History of Christianity

[Amergin]

Nazarenes and Ebionites - An Introduction

Ancient Paths - Articles - Nazarenes and Ebionites

© 1998, all rights reserved.

Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew ’Evyonim) means “Poor Ones,” and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer, drawn from Isa 11:1 and means a Branch—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites,” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch. The term Nazarene was likely the one first used for these followers of Jesus, as evidenced by Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here we see the word used in a similar way to that of Josephus in writing of the four sects/schools of Judaism: Pharisees; Sadducess; Essenes; and Zealots. So the term Nazarene is probably the best and broadest term for the movement, while Ebionite (Poor Ones) was used as well, along with a whole list of other terms: Saints, Children of Light, the Way, New Covenanters, et al. We also know from the book of Acts that the group itself preferred the designation “The Way” (see Acts 24:14;22, etc.). The term “Christian,” first used in Greek speaking areas for the movement, actually is an attempt to translate the term Nazarene, and basically means a “Messianist.”

The Essenes (possibly from 'Ossim, meaning “Doers of Torah”), who wrote or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls, pioneered certain aspects of this “Way,” over 150 years before the birth of Jesus. They were a wilderness (out in the Arava, near the Dead Sea based on Isa 40:3)), “baptist” (mikveh of repentance as entrance requirement into their fellowship), new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group (they were expecting three redemptive Figures—the Prophet like Moses and his two Messiahs), that saw themselves as the remnant core of God’s faithful people—preparing the Way for the return of YHVH's Glory (Kavod) as set forth in Isaiah 40-66. They too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth. Perhaps their most common designation was the Yachad--the brotherhood or community, and they referred to themselves as brother and sister. They were bitterly opposed to the corrupt Priests in Jerusalem, to the Herods, and even to the Pharisees whom they saw as compromising with that establishment to get power and influence from the Hellenistic/Roman powers. They had their own developed Halacha (interpretation of Torah), some aspects of which Jesus picks up (ideal of no divorce, not using oaths, etc.). They followed one they called the True Teacher (Teacher of Righteousness) whom most scholars believe lived in the 1st century B.C.E. and was opposed and possibly killed by the Hasmonean King/Priests at the instigation of the Pharisees. John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century C.E.

So, the terminology is flexible, there are a variety of self-designations used by the Jesus movement, most of which had previously been used by the Essenes. In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic “Essenism,” modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its Palestinian connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groups—and indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make, (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them “Judaizers”) is that the Ebionites reject Paul, and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or “divinity” of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus (virgin born, etc.). What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against this group(s) and claim to have replaced Judaism entirely with the new religion of Christianity, overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew.

I think it best today to use the collective term Ebionite/Nazarene in an attempt to capture the whole of this earliest movement, and it would be useful to revive the term Yachad as a collective designation for the community of the Hasidim/Saints. I use Ebionite/Nazarene as an historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, largely Palestinian, followers of Jesus, gathered around Yaaqov (James) in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their “True Teacher” Jesus. James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture. As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of guidance were passed on to him. When he was brutally murder in 62 CE by the High Priest Ananus (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197ff), Simeon, a second brother [sic “cousin” according to Hegesippus] of Jesus, took over the leadership of the Jerusalem based movement. Clearly we have the idea here of a blood-line dynasty, and according to the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1946 in upper Egypt, this dynastic succession was ordained by Jesus himself who tells his followers who ask him who will lead them when he leaves: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (GT 12). Indeed, when Simeon was crucified by the Emperor Trajan around 106 C.E., a third brother of Jesus, Judas, took over the leadership of the community.

As far as “beliefs” of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are among our best sources. There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), as well as the text of “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from other sources we can say the Ebionite/Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views:

1. Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.
2. Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.
3. Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the “easy yoke” halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the “True Faith,” the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.
4. Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).

How the earliest group/s viewed Paul is unclear. By some reports he was tolerated or accepted as one who could go to the Gentiles with a version of the Nazarene message (Acts 15, 21). Others apparently believed he was an apostate from the Torah and founder of a new religion—Christianity.

For further reading, see H-J Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), still useful and quite readable for students.

