih bližnjevzhodnih sistemov prepričanj vsaj tako zanimive. Toda to v resnici ni izum zahodnih sodobnih učenjakov.

Monoteistično revolucijo Ehnatona in ustanovitev izraelskega monoteizma pri Mojzesu so pogosto združevali, najbolj znani Sigmund Freud v svoji zadnji knjigi, Mojzes in monoteizem. 4. poglavje »Mojzes in Ehnaton: spomin in zgodovina« raziskuje zgodovinske in mnemozgodovinske temelje tega problematičnega zbliževanja. Ehnaton je izključno zgodovinska osebnost, ki je bila v starodavni egipčanski kulturi odrečena kakršni koli tradiciji in spominu, saj je bila podvržena popolni damnatio memoriae. Mojzes pa je figura izključno spomina, ki pripisuje izjemen pomen kot utemeljitelj monoteizma v judovski, krščanski in islamski tradiciji, o zgodovinskem obstoju katere pa niso našli niti najmanj sledi. Zato ni čudno, da sta se številki, ki se tako popolno dopolnjujeta, pogosto združevali.

Obstaja pa celo poznoegipčanska tradicija, ki Ehnatona (imenovanega Osarseph) identificira z Mojzesom: Manetonova legenda o gobavcih, katere sklicevanje na izkušnje Amarne potrjuje odlomek v Diodorju na piramidah. Ti in drugi viri kažejo, da je bila v egipčanskem kulturnem spominu močna tradicija o treh velikih katastrofah in časih trpljenja v preteklosti in njihovem zmagoslavnem premagovanju, med njimi je tudi izkušnja Amarne. Te tradicije o egipčanskem trpljenju in končnem zmagoslavju kažejo presenetljive vzporednice s svetopisemsko zgodbo o izhodu, ki kaže na dejstvo, da poznoegipčansko izročilo (okoli 600 pr. nastanejo popolnoma neodvisno drug od drugega.

Jan Assmann: "Od Ehnatona do Mojzesa. Stari Egipt in verske spremembe", Ameriška univerza v Kairu Press: Kairo, New York, 2014, str.

Freud je s svojo knjigo res prinesel nekaj "prvih". Toda večina teh prvih je zdaj tako kritiziranih, kot so bili, ko je objavil svojo knjigo. Čeprav je nekaj točk, ki niso povsem psihoanalitične, a dejansko utemeljene v razumevanju zgodovine njegovega časa, edinstvene, sta sestava in sinteza idej zagotovo. Da ima Mojzes egipčansko ime in da bi to lahko namigovalo, da je etnično Egipčan, je hipoteza, ki je še vedno aktualna na seminarjih katoliške teologije.

Toda za "povezavo" med Mojzesom in Ehnatonom Freud ni bil daleč prvi pri tem. Zato bi sklenil, po drznosti enak Freudu, takoj kogarkoli je Ehnatona označil za nekakšnega monoteista, vsi začel opažati "povezavo" s tem, kar je sčasoma postalo judovski monoteizem takoj.

Od začetka 20. stoletja so znanstveniki trdili, da obstaja možna povezava med Ehnatonom in starodavno izraelsko vero, Mojzesom in monoteizmom.

James K. Hoffmeier: "Ehnaton in izvor monoteizma", Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York, 2014, str. Xi.


Posodobljeno vprašanje:

V: Je bil Freud prvi, ki je rekel, da si je judovstvo sposodil iz atenizma?

Najverjetneje ne.

Glede na to, da je Freud slavno knjigo izdal leta 1939 in jo začel pisati leta 1937, bi od OP zahteval nadaljnjo natančnost glede datuma, ko je Freud prvič javno sprejel to idejo. Če vzamemo 1937/9 kot presečni datum, bi to bilo ena prejšnji primer:

H. R. Hall: "Egipt in zunanji svet v času Ehnatona", Revija za egipčansko arheologijo, letn. 7, št. 1/2 (apr. 1921), str. 39-53

Nikakor pa ni nemogoče, da navdih ni izgubil zunaj Egipta. V Nubiji, kjer so Atonu postavili templje, je umrl; toda v Palestini ne moremo biti prepričani, da je bilo res tako. Zdi se, da je bil celo sredi upora postavljen palestinski Khinatuni, kot bi seveda pričakovali od egiptovskega uradništva na severu kot na jugu zunanje oblasti; to bi bilo kralju povsem všeč: ne bi se boril, ampak bi učil. Kako vemo, da monoteistična doktrina Heliopolisa (spet Mojzesova »modrost Egipčanov«, izvedena pri On) ​​ni preživela v Khinatuniju, pa naj bo to v samem Jeruzalemu ali morda v Betšemešu, »Hiši Sonca«, " in da to ni bil zametek, iz katerega je izviral monoteizem Hebrejcev, nas samih in muslimanov?

In še prej, vendar se je bolj osredotočal na Jožefa kot na Mojzesa, vendar je zanikal vsako edinstvenost monoteistične misli v starem vzhodnem kontekstu:

Hugo Winckler: "Abraham als Babylonier, Joseph als Ägypter: Der Weltgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Biblischen Vätergeschichten auf Grund der Keilinschriften", JC Hinrichs: Berlin, 1904. (na spletu na archive.org)

Izkazalo se je, da so zgodovinske osebnosti tega časa znane tudi svetopisemski tradiciji in da so te, ki jih je treba predvideti v pomembni epizodi predizraelske zgodovine.
Amenophis IV, faraon na katerega je naslovljenih večina teh pisem, ali je Palestini takrat vladal poslanec, namestnik ali kakorkoli ga hočejo poklicati.

Odločilni razlog, zakaj mora Jožefova pripoved predpostaviti pogoje tega časa, pa ni v korespondenci zunanjih razmer, ampak v bistvu namena svetopisemskih pripovedi nasploh. Njihov namen je dokazati, kako in v kakšnih okoliščinah se je razvila vera, kot nosilec tega se počutijo izraelski prebivalci. Bistvo te vere je monoteizem. Nihče, ki nima vpogleda v bistvo orientalskega kulturnega sveta, gre za vprašanje, ali so misli, kot so tiste, ki so podlaga Mojzesovega nauka, človeške glave že razmišljale v tisočletjih pred obstojem Izraela kot ljudstva. To tudi ni protislovje, ki ga želi poučevati sam izraelski nauk. Kdor to trdi kot zaslugo Izraela, ima izvajanje monoteizma v nasprotju z novo babilonsko doktrino v Hamurabijevem obdobju - torej navdihnjeno in pogojeno z njim, kako vsak izraz človekove duhovne dejavnosti spodbuja svet misli njegovega čas in odločen v svojem razvoju, kako je reformacija dobila svoje impulze zaradi pritožb katoliške cerkve - v Egiptu so nekoč poskušali izvesti podoben monoteistični nauk, a "vstal je nov faraon, ki o Jožefu ni vedel ničesar", se je Egipt vrnil k svojim starim bogovom.
(prevod in poudarek moj)

Dejansko celoten članek, ki vsebuje zadnji citat, trdi, da je bil monoteizem bližnji vzhodni razvoj, ki se je razširil po vsej regiji, z dokazi o določenih korakih sem in tja, Amenophis IV pa je le en pomemben korak direktne črte ali veje, proti izraelskemu monoteizmu.