Posted by Amergin

 

[Amergin]

The Pagan Origins Of Christian Mythology
by Brice C. Smith

Real Magick Article - The Pagan Origins Of Christian Mythology by Brice C. Smith

The Judeo-Christian religions were founded in a region of the world where savior religions existed for thousands of years. Much of the symbolism and many of the stories in the Bible may be traced to earlier myths of the Persians, Egyptians, and other people from the near east. Under Constantine when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity the festivals and stories were further infused with the traditions of the earlier Roman pagan religion. Constantine himself worshipped both Jesus and the sun god Sol Invitus, the Romanized version of Mithra, until he died. It is, therefore, crucial to the proper understanding of the Bible to understand the influence that these ancient religions had on the early Jews and Christians when they were forming what was to become the Jeudo-Christian tradition.

Mithra

Among the religions that played large roles in influencing the types of religious beliefs of the ancient near east, Zoroastrianism was probably the must important. Zarathushtra is the Iranian word for Zoroaster who founded this religion in ancient Persia approximately 2000 BCE. In ancient Iranian mythology, Ahura Mazda was the lord of light and wisdom, originally an equal to Mithra the god of light and justice, was elevated to the supreme being by the prophet Zoroaster. The extent to which the writers of the Old and New Testaments were acquainted with the Persians is evident in the numerous references to the Medes and the Persians in the Bible. Mithraism, an off-shoot of Zoroastrianism, holds many striking parallels in symbolism and mythology to the latter Jewish and early Christian writings.

One very interesting addition to the Jewish mythology thought to have been taken from Mithraism is Satan himself. Up to the time of the exile, the source of both good and evil to the Israelites was God. After the exile from Egypt, the doctrine of Mithraism became widely know to the Israelites. Their writings then begin the claim that God is the one God of the universe and that he is a God of righteousness. They introduce the character of Satan to explain all of the evil in the world. It is probable that the earliest writings about Satan were actually modeled on the arch deity Angra Mainyu of Zoroastrianism. The elaborate angelology and demonology of the later Judaism, the idea of a divine judgment and a final resurrection, and a future life which may be definitely described all seem to have come at least partially from the mythology of Zoroastrianism. An interesting side note to be mentioned here is that it is commonly believed that the Magi who are described visiting Jesus at his birth were Zoroastrian priests.

The influence of Mithraism on Christian mythology is even more pronounced. Mithra, a character already ancient by the birth of Jesus, appears to be one of the models for the later mysticizing of Jesus and his ministry. It is apparent that as each of the gospels was written more and more mystery and magic was accredited to Jesus. It is these additions to the story, added many years after his death, that borrow heavily from the earlier religions already well established in the near east. The story and role of Mithra is very similar to that of Jesus. The Zoroastrian religion centered on the struggle of Order against Chaos, Light against Dark. In this battle the Sun-god was a powerful ally for the side of light. Mithra was the son of the Sun- god sent to Earth to aid in this battle against evil and to be the savior of the world.

The Mithraic festival in celebration of Mithra's birth was held on December 25, the recognized date of Jesus' birth. Long before Christmas was celebrated, December 25th in the Roman world was the Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun. This feast, which took place just after the winter solstice, was in honor of the Sun God Sol Invitus who was nothing more than the Roman adaptation of Mithra. Mithra was said to have been born in a cave or grotto where shepherds attended him and gave him gifts. This brings to mind much of the story of Jesus' birth in a stable. Mithra, like Jesus, is believed to have descended from heaven to earth, shared a last supper with twelve of this followers, and redeemed mankind from sin be shedding blood and rising from the dead. Mithraism postulates an apocalypse, a day of judgment, a resurrection of the flesh, and of a second coming of Mithra himself when he will finally defeat the principle of evil. The Mithraists even baptize their followers as Christians do, though they use bull's blood instead of water.

The similarities do not stop there. The symbol of Mithra was the setting and rising sun, which invoke images of Christ's death and resurrection. Both religions also included a sacrament of bread and wine derived from the last supper of their respective saviors. The influence of Mithraism on Christianity is even more pronounced in the symbolism and style of the later Gospels as well as in the language and dress of the early Christian leaders. The style of many Mithraic verses seem quite familiar to modern Christians. A typical verse used in a Mithraic service is "Be of good cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation." It is clear that many of the phrases used by Paul seem to draw heavily upon the terminology and style of the Mithraic religion. Another example of this borrowing of Mithraic symbolism is when Paul says "They drink from that spiritual rock and that rock is Christ" (I Cor. 10:4). Mithra was sometimes termed the god out of the rock and Mithraic services were often held in caves. In fact the Vatican hill in Rome that is sacred to Peter, the Christian rock, was already scared to Mithra. Many Mithraic artifacts have been found there. This should not be surprising when it is realized that Mithraism was introduced to the Roman empire around 70 BCE, over 350 years before Christianity was adopted as the official state religion, and that Tarsus, the home of Paul, was one of the chief centers of Mithra worship in the ancient world.

The liturgy of the Eucharist that John describes requires the converted to be born again. In John 3:3 Jesus states that "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." This concept of rebirth is again not unique to Christianity. It was in fact integral to the Mithraic religion for 2000 years before Jesus was born. In the Mithraic liturgy, it is stated that it is necessary "so that [the speaker] may gaze upon the immortal beginning with the immortal spirit that I may be born again in thought." Along with the concept of rebirth, the description of the Mithraic communion is nearly indistinguishable form the Christian accounts. The prayer said at a Mithraic communion is "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." This prayer may be compared to the Christian communion story in Luke 21:19 when Jesus breaks the bread and says "This is my body to be given up for you. This cup is the new covenant in my blood which will be shed for you." It is clear just how much influence the symbolism and terminology of Mithraism had on the earliest Christian writers. The other stylist influence that Mithraism had on Christianity is in the dress and trappings used during religious services.

The Mithraic Holy Father wore a red cap, garment, and ring and carried a shepherd's staff. The early Christian leaders adopted the Mithraic title of priest as well as their style of dress. Like the Mithraic priests, the Christian's became Father' despite Jesus' specific proscription of the acceptance of such a title. In Matthew 23:9 Jesus states that you should "call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." The Mithraic priest wore robes which featured the sword (cross) of Mithra which are identical to the robes worn by Catholic priests to this day. The Mithraic bishops wore a mithra, or miter, as their badge of office which was also adopted by early Christian bishops. During a mass, Mithraists commemorated the ascension of the sun-god by eating a mizd, a sun shaped bun with the sword (cross) of Mithra. The mass and the communion wafer were likewise adapted to Christianity. The Roman Catholic mass wafer has maintained this sun shape for over a thousand years. No one would claim that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is taken entirely from one source. As I will show, many similar adaptations were taken from Egypt, Rome, and other ancient civilizations, but it is clear that the Persian cult of Mithra was one of the most influential sources of mythology and symbolism to the ancient Israelites who wrote the Bible.
Egypt

Another important source that the early Christians drew from was the great civilization to the west, Egypt. Many of the pieces to the stories surrounding Jesus which differ from Mithraism may be found in the mythology of the Egyptians. Due to the vast differences in writing systems, the Egyptian religion did not have as strong an influence on the style of early Christian writings, but the influence of the characters and the magic associated with each is even more pronounced than it is for Mithraism.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Another important source that the early Christians drew from was the great civilization to the west, Egypt. Many of the pieces to the stories surrounding Jesus which differ from Mithraism may be found in the mythology of the Egyptians. Due to the vast differences in writing systems, the Egyptian religion did not have as strong an influence on the style of early Christian writings, but the influence of the characters and the magic associated with each is even more pronounced than it is for Mithraism.