Pristopimo k temu od zadnjega dela konja in poglejmo, kako je Freud od koga dobil največ navdiha in kako se je razlikoval od tega neposrednega navdiha:

Sigmundov skrivnostni vsakodnevni dnevnik za ta datum zgolj omenja obisk "gospe Gunn z egipčansko antiko", vendar sta bila skupaj z njegovimi vnuki dokumentirana, ko so v vrtnem ribniku pregledali zlate ribice v amaterskem filmu princese Marie Bonaparte, ki je zdaj prikazan vsak dan v Freudovem muzeju. Leto kasneje je Lucian obiskal vzhodnoangalsko umetniško šolo Cedrica Morrisa in kmalu zatem, približno v času dedkove smrti, dobil kopijo Breastedove Geschichte Aegyptens s katerim je pol stoletja pozneje poziral za fotografijo Auerbach. Poseben ležeči način, na katerega Lucian predstavlja toliko svojih sedečih, nakazuje na zavestni ali nezavedni vpliv tako njegovega dedkovega psihoanalitičnega kavča kot na egipčansko mumijo, njegove sanjske figure, oblečene ali gole, ki so strmele v vesolje, dokler se ne vrnejo k zdravju in/ali zavesti. Posebna uporaba te ležeče poza za čudake, prijatelje, žene, ljubice in mamo (slednja je bila upodobljena po njenem poskusu samomora in na koncu, podobna mumiji, v sami smrti) ponavadi podpira to hipotezo.
V Mojzes in monoteizem, Sigmund Freud je šel dlje od Breastedovega Zora vesti trditi, da je bil Mojzes Egipčan, ki je svoj ikonoklastični monoteizem izpeljal od revolucionarnega faraona, ki časti sonce, Ehnatona, nato pa so ga ubili nehvaležni Judje, ki jih je izpeljal iz suženjstva. Knjiga je bila dokončana v Londonu in izšla v zadnjih mesecih Freudovega življenja. Freud je sledil Breasted v prepričanju, da: »Naša moralna dediščina ... izhaja iz širše človeške preteklosti, ki je zelo starejša od Hebrejcev, in prihaja k nam bolj kot ne od njih.« Breasted je opozoril na presenetljive vzporednice med Ehnatonovo "himno soncu" in psalmom 104, pa tudi na zadolženost Knjige pregovorov za tako imenovano "modrost Amenemope".

Maurizio Ascari &, Adriana Corrado (Eds): "Mesta izmenjave: evropska križišča in napačne črte", Rodopi: Amsterdam, 2006, str.


Verjetno ni prvi, vendar ga nihče ne bi prehitel za več kot 40 let in bi bil zelo presenečen, če bi kdo drug naredil tako kot on.

Kot ozadje je bil atenizem religija, ki jo je Pharoh Akhenaten vseh 20 let poskušal spremeniti v Egipt okoli 14. stoletja pred našim štetjem. Nato je bil okroglo zatrt. Ker je bila ta vera kvazi-monoteistična1, težko se ne sprašujem, kaj če bi imela kakšno povezavo z drugimi monoteističnimi religijami na Bližnjem vzhodu. Večina naših podatkov o tem pa izvira iz črk Amarna, ki so jih odkrili šele konec 19. stoletja. Tako res ni bilo časa pred začetkom 20. stoletja, da bi se kdo o tem vprašal.

Freud je bil v bistvu ustanovitelj psihoanalize. Vendar sodobna psihiatrija na splošno meni, da je psihoanaliza malo dokazane praktične koristi, če že ne naravnost. Njegove stisnjene stvari za obnovitev spomina so še posebej tresenje in iskreno vsak rezultat, ki je prišel, verjetno pove veliko več o psihologu, ki opravlja analizo, kot o revnem subjektu.

Njegova knjiga Mojzes in monoteizem je bila poskus pokazati, kaj bi lahko dosegli, če bi uporabili njegove psihoanalitične tehnike, zlasti potlačeno okrevanje spomina. zgodovinsko analiza. Rezultat je bil toliko nesmisel, kot bi predvideval sodobni psihiater.

Vendar je bilo precej podrobno. Torej, čeprav so posamezne koščke morda predlagali že drugi, je bila celota v celoti njegov izum.

Svetopisemski zgodbi o Mojzesu nasprotuje Freud, ki pripoveduje dogodke in trdi, da je Mojzes pripeljal v svobodo le svoje bližnje privržence (v nestabilnem obdobju egipčanske zgodovine po Ehnatonovi smrti okoli 1350 pr. N. Št.), Da so nato ubili Mojzesa v uporu, in se kasneje pridružila še enemu monoteističnemu plemenu v Midianu, ki je častilo boga vulkana, ki so ga imenovali Jahve. Freud je domneval, da je bil Mojzesov bog zlit z Jahvejem in da so bila Mojzesova dejanja pripisana midjanskemu duhovniku, imenovanemu Mojzes.

Pustil sem konec tega citata, kjer zahaja v rasno in versko žaljivo ozemlje. Freud je bil ateist judovske dediščine, ki so ga v zelo antisemitski družbi nacistične Nemčije poskušali vzeti resno (in odkrito ostati pri življenju), njegov prezir do vere in ponotranjenje rasizma njegove družbe je očiten2. Kljub temu ni treba, da te stvari sedijo na več spletnih straneh, kot so že.

1 - Priznaval je več bogov, vendar je treba častiti le eno vrhovno božanstvo. Nekateri trdijo, da tudi nekateri starejši deli Tore berejo tako.

2 - Tudi to je povsem možno, da se mu je zdelo, da je njegova dediščina zaradi njegove lastne zaščite sprejela ta pristop. Knjiga je izšla istega leta, ko je Nemčija začela prisiliti Jude v geta.


Zgodnji judovski monoteizem in egipčanski atenizem - eno in isto?

Verski vplivi na Ehnatona in njegovega brata Tuthmoseja iz templjev v Heliopolisu so močno prispevali k oblikovanju njihovih sistemov primerjalnega prepričanja. S spodbujanjem starejših solarnih prepričanj so duhovniki Iunuja odprli svet starih religij, kjer je v osnovi obstajal en vir, prvotni bog prvega ustvarjalca. Ker se je njihov oče Amenhotep III vse bolj distanciral od duhovništva, je postavil precedens, da sta se oba kneza popolnoma ločila od sfere sorazmerno sodobnega Amun-Ra.

Koncept enotnega boga ustvarjalca, neviden in vseprisoten, je bil osnova religije, ki jo je Mojzes poskušal vsiliti Izraelcem v puščavi, zato je lahko bil tiranski v svojem vztrajanju, da je njegova pot pravilna. Le pogledati je treba dogodek Zlatega teleta, da bi videl Mojzesovo pretirano odzivanje.

Zlato tele iz Svetega pisma in njegove zgodbe ( CC0)


To je zanimiv koncept in pokazalo se mi je, da ta ideja dejansko velja.

Dejstvo je, da je bil Mojzes avatarna utelešenje Ehnatona, ki bi razložil podobnosti v njihovih posameznih dogmah.

Ni bil Mojzes tisti, ki je uvedel skrinjo kot prostor za hrambo Petoknjižja, temveč Abraham. Čeprav je Peteroknjižje veljavno samo po sebi, je nujno razumeti, da je biblija neveljavna zaradi dejstva, da je koncil v Niceji zanemaril vključitev potrebne rodoslovne in sorodne mitologije, kljub temu, da se je izkazalo, da koncil vključuje ta starodavna babilonska in sumerska besedila belega goloba, ki so jih videli kot svoj božanski “znak ”.

Razumevanje, da so si duhovniki v Niceji prizadevali ustvariti podjetje z dobičkom, ko so oblikovali starodavna besedila, ki bi postala Biblija, pušča celotno primarno načelo krščanske dogme nagnjeno proti temu, vključno s celoto novega zaveza, ki je zgodba o Jezusovem življenju ali bi morala biti.