The four most import figures in Egyptian mythology needed to understanding the Christian stories are Set, Isis, Osiris, and Horus. In earliest times, Set was the patron deity of Lower (Northern) Egypt, and represented the fierce storms of the desert whom the Lower Egyptians sought to appease. However, when Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt and ushered in the First Dynasty, Set became known as the evil enemy of Horus (Upper Egypt's dynastic god). In Egyptian religion Set, of Seth, came to stand for the forces of chaos and destruction, of energy misplaced. He was the opposer of light and the champion of darkness. Set was the principle of all which burns and consumes. In later periods, Set was identified with the Greek genie Typhon who had a serpents body. The snake is a symbol long associated with Set which undoubtedly influenced the use of the snake as the evil influence in the story of Adam and Eve. In the dynastic periods, when Osiris, Horus, and Isis were worshipped, followers of Set were persecuted and his priesthood was finally destroyed in the XXV dynasty. When the Hebrews emigrated from Egypt during the XIX dynasty, it is clear that they took with them the character of Set which was later used along with Angra Mainyu as the model for Satan. Even the word Satan was probably derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphic Set-hen, one of Set's formal titles.

The next major Egyptian character who had a large influence on the early Christians is Isis. Perhaps the most important goddess of all Egyptian mythology, Isis assumed, during the course of Egyptian history, the attributes and functions of virtually every other important goddess in the land. Her most important functions, however, were those of motherhood, marital devotion, healing the sick, and the working of magical spells and charms. She was the sister and wife of Osiris, sister of Set, and the mother of Horus the Child (Harpocrates). Isis was responsible for protecting Horus from Set during his infancy; for helping Osiris to return to life; and for assisting her husband to rule in the land of the Dead. Isis figures strongly in the rites and symbolism associated with Mary. She was considered to be the mother of the king who is thought to be a God made man to rule over his earthy kingdom. The cult of Isis was widespread in Egypt and spread from there to Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine; to Asia Minor; to Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Samos and other islands in the Aegean; to many parts of mainland Greece - Corinth, Argos and Thessaly amongst them; to Malta and Sicily; and, finally, to Rome. In the first century BC, Isis was perhaps the most popular goddess in Rome, from which her cult spread to the furthest limits of the Roman Empire, including Britain: her only rival was Mithras. An interesting side note to this is that the 'Black Virgins', so highly reverenced in certain French cathedrals have been shown to be in fact basalt figures of Isis. Many of the parallels between Isis and Mary also figure in the parallel between Horus, her son, and Jesus. Obviously the most important similarity is that Isis was said to be a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. This is, of course, to be compared to the biblical story of the immaculate conception. As well as similarities between their stories and their functions, there are several similarities in the types of symbols and language surrounding Isis and Mary. Isis is constantly referred to as the honored one or as the holy one. She is referred to with language like "Immaculate is our Lady Isis" which is nearly identical to the language used about Mary. Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, openly embraced Isis and simply anthropomorphized her into Mary.

Osiris was the god of the dead, and the god of the resurrection into eternal life; ruler, protector, and judge of the deceased. Osiris was the brother of Set and Isis, who was also his wife by whom he fathered Horus. Osiris ruled the world of men in the beginning, after Ra had abandoned the world to rule the skies, but he was murdered by his brother Set. Through the magic of Isis, he was made to live again. By Dynasty XVIII, Osiris was probably the most widely worshipped god in Egypt. Reliefs of Roman emperors, conquerors of Egypt, dressed in the traditional garb of the Pharaohs, making offerings to him in the temples exist to this day. His death was avenged by his son Horus, who defeated Set, castrated him, and cast him out into the Sahara. Horus then became the divine prototype of the Pharaoh. As Heru-Ur, "Horus the Elder", he was the patron deity of Upper (Southern) Egypt. Initially he was viewed as the twin brother of Set (the patron of Lower Egypt), but he became the conqueror of Set around 3100 BCE when Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt and formed the unified kingdom of Egypt.

There are many striking similarities between the stories surrounding Osiris and Horus and those surrounding Jesus. I will first describe the similarities between their stories and then I will talk about the similar themes and imagery used in the stories. Horus was born to the virgin Isis as Jesus was to Mary. Horus was born in Annu, the place of bread, where a star announced his birth. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the house of bread, with an eastern star leading the Magi to his birthplace. Horus was baptized with water by Anup the Baptizer at the age of thirty just as Jesus was baptized at thirty by John the Baptist. Horus had twelve followers known as Har-Khutti and Jesus had his twelve followers known as disciples. Horus was carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep where they did battle. Jesus was carried off by Satan to the Mount where Jesus was tested by Satan. After Horus' death he was wrapped in a mummy bandage that was woven without seam just like the vesture of Christ is without a seam. And finally there was That-Aan who bore witness to the word of Ra and to the testimony of Horus just as John bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus. The stories of Osiris also shows many similarities to Jesus. Osiris was considered to be the bringer of enlightenment. He forced no man to carry out his will. He induced them to practice what he preached by means of gentle persuasion. His lessons were often imparted to his listeners through hymns or songs. Much of this may be seen in the later writings about the ministry of Jesus.

Of course, the most important similarity between the stories of Osiris and Jesus is their death and resurrection. Osiris was killed by his brother Set, his body stripped, torn to pieces, and finally scattered about. In this way, the death of Osiris bears similarity to the death of Jesus when his body is stripped and his clothes were divvied up among the soldiers. Osiris was then resurrected with the aid of his wife/sister Isis and his son Horus and in doing so became the lord of death and the keeper of the afterlife. This is mirrored in the story of Jesus' resurrection and subsequent mastery over death. Each year Osiris was the subject of the Abydos passion play, a ritual that stretched from the Old Kingdom up until around 400 CE. The Abydos passion play depicts the slaying of Osiris and his followers by Set. The figure of Osiris is then torn to pieces by Set, after which his remains are gathered up by his wife, Isis, and son, Horus, who then restore him to life. This ritual is mirrored by modern day Christians during Easter when the death and resurrection of Jesus is reenacted in modern passion plays. Some of these stories about Horus are accredited to Osiris and vise versa, but what is clear is that much of the mystical aspects that were added to the later stories of Jesus' ministry drew heavily from the earlier Egyptian texts with which the writers were undoubtedly familiar.

Even more startling than the plot similarities are the symbolic similarities between the Egyptian and Christian stories. Horus was associated both with the lion and with the lamb as was Jesus. Horus was identified with the Tat or cross as well as with the shepherd's crook and the rod. This association was first made through Isis, his mother. In an ancient Egyptian text Isis states that "I am the staff of his power in his youth, and he is the rod of my old age." This association was strengthened by the pharaohs, who were called Kings of the Kingdom and The Great Shepherds of Their Flock. In the tradition of Horus, who was called "The Good Shepherd", the pharaohs carried the staff and rod as the symbols of their heavenly power . Jesus' association with the cross goes without saying but he was also portrayed as the Good Shepherd, and in Rev. 12:5 and 19:15 he is said to "rule with a rod of iron." There are also Old Testament associations between God and the shepherd's crook and the rod. In the Book of Psalms the famous line "Yea, though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me. Thy Rod and thy Staff, they comfort me" ( Psalms 23:4 ) points to the influence of the Egyptian traditions.

Horus was known as Iu-em-Hetep, he who comes in peace, Horus the avenger, and Horus the afflicted one. Latter Jesus would be called the bringer of peace, he who brings the sword, and the afflicted one. Horus was the sower and Set was the destroyer in the Harvest field. Horus was identified with the plant, the shoot, and the natzar. Jesus was the sower of good seed and Satan the sower of tares. Jesus was also associated with the "true vine".

The influence of astrology on the stories of Horus and then later on the story of Jesus goes far beyond the star that signaled both their births. Horus was known as the Morning Star or as he who gives the Morning Star to his followers just as Jesus was. Horus also spoke of the paradise of the pole star Am-Khemen just as Christians have the Holy City lighted by one luminary that is neither the Sun nor the Moon, which makes it most likely the pole star. Along with the symbolic comparisons, some of the sayings attributed to both deities also show the influence of the Egyptians on the early Christian chroniclers and to those who later translated the Bible. Horus says "It is I who traverse the heavens; I go around the Sekhet-Arru (the Elysian Fields); Eternity has been assigned to me without end. Lo! I am heir of endless time and my attribute is eternity". Striking a remarkably similar cord, Jesus later says "I am come down from Heaven. For this is the will of the Father that everyone who beholdeth the Son and believeth in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Another similarity in speech is when Horus says that "I open the Tuat that I may drive away the darkness." Jesus is later quoted as saying "I am come a light unto the world."

One final example is when Horus says that "I am equipped with thy words O Ra