Čeprav je bil posameznik z imenom Jezus karizmatičen posameznik, ni bil božanski. Jezus je pravzaprav zanikal, da je bil Božji sin ”, in čeprav je imel sledenje, ki je dokumentiralo njegove misli, so duhovniki v Niceji, ki so poskušali ustvariti industrijo okoli svojega življenja, dejansko združili Jezusovo zgodbo z zgodbo o Krišni , ki je v resnici obudil posameznika iz mrtvih in hodil po vodi, veliko preden so se oblikovalci Svetega pisma srečali v Niceji.

Če se vrnem k izpuščenim rodoslovnim in mitološkim besedilom, svet ni razumel pomena teh besedil in se jim ni zdelo potrebno vključiti, zato so celotno knjigo prevrnili nazaj, zaradi česar je “stvarjanje svetlobe ” v vloga “stvarka teme ”.

To dejstvo ni očitno in ni relevantno, dokler bitje teme ne vstopi v knjigo Razodetje. Toda ob upoštevanju “skrivnosti ” knjige Razodetje, ki je sedem zvezd in sedem “ svečnikov ”, tega oblikovalci Svetega pisma niso razumeli, da v več kot 50.000 letih od pisana so bila starodavna besedila, veliko je bilo izgubljenega s časom, vključno z dejstvom, da so bili sedem zvezdic in talnih svečk v resnici talismani oziroma sigile. Kar zagotovo ni orodje Arhitekta vesolja, ampak orodje čarovnika.

Ustvarjalec ne potrebuje in ne uporablja takšnih izboljšav v svojem slogu najvišje znanosti. Prav tako ne potrebuje sveta štiriindvajsetih “starejših ”, kot je tudi tisto, kar je razodetja uporabil.

Obstajajo še drugi dokazi o preobratu v sedmih vzhodnih cerkvah, ki so bile v času pisanja starodavnih besedil sedem vojsk Rudra v bitki desetih kraljev.

Potem obstaja dejstvo, da Arhitekt vesolja zagotovo nima nezakonskega otroka, kot je povedano v 12. poglavju Rev.

Ta dejstva naredijo Sveto pismo popolnoma neveljavno in ga ne bi smeli uporabljati kot premislek pri določanju česar koli.

No, Dick, najprej moraš razumeti, kdo sem.

Prvič, jaz sem pravi in ​​resnični svetopisemski prerok za konec človeške dobe, ki mi ne dovoljuje le dostopa do “ vsega videnja vsega vednega ”, poleg tega, kot so moji trije sodobniki pred mano, imam tudi breme, ki bi ga lahko razumeti kot, hodim z Bogom ”.

Zdaj je tukaj z mano in mimogrede pošilja pozdrave.

Poleg tega sem tudi prerok za bitko pri Armagedonu.

Prav tako zahtevam naziv “Usher of Destruction ”.

Sem tudi dinastični avatar. Sem zadnji modrokrvni avatar hiše Anjou in neposredni potomec grofa Anžuvinskega. Jaz sem konec 5000 let dolgega niza prvorojenih sinov in ta rodovnik mi ponuja naziv “Set of Seth ”, ki so bili tudi vsi moji trije sodobniki, Abraham, Mojzes in Noe. Če ne prepoznate “Set of Seth ”, ga lahko razumete kot “Ben Elohim ” ali bolj pogost, “Nephilim ”. Sem prvi, ki sem imel “realizacijo sebe ” v več kot 26.000 letih, od Grandsire Bhishma Patimah v zadnji bitki dobrega in zla, Mahabharati.

Če preidemo na biblijo in morate razumeti, da je vsa stvar nazaj, pozneje sem jaz zver z “ sedmoglavo glavo, ki se dviga iz morja ”, in starec (Bog, do katerega izgovarjate svoje molitve) je “dragon ”.

In zadnji, ki ga bom navedel, ker je naslovov več, je, da sem vitez templar, ki bo osvobodil sužnje cerkve. Prvega domina sem že potisnil, da bo, od koder pade zadnji, podrl krščansko vero in osvobodil dojemanje revnih jagnjet, ki so kupile laži, ki jih je zagrešila od Niceje, ko je poskušala potisniti svojo pot v vse naše resničnosti kot posrednik naše duhovnosti. Morda ne razumete, da pri vzponu ni nobene “religije ”.

Razlog, da je vse tako zajebano, je, da ni bilo nikogar, ki bi postavil rekord v dobrih 50.000 letih, saj je stari Mojzes tukaj pustil opustošenje. Pravzaprav bi moral Noah, vendar je svoj položaj zavrnil, ker je bil jezen, ker je moral v puščavi zgraditi čoln, in vsi so se mu smejali. Kot “Prophet ” je bil njegov koncert, da je razširil glas o nevihti, ki se bliža. Zavrnil je.

Tako da vseeno upam, da boste za nekatere od njih sprejeli moje poverilnice in rodovnik.

Preostanek lahko preverite sami, na primer Rev 12,5, kjer je svet v Niceji napačno postavil Starca v vlogo “stvarstva teme ” in mu podelil pokal “disco ”.

Povedal vam bom, da je sramežljiv in vase zaprt neženja. Nima nepomembnega otroka, Dick.

“Njegov otrok je bil ujet k Bogu in na njegov prestol ” je konec pete vrstice KJV in te besede so mu vsekakor napačno podarile otroka.

Starešine “ starešine ” so v 5. poglavju, 14. verzu, pa tudi na drugih mestih.

Drugi dokazi, da to ni starec, so v 3. poglavju, kjer prisili Jezabelo, da ga pokvari (verz 14-15), pa tudi prisili vsakogar, da kupi zlato ali karkoli drugega, kot je to storil v 18. verzu.

Naj vam povem, mladenič, nikoli ne bi grozil, da bo ubil Jezabel ali koga drugega in otroke, kot to počne v 2. poglavju, 23. vrstica, ki pravi “ In ubil bom njene otroke s smrtjo in vse cerkve bodo spoznale, da sem jaz tisti, ki preiskuje vajeti in srca: in dal bom vsakemu od vas po vaših delih. ”

Ne zdaj ali nikoli, Dick. Ne v stilu starega človeka njegovega dela. Uničenje pade na drugega.

Največji podatek pa je skrivnost “mystery ” knjige razodetjev. Za delo z blagovno znamko najvišje znanosti ne potrebuje talismanov, sigil, čarovnic ali zajčjih stopal.

Svet ni razumel teh orodij čarovnika in zato so vsem sledili blef, tako da je bila skrivnost “mystery ”, zastonj pa porabijo celotno prvo poglavje, poskušajo razložiti te “mystery ” predmete stran.

Zdaj pa nazaj k drobljenju cerkve.

V 17. poglavju Razodetja je jasno razloženo, da obstaja sodba, ne le ob koncu časa, ampak vsakič, ko se premikate skozi močno svetlobo na koncu predora. To so samo izpustili.

V 17. poglavju se posvetujeta o dveh knjigah. Knjiga življenja je ena, a prva odprta knjiga, ki jo ima vsak od mrtvih.

To je njihov rekord Akashic. Njihova karmična knjiga računov. Vsakega izmed njih ocenjujejo njegova “dela ”. To je, dobri gospod, karma.

V njihovem “odpuščanju ” je absolutno nič, kar je bila velika laž cerkva. Odpuščanja ni, ne zdaj ne nikoli. Ne morete se povzpeti, če vaš karmični račun ni v dobrem stanju.

Druga laž je dejstvo, da je bilo Razodetje vzeto iz tistega, kar bi postalo stara zaveza. Preostanek nove zaveze je tako rekoč izmišljen. Nekdo je bil karizmatičen po imenu Jezus, ki pa je zanikal, da bi bil Božji sin ”.

Posameznik, ki je hodil po vodi in vzgajal posameznika iz smrti, je bil Krišna, veliko pred koncilom v Niceji.

Obstajajo pa dokazi, da je nova zaveza “deception ”, vendar je to druga objava.

Oh, BTW, lahko sami preverite zgodbo o belih golobicah.

Če vam lahko posodim še nekaj znanja, da bi našli razumevanje, sem tukaj za vas Dick.

fant oh fant oh fant … kakšen dooozie ….

V tem sem zelo užival in zelo dobro sledil. Marsikaj sem že prebral. Ne bi me motilo, če slišim več o tem, kar imate povedati.

Verjamem, da sem del Zmaja ali kaj podobnega. Ne vem, kateri del. Vem pa, da sem nekako skrivnostno naletel na vaš profil na spletnem mestu, ki ga nikoli ne obiščem. In čutim neko povezavo. Moj namen v življenju je, da bi ta svet znova postal lep in razsvetljen na lestvici MASS. Oglejte si povezavo do moje spletne strani v mojem profilu. Povej mi, kaj vidiš.

stavba nevroloških znanosti

Kategorija pretežno je dobesedno kupljena razvija n. Kalifornijski priznani center za šolo za usposabljanje, običajno napredne za koristne raziskave, dobro obveščene avtoritete in kompetentni posamezniki, ki imajo morda takšne razsežnosti, da so naravni [url = http: //www.charmdatereviews.com/attract-hot-ukraine -women-on-ukraine-women-dating-sites/] ruska galerija neveste [/url] dileme v prihodnost in se nadaljuje v smeri vsega znanja vse življenje. vsi predlagajo osebne smeri za najdene temelje in metode v fizikalnih znanostih in [url = http: //www.charmdatereviews.com/attract-hot-ukraine-women-on-ukraine-women-dating-sites/] mlado rusko dekle s starejšimi človek [/url] je postavil posameznike za številne zaposlitvene možnosti, napredoval v razumevanju, pa tudi avtoritetne lekcije pri preiskovanju. posamezniki na tečaju bodo morda previdno zaprošeni, da se vključijo v fakultetne študije v raziskovalnem laboratoriju in na tem območju. znotraj izberite eno od treh zdravil. tudi celična Molekularna kemija in biologija omogočata privržencem, da prejmejo učinkovite programe, analizirajo podiplomske študente v okviru samo prenosljivega skupaj z molekularno biologijo, do novih trgovskih položajev nazaj v biotehnološko industrijo. en poseben, okolju prijazen, pomemben, pa tudi, medtem ko prednost organske kemije in biologije pripravlja mlade, ki so namenjeni priložnostim, ki jih najdemo v okolju prijaznem znanstveniku za vodenje vira ali raziskovalnim študijam, ki se spreminjajo v ekologiji. rastlinska kemija in biološka zmožnost ustvarjata moškim in ženskam točke o prenovi okolja, botaniki v regiji, Fbecause, iskreni naselitvi na daljavo, kmetijski biotehnologiji ali znanstvenih študijah za postavitev področja biologije. In je namenjen študentom, ki želijo uporabiti kemijo in biologijo kot osnovo za poklic na področju recepta, zdravstvenih težav, programske opreme za biomedicinske snovi, regulativnih položajev in zlasti v srednješolskem izobraževalnem izobraževanju. študentom, ki nameravajo postati srednješolski učitelji, njihova diploma vključuje potrebno podlago za izpolnitev poverilnice za eno temo.

Mikrobiološke smeri včasih vzamejo vašo osebno prehrano iz mikrobiologije ali zdravstvenega laboratorija. splošna sorta mikrobiologije je bila pripravljena za pripravo posameznikov na tečaj, ker kariere z biotehnologijo, splošno ali morda skladiščno mikrobiologijo, drogami in celo biomedicino preučujejo ali morda celo obsežne študije primerov. vaša preiskava in raziskovalna ustanova ustvarjata moške in ženske za pripravništvo kot znanstvenik, policist za zdravje in fitnes ali mikrobiolog.

šolo in nato lokacije

Fakulteta je del številnih vadniških izkušenj in ponavadi jih navdušijo njihova [url = http: //www.charmdatereviews.com/flirt-with-beautiful-ukrainian-girls-for-marriage-online/] ukrajinska dekleta za poroko [/url] mlajša generacija. ali pa bi poleg tega svetovali, bi bili učitelji vsekakor potrebni za raziskovanje v povezavi s tehnološko svetopisemsko silo, ki bi vključevalo dodiplomske študente v okviru svoje programske opreme. Spletna mesta za naravne preglede, kot je vodilno okoljevarstveno skladišče Chico Creek, nudijo kadar koli priložnost tako študentom kot tudi izobraževalcem. prosilci se potencialno sami pripravijo, da bodo zaposlovanje našli v laboratoriju, majhnem ali učečem se. klinični trgovinski položaji se nahajajo ali celo združujejo z vladnimi izpitnimi prostori, farmacevtskimi in tudi, pa tudi podjetji za znanstvene izdelke, medicinskimi podjetji in posledično kmetijskimi živili, ki se ukvarjajo s spletnimi stranmi. Pomanjkanje učiteljev v državi je bistveno, zato ima strašno pomoč pri zaposlovanju, zlasti v znanosti, dobro osvetljen prostor.

univerza, ki daje poudarek času organizacije na fakulteti, bi verjetno organizirala posameznika skupaj s statusom na notranje občutljivem strokovnem znanju in tako razmišljala prav, pravne skupine. odziv na pripravništvu, ki alternativno vključuje programe certificiranja, spodbuja zaposljivost teh področij.


Je bil Ehnaton prvi kristjan?

Idejo o Ehnatonu kot pionirju monoteistične religije, ki je kasneje postala judovstvo, so obravnavali različni učenjaki. Eden prvih, ki je to omenil, je bil Sigmund Freud, ustanovitelj psihoanalize, v svoji knjigi Mojzes in monoteizem. Freud je trdil, da je bil Mojzes atenski duhovnik, prisiljen zapustiti Egipt s svojimi privrženci po Ehnatonovi smrti. Freud je trdil, da si je Ehnaton prizadeval spodbujati monoteizem, kar je svetopisemski Mojzes uspel doseči. Po njegovi knjigi je koncept vstopil v ljudsko zavest in resne raziskave.

Drugi učenjaki in egiptologi mainstreama poudarjajo, da obstajajo neposredne povezave med zgodnjim judovstvom in drugimi semitskimi verskimi tradicijami. Navajajo tudi, da dva od treh glavnih judovskih izrazov za Boga, Jahve, Elohim (kar pomeni približno "vzvišeni", morfološko v množini) in Adonai (kar pomeni "naš gospodar", tudi morfološko v množini) nimajo nobene povezave z Atonom. Freud je komentiral povezavo med Adonajem, egipčanskim Atonom in sirskim božanskim imenom Adonis kot prvotno enotnost jezika med frakcijami, pri čemer je sledil argumentu egiptologa Arthurja Weigalla, vendar je bil argument neutemeljen kot "Aten" in " Adonai pravzaprav niso jezikovno povezani.

Ehnaton se v zgodovini pojavlja skoraj dve stoletji, preden so na Levantu najdeni prvi arheološki in pisni dokazi o judovstvu in izraelski kulturi. Obilne vizualne podobe Atenovega diska so bile osrednjega pomena za atenizem, ki je slavil naravni svet, medtem ko takšne slike niso značilnost zgodnje izraelske kulture, čeprav imajo lončenine, najdene po vsej Judeji, datirane do konca 8. stoletja pred našim štetjem, pečate, ki spominjajo na krilato sonce disk na njihovih ročajih, za katerega se domneva, da je kraljevski pečat Judejskega kraljestva.


Mnogi ljudje na ATS govorijo o tem, da je Jezus Kristus (Božji sin) odmev Horusa (Božjega) sonce) in številni drugi „sončni mesiji“. Ehnaton je bil prvi monoteist, to je dejstvo. Staro religijo politeizma je zavrgel po genialnem razodetju, da je vse življenje nehote prišlo in ga je sonce podpiralo. As with every religious shift in ancient Egypt, the old religion continued to be practiced by a few faithful priests, and occasionally went underground if the transition was volatile. This was the case after Akhenaten died.

The thought just occurred that the escape and survival of the priests may be the factual basis for the legend of Moses leading the Jews from "Pharaoh".


On top of that, there are plenty of other Egyptian 'echoes' in Christianity, such as the Trinity, angels, fish symbolism, prevalence of 'Eye' symbolism, psalm 104, Book of Proverbs, John 1:1, the word ‘Amen’, and analogues for God (clay moulder, rock etc,), among others.
[Tehuti Research Foundation]


So where does that leave us? Let’s go back to Akhenaten. Wikipedia talks about the end of the Cult of Aten. It’s worth noting that Aten was Akhenaten’s name for the Sun God, Amun-Ra (Amen).

Pretty harsh, but you can see that any further worship would have to be in secret.

Sigmund Freud, in the 30’s in fact came up with the same idea. He published his hypothesis in his book Monotheism and Moses.


In it, Freud argues that Moses was actually an Ancient Egyptian and in some way related to Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian monotheist. The book was written in three parts and was a departure from the rest of Freud's work on psychoanalytic theory. The book does contain discussion of Freud's psychoanalytic thinking but was intended as a work of history.

In Moses and Monotheism, Freud contradicts the Biblical story of Moses with his own retelling of events claiming that Moses only led his close followers into freedom and that they subsequently killed Moses in rebellion either to his strong faith or to circumcision. Freud explains that years after the murder of Moses, the rebels formed a religion which promoted Moses as the Saviour of the Israelites. Freud said that the guilt from the murder of Moses is inherited through the generations this guilt then drives the Jews to religion to make them feel better.


The next occurrence of monotheism is Zoroastrianism, around 500 BCE. Their God:


The founder of this religion was Zarathushtra. He was born in a princely family in the ancient city of Rae or Ragha in ancient Persia. Pourushaspa was his father's name and Dugdhova was his mother's. When he was born, he was named Spitama, after one of his great heroic ancestors.

At the age of fifteen, young Spitama, instead of taking up household duties, retired into solitude, renouncing the worldly life. He spent fifteen strenuous years in the contemplation of God, facing numerous difficulties and innumerable temptations. The evil spirit Ahirman tried his best in various wicked ways to wean him away from his chosen path. But Spitama was steadfast in his determination to seek God and find answers to his perplexing questions. Finally, at the end of fifteen years he got enlightenment.

After returning home, he started preaching his new religion. Many were reluctant to accept his teachings, because they had fallen into wicked ways. For several years he had only one disciple, his cousin, Maidyoimaongha. He wandered from place to place teaching men what he believed in. But it was in vain. In Iran, people were not yet ready to accept him as a prophet and follow his teachings.

Zoroastrianism and Judaism are fundamentally linked.


Judaism and Zoroasrtianism are both revealed religions and share a great deal in common. God imparts his revelation and pronounces his commandments to Zoroaster on "the Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones" in the other Yahweh holds a similar communion with Moses on Sinai. According to jewishencyclodedia.com the points of resemblance between Zoroastrianism and Judaism are many. In both faiths God is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and creator of the universe. God operates through and governs the universe with the use of angels and archangels. This presents a parallel to Yahweh that is found in the Old Testament. The Zoroastrianism Spenta Mainyu is the Christian "Holy Spirit."

Ahura Mazda's power is hampered by Ahriman (the Devil) and his host of demons. Their dominion like Satan's will be destroyed at the end of the world. The world is the Devil's domain. Zoroastrian eschatological teachings-the doctrines of a regenerate world, a perfect kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting are nearly identical to Christianity.

Both are similar in their cosmological ideas. The six days of Creation in Genesis finds a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana (women) are the Iranian Adam and Eve. Genesis has two Creation stories the first man/women is created together, the second we have the Rib tradition. In the Bible the Flood story is nearly identical to an Avesta winter story.


Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?

Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection, and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, e.g., the virgin birth, the son of God, and resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600&ndash500 BC. If that is the case, David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC. If that is the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars), and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC) doesn’t mention Zoroaster in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).

But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next, we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th century AD. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures that we have today date centuries before Christ, and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th century AD).

This looks to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about) and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.

All philosophical arguments aside, we know that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, that He fulfilled numerous specific prophecies written and preserved hundreds of years before His life, that He died on a cross, and that He was reported to have risen from the dead and interacted with men and women who were willing to suffer horribly and die for this testimony.


Vsebina

There is absolutely no evidence that Atenism was enforced in the way described in the article. It was a mere example of the same henotheism that made all Babylonian gods "emanations" of Marduk.

The following passage sounds like it's criticizing the other Egyptian gods: In contrast to the old gods, Aten appears primarily to have been seen as a loving and protective god, whose primary goal was not to punish and demand allegiance and sacrifice but to support his people through his presence. This ignores how many gods, like Anubis, supposedly helped people reach the afterlife, and it sounds like an opinion. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Smenkhkare is not referenced until late in the article and earlier refernce need to be made somewhere in the Decline of Atenism razdelek.

Finally, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay were excised from the official lists of Pharaohs

I do not know enough about the subject to make this edit myself, but I believe that he or she should be noted as the successor to Akhenaten.

That's a powerful image. It reminded of the relation of Islam to Byzantine Christianity and Arabic paganism. --Error 22:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's also a depply flawed image. Pharaoh was not an ancient Pontiff, and the Pope has nowhere near the authority necessary. I also question the assumption inherent in this article that Atenism was monotheistic. It surely does not need highlighting that such a clear-cut definition is unhelpful and confusing to the student of this subject? 87.113.115.229 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Usermaatre-Setepenre

This article seems to repeat itself a lot, but I'm too sleepy at the moment to fix it myself, added cleanup notice. - Cymydog Naakka 04:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Channel advocated a position that Moses was an Atenist Prince, and rebel son of Ramses (and thus not a Jew from the rushes) who killed his brother, the sub-King, whom would be the Pharoah who drown in the Red Sea. (and thus not a real Pharoah) . Should this be integrated into the article and sourced as an origin for Judaism?

This is a very interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence (including one of the psalms found engraved inside a tomb) and doesn't seem to be covered at wikipedia, as far as I can see. I'm going to have a look at the evidence and come back when I've done enough research. If anyone has any ideas or sources about this could they comment here and I'll keep it on my watchlist. thanks, --Sachabrunel 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC) It sounds interesting and I like it since it at least doesn't go into the "Moses didn't exist" idea. I sounds a little fishy to be because, I might be wrong, but I think it's based off of some second century AD historian who didn't get his history correct in other places. I don't beleive that Exodus ever mentions the pharoh ever actually leading the effort to catch Moses though. While a bit of an apologetics book (though I don't understand what's so wrong with defending what one beleives with evidence since everyone else can do it) Kenneth A. Kitchen (Egyptologist) gives what I think is the best evidence of the Exodus and he places it around 1260 BC I think. That's too late for Moses to be an Atenist but certainly allows enough space for Akhenaten to be influenced by the Hebrews. Kitchen's book seems to be part of a dueling triad with Finkelstein's and Dever's books on the same subject but I've read all three and I would have to say that the latter two overlook quite a bit of evidence. While not being an expert in the rest of the Old Testament, being an Egyptologist does give him an edge over the other two regarding Israel in Egypt and Moses.69.254.76.77 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC) It is speculative. If any more than Ove von Spaeth's site. Rursus dixit. ( m bork 3 !) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Responding to a years old claim, there are no psalms in the Amarna tombs. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing a Wikiproject to enhance articles on Egyptian Religion. please check it out and see if you want to add yourself.

The label of monotheism is not universally accepted and claimed to be rather Freud's interpretation. This newsgroup message suggests henotheism or monolatry. The message is written by a specialist and contains references. Pavel Vozenilek 14:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are entierly right in doubting that the term monotheism is appropriate, however there are stronger sources than newsgroups, and we'd want citations from those. Redford, I believe, has somthing in Heretic King, and Reeves has somthing in False Prophet about this as well. Thanatosimii 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) You have several references in the last part of Katherine Griffis-Greenberg's article (link provided by Pavel above your post) : Stevens, A. 2003. The Material Evidence for Domestic Religion at Amarna and Preliminary Remarks on its Interpretation in Assmann, J. 2001. _The Search for God in Ancient Egypt_. D. Lorton. It would be appropriate to also mention, in the prvi paragraph, that Atenism can be described as Henotheistic. --Squallgreg (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Nefertiti supposed to be a non-egyptian princess ? It is seen as possible that she was an Hebrew princess. And she may have influenced her husband and founded a new branch of monotheism. It's just a theory, but it doesn't look too weird, and that would prove the link between atenism and judaism for good. Would it be worthy to mention this theory ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.71.84.46 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If you can source it reliably, certainly. SamEV 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC) There aren't any sources for that theory. Nefertiti was once considered to be the same as Gilukheppa, a mitannian princess, but that theory hasn't been supported in over 50 years, and she is now almost universally considered to be the daughter of Ay and the Granddaughter of Yuya and Tjuya. Definitly not a Hebrew princess, because the Hebrews were at the very best only in Canaan for 20-40 years, and at the worst still in Egyptian slavery or (if one buys the minimalist interpretation) not yet a people group at all. In none of these scenarios could there be a state enough to define one of them as a "princess." Ask any reputable archaeologist or historian from this time period and you'll get that answer. Thanatosimii 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddelek Amarna art, from text "However, according to some controversial theories," the section starts to hallucinate and give bizarre accounts. Now: these controversial theories can stand, but the structure of the text must be improved so that it is stressed that each of these "theories" (if that would be the name of one mans/womans talkative speculation) are very speculative, and have no general acceptance. Reading about Marfan's syndrome give no indication to me that forms of those affected are more feminine than otherwise. Wild speculations are wild speculations – they're sort of WP:trivia, unless supported by a scientific argumentation. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody have improved it, nor presented any references, so I removed it as undue speculation, a.k.a. one editor's fable. Rursus dixit. ( m bork 3 !) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to post something promotional, just the facts. Is there a different, and better, way I could have written it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.132.193 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you aren't related to the earlier editor - the blog site would normally be against our guidelines. I see the same text is at Kemetism. The problem is references, have you got a reliable source (WP:RS)for this - and notability, see WP:Notability and in particular WP:Group - if a religion doesn't satisfy those criteria, it really doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not related to the earlier editor. I have actually posted on the Atenist forums for whoever it is to stop doing it, as I see it as counter-productive. I am currently looking for a good reliable source, but I am having trouble. I knew of one some years back, but can't seem to find it. 98.215.132.193 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Družina

Amenhotep IV was married to Nefertiti at the very beginning of his reign, and the couple had six known daughters and possibly one son. This is a list with suggested years of birth:

    – year 1. – year 3. , later Queen of Tutankhamun – year 4. – year 8. – year 9. – year 9. –year 8 or 9. son of The Younger Lady who is a sister/wife of Akhenaten

The Younger Lady who is mother of Tutankhamun and Akhenaten sister/wife

    , his Great Royal Wife early in his reign. , a lesser Royal Wife. , recorded as his Great Royal Wife late in his reign. , his third daughter, and who is thought to have borne a daughter, Ankhesenpaaten-ta-sherit, to her own father. After his death, Ankhesenpaaten married Akhenaten's successor Tutankhamun.

Two other lovers have been suggested, but are not widely accepted:

    , Akhenaten's successor and/or co-ruler for the last years of his reign. Rather than a lover, however, Smenkhkare is likely to have been a half-brother or a son to Akhenaten. Some have even suggested that Smenkhkare was actually an alias of Nefertiti or Kiya, and therefore one of Akhenaten's wives. , his mother. Twelve years after the death of Amenhotep III, she is still mentioned in inscriptions as Queen and beloved of the King. It has been suggested that Akhenaten and his mother acted as consorts to each other until her death. This would have been considered incest at the time. Supporters of this theory (notably Immanuel Velikovsky) consider Akhenaten to be the historical model of legendary King Oedipus of Thebes, Greece and Tiy the model for his mother/wife Jocasta.

Yahweh was originally a Canaanite god, the Jews were originally polytheists, and why do you ignore the Sumerian gods?

I just came across your answer to a question about the origin of Yahweh and usage of the name. Your info is lacking. Yahweh originates out of Canaan though he is described [sic] concerning his theophany with Baal. Both are storm Gods. The Israelites are an offshoot of the Canaanites so it’s no surprise that the Israelites who begin as polytheists often will refer to Yahweh while the Canaanites kept Baal and El. Hebrew is the oldest Canaanite language on record, go research this. And I don’t know why people miss this but the Sumerians far out date the Canaanite and Israelites, Baal, Yahweh, even El. All those gods have their roots in Sumerian cuneiform, check out the original flood epics of Ziusudra and even the much later Babylonian Utnapashtim. We can further debate this if you’d like. My question, however, why do you apologists make the assumption that atheism is such a paramount subject to tackle? Atheism asserts there is no such an animal called God and that’s atheism in a nutshell. By the way, I’m a polytheist. Polytheism which predates any monotheistic school of thought, I’d even go as far to say the first monotheistic culture is the ankhet out of Egypt and not the Israelites. But seriously why the obsession with atheism? You do realize that Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite worshipers abide?

Odgovor:

First of all, you make claims here but do not back them up with evidence. I am not being critical, as I definitely would like to hear from you, but unless you can provide evidence to support your contention that YHWH was first a Canaanite God, I will struggle to agree with your conclusion. I understand that the names El or Elohim can be traced to Sumerian or Canaaninte roots,. I have stated that repeatedly both at the web site and in my lectures, but I have never seen evidence that the name YHWH had any roots other than in Judaism. Do you have evidence to present to support your contention? I believe that you do not. My info that YHWH originated with the Jews comes from a very good source–the Bible, which happens to be rooted in the second millennium BC. I agree that the names Baal, El and Elohim come from sources outside Israel, but I have seen zero evidence to support your claim about YHWH. To me the words El and the plural Elohim are really just generic names for God, which explains why the Jews used this label for their monotheistic God. Arabs in the western world call Allah God and Christians in places like Indonesia call God Allah. These are simply the generic names for a god or, in this case, for the one God. What other word would they use for God than the common world for god, which was El? YHWH is a proper name, while El is more of a descriptive name. That is why the name YHWH is original to the Jews. I believe your claim to the contrary is simply not true. If you can provide evidence, fine.

As for polytheism, I have heard this charge again and again, but what I have not seen is evidence that the Jews were ever polytheists. They were monotheists who, unfortunately, dabbled in polytheism. The Old Testament makes that abundantly clear. But this idolatry was always denounced by the mainstream of Judaism. Were there other gods worshipped in Israel? Da. But there is no evidence, either from archaeology or from history that they ever accepted this as their national religion. Zero. Nobena. We have a LOT of documents from ancient Israel, but none of them show that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Joseph or Moses were polytheists. The Jewish nation began with Abraham. His father was likely a polytheist, but I see no evidence that the father of the Jewish nation was a polytheist. Arguments that the Jews were polytheists that I have seen are always circular reasoning, not based on actual evidence. The argument goes something like this. Obviously, Israel began polytheist because all groups did. Therefore they surely did. We do not have evidence to support this, but surely it is impossible that a group back then began monotheist, as monotheism always comes after polytheism. This is a totally circular argument, and to this day, I have seen no direct evidence that the mainstream leaders of Israel ever accepted polytheism. Again, I need to see evidence, not just statements.

As for the apologetics I teach, I try to respond to the needs as they come up. I meet few polytheists (unless you want to call Hindus polytheists, which is somewhat valid). I do not have the time to respond to a religions movement which has no presence in the cultures I interact with. If you want to be a polytheist, that is your business, but I feel little need to respond to a religious idea which is not relevant numbers-wise in today’s culture. Sorry, but this is a matter of what is practical to me. Probably less than 10% of Americans are atheists, but up to 30 or 40% of today’s youth are “nones.” In other words, they ascribe to no religious belief. Responding to atheism is a form of responding to the “nones.” In Europe, atheism is way over 50%, as it is in Russia, China and Japan. This is a massive part of the world and the need to respond to atheism is a growing need. I have no intention of letting this group go. In my discussions about worldview, I primarily respond to Islam, Hindism, Buddhism, New Age religions, atheism and postmodernism simply because these are by far the most common philosophies or religions in the world today, other than Christianity, of course.

I would guess that less than 0.01% of people today believe in the Sumerian or Babylonian gods. So… that will explain why I do not spend time responding to this idea–at least not a lot. If you go to my material on Genesis you will find that I actually do discuss the Near Eastern polytheism because this was the chief competing worldview when Genesis was written.

BTW, I think you mean Atenism, not Akhenatenism. Akhenaten IV was the one who created the Aten monotheism. Abraham was a monotheist around 1900 BC and I am sure there were other monotheists before him, but Atenism is not the first monotheistic belief. You should change your opinion about this.

Specifically, which of the Sumerian gods do you believe in? What is your evidence that these particular gods, and not others, are real and can actually impact the world? Do they answer prayer? Do they work miracles? Do you have evidence you can present to me that I can use to evaluate your claim that such and such god is real?


Freud and the language of power

In the shadow of the dying Hapsburg Empire a new treatment that focused on conversation was invented: psychoanalysis. However, who would benefit from Freud’s new method and what end would it finally serve?

Michael Wynn is the editor of historyradio.org

Sigmund Freud saw himself as part of the supercilious materialist wave that reduced men to Darwin’s apes. He was part of the liberal bourgeoisie of Vienna around 1900 and was educated in the neuro-physiology of Brucker and the hypno-theraphy of Charcot. Some time between 1895 and 1900, he broke with his old mentor Breuer and produced psychoanalysis.

Like his role model, Charles Darwin, whom he praised in a 1917 essay*, he benefited greatly from his privileged background, and like him, he was sometimes haunted by his historic limitations. While Darwin swore by his own observations, Freud based his ideas on conversation and analysis. At the turn of the century, Freud was tested in a way that would expose the difficulties of psychoanalysis, the case of Dora.

Privileged patients
Psychoanalysis was the outcome of Freud’s conversations with women who could not survive in their social straitjackets. So it was with Dora, or Ida Bauer, as her real name was, an 18 year old who was sent to Freud by her wealthy family. She had been abused by an older friend of the family as a 14-year old, and as a result she had developed several symptoms, such as continued arguments with her father, fainting and the writing of suicide notes.

«In their nature women are like feeble, exotic green house plants» Stephen Zweig joked. The contemporary ideal was, according to Zweig that «A young girl from a good family should not have the faintest idea about what a man’s body looked like not know how children are conceived, they were innocent angels». Freud never denied the fact that he benefited from family power structures and that the psychoanalyst borrowed his authority from the father figure.

But because Freud saw himself as the as a prophet of psychology, he never understood the ways in which he came to rationalize oppressive conditions in his own society. Ida Bauer was told that she denied her own sexuality when she described her fear of her abuser, «Mr K», and this qualified her to the obscure diagnosis «a hysteric». However, there were many women who claimed to be sexual victims, and Freud may have had some reason for doubt. Even so, the diagnosis becomes incomprehensible without understanding the social and historical context.

Vienna at the time
At the start of the 1900s Freud was an ambitious doctor who had struggled long in the shadow of positivist physiology he was well established with a large family which, excluding himself, included his wife Martha, as well as relatives, colleagues and a brood of children. From the safety of his home at Berggasse 19 he could defy the medical establishment and acquire the clinical experience that brought him- after several detours- to a better method of treatment. In addition, he developed a new theory about dreams and the structure of the mind.

In spite of progress, Freud failed to rise in the academic hierarchy at the university of Vienna, where he had been employed as an assistant professor for years. Vienna was the center of a conservative empire. According to Stephan Zweig there was only one thing that could shatter the social neurosis and liberate the creative forces: Art. «all these social strata existed in their own own circles and even in their own neighborhoods, the aristocracy in their palaces in the center of the city, the diplomatic corps in a third area, industry and merchants around Ringstrasse, the petty bourgousi in the inner parts, the proletariat in the outer. But they all met in the theater».

Anti-semitism flourished in the wake of various financial scandals and the French Dreyfuss affair. The right wing mayor Karl Leuger had been elected in spite of massive protest from the aristocracy and the powerful Jewish bourgeoisie. Barring the foul mob that rose from the gutter, few had the power to force through moderate reforms. Upper-class liberals like Freud now turned their back on politics and sublimated their own rebellions. A rigid society therefore seem to wither from within.

Complicated by social factors
Freud was among the first to develop a theory about how human dialogue can solve mental problems. A bi-product of this was an unsentimental description of the power structures in this conversation, both how they prevented and contributed to communication. When Dora one day slammed her door and shut Freud out, Freud saw it as a sign of weakness. Posterity, and a few literary scholars and theoreticians in particular, has compared Dora to Ibsen’s famous heroine, Nora.*

To other thinkers like Hélène Cixous, Dora became the woman who exposed Freud as a chauvinist. Women, like some religious people, have discovered that the more you criticize psychoanalysis, the more you seem to confirm its diagnosis. In the essay «On femininity» Freud declared that psychoanalysis doesn’t ask what a woman is, but how she is made. Psychoanalysis is seemingly impervious to any attack, and raises itself high above women, the religious and other so-called pathologies.

Mental Asylum, a painting by Goya, ca 1812

More humane after all
On the other hand, Freud took an important step away from the macabre laboratories of neuro-physiology and the institutionalized sadism that preoccupied many contemporary institutions. He communicated with his patients and wasn’t afraid of touchy subjects, like sex, death and aggression. But perhaps because Freud developed a theory to penetrate the defenses of the self and unveil hidden motives, he was later seen as the architect of a state sponsored invasion of the private sphere. In the doctor-patient relationship, historical positivism and its wave of materialism became a social tool of the establishment.

The power of definition
Of course, this spurred a host of counter-theories. Freud’s studies revealed that all women at some point in their childhood discovered that boys have something which they apparently lack, and that leads to “penis-envy” and supposedly causes neurosis later in life. Freud never accepted that this was in some ways a description of, if not a rationalization of, contemporary attitudes.

Later psychologists like Karen Horney understood that women needed to justify fundamental needs. They need to find a response to the old language of power. The feminist Susan Gubar begins one of her articles with the question «Is anatomy linguistic destiny?» Such a fate seemed inevitable to early feminists who suggested that penis-envy be replaced by “womb-envy”, or the stage in a boy’s life when he discovers that he is unable to give birth and consequently develops neurosis. It is not hard to see that this theoretical tug-of-war masks a power struggle.

Psychoanalysis in a vacuum?
Darwin had won his victory by gradually placing his followers in strategic positions within the scientific societies. The psychoanalytic movement followed a similar pattern, and spread throughout Europe after 1906 through intrigues and personal animosity.

The totalitarian side of psychoanalysis became increasingly more apparent as Freud clamped down on heretics within his own movement: Fleiss, Adler, Jung, Reich and others. This is a fate that psychoanalysis shares with Marxism. Where Marx saw exploitation, Freud saw neurosis, and the twentieth century seemed to follow these two in their search for hidden agendas.

Whether Freud was a positivist is debatable. However, he did write texts in which he saw himself as part of an accumulating corpus of knowledge. He also clung to scientific objectivity, and is consequently often scolded for his arrogance. Yet, it seems like posterity has blamed him for not being able to bring conversational analysis into a social vacuum. Can we really predict human behavior as reliably as the laws of Newton or describe them as eloquently as Darwin’s finches? It is not without reason that the great Karl Popper labeled both evolution and psychoanalysis as «metaphysical research programs».

Such unreasonable demands may also have also influenced Freud’s view of himself. However, in 1914, after a heated debate over psychoanalysis, the world experienced a series of irrational tremors that swept the old bourgeoisie and their prejudices aside: the shell shocks of the first world war. The immense tragedy of that conflict secured both women and psychoanalysts a better position in society.

* “A difficulty in the path of psychoanalysis” Sigmund Freud 1917.
* A simple search in google scholar revealed serveral who made the comparison.


The Genesis of Jewish Genius

In 1756, Voltaire wrote a sharply anti-Semitic essay on the Jews. They had, he said, contributed nothing to civilization. Their religion was borrowed, their faith superstitious, their originality non-existent. They were “an ignorant and barbarous people.” Still, he added, “we ought not to burn them.”

In the course of the next two centuries, Jews (or individuals of Jewish descent) became pioneers in almost every field of endeavour: Einstein, Bohr, Durkheim, Levi-Strauss, Freud, Adler, Klein, Spinoza, Bergson, Wittgenstein, Mahler, Schoenberg, Heine, Bellow, Agnon. The litany has become a cliché: less than a fifth of a percent of the population of the world, Jews have won 22 percent of all Nobel prizes.

What led to this efflorescence of genius? Thorstein Veblen thought it was because of their marginality. As Jews, they were outsiders to the majority society, and as “enlightened,” acculturated figures, they often found themselves estranged from their own community. The Jew, said Veblen, was “a wanderer in the intellectual no-man’s-land” and “a disturber of the intellectual peace”—a paradigmatic case of the homeless mind.

Freud was nearer the mark. In the last months of his life, an exile in London, dying of cancer, his Vienna occupied by the Nazis, he took up again a manuscript that he had put aside years before: Moses and Monotheism. In the last section of the book, he argued that in choosing to worship an invisible God, Jews had made the right choice. They opted for the intellectual, not the physical, “subordinating sense perception to an abstract idea.” Jews sought the unknown beyond the far horizon.

If there is such a thing as the Jewish genius, it comes, I believe, from seven features of our tradition. First is the emphasis in Judaism on education, study, and the life of the mind. As a text-based religion, it makes literacy a primary duty. The Talmud goes so far as to rank study as higher even than prayer as a religious act. Judaism’s citadels, from at least the time of the Babylonian exile, were its schools and academies. In Jewish law, building a school takes precedence over opening a synagogue. Paul Johnson, author of a fine History of the Jews, called rabbinic Judaism an “ancient and highly efficient social machine for the production of intellectuals.”

Second, Jews argue. Judaism is perhaps the only religious civilization all of whose canonical texts are anthologies of arguments. In the Bible, the prophets argue with God. In the Mishnah, rabbis argue with one another. The Talmud, rather than resolving the arguments, deepens them. Go into a university library and you will find silence. Go into the study hall of a yeshiva (rabbinical academy), and you will find everyone shouting at the top of their voices, replaying debates centuries old. I sometimes wonder whether God chose the Jewish people because He loves a good argument.

Third, we ask questions—the harder, the better. Abraham asked God, “Shall the judge of all the earth not do justice?” Moses asked him, “Why have you done evil to this people?” One of Judaism’s most ancient rituals, the Seder service on Passover, begins with questions asked by a child. To be a Jew is to say: I ask, therefore I am.

Fourth, Judaism trains you in the multiple interpretations that can be given to any text. There are, said the rabbis, “seventy faces” to every verse in the Bible. The idea that meaning is simple—Fundamentalism, we call it nowadays—is alien to the Jewish mind. Truth is rarely on the surface. So we seek the hidden patterns, the paradigm-shifting readings, the music beneath the noise. Freud interpreted dreams the way the rabbis read texts. Einstein was convinced that God doesn’t play dice with the universe, so he searched for the hidden order.

Fifth, Judaism loves chiddush, the new insight, the pattern that was always there but no one noticed before. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, one of the great Jewish thinkers of the 20th century, spoke lyrically of this feature of rabbinic culture. The man of faith, he said, is creative, and his greatest creation is himself.

Sixth, for compelling moral reasons, Jews have tended to prefer the power of ideas to the idea of power. There are three ways of changing the world. You can force people to change, you can pay them to change, or you can inspire them to change. The first is the way of politics and power, the second of economics and the market, but the third is the way of the academy and the house of study. What makes the third better than the other two is that, in the short term at least, power and wealth are zero sum games. The more I share, the less I have. Knowledge, insight, and teaching are non-zero. The more I share, the more I have. The more I teach, the more I learn.

Seventh, the great broadcaster Alistair Cooke, once told the story of a remote tribe whose members lived to exceptional old age. A team of scientists and anthropologists was dispatched to study them and find out what made them live so long. They came back with an unexpected answer. It wasn’t their diet, the climate, their lifestyle, or their genes. It was the simple fact that they revered the old. What we become is shaped by our expectations and aspirations. Why did Jews produce so many great minds? Because we revere scholars. In the synagogue we seat them in the place of honour. We even have a special blessing to be said on seeing one—two blessings, in fact, one for religious scholars, another for secular ones.

Judaism is a religion of deed, but it begins in the mind. For it is there that we discern the order of creation, the multiple meanings of revelation, and the pathways to redemption. Sadly, for reasons that go far beyond the scope of this article, the great Jewish minds that shaped the modern world were often alienated from their religion. But certain deeply engrained habits live on, one of which is that to be a Jew means never to stop learning, questioning, challenging, and arguing.

Genius rarely happens by happenstance. If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a culture and a community to produce scholars willing to begin a journey across the wilderness of the unknown, confident that even if you do not reach your destination, still the effort was worthwhile, for it is only by leaving our certainties, as Abraham and Sarah left their land, home and father’s house, that we open our minds to the truths others may have missed. It also helped that many Jewish mothers thought their child was the next Einstein.

To be a Jew is to live in the cognitive dissonance between the world that is and the world that ought to be. Think a new idea and you open the possibility of a newer and more gracious world. One of Judaism’s greatest new ideas, implicit in the first chapter of the Bible, is that the Creator wants his creations to be creative. If there is such a thing as a “Jewish genius,” that is where it was born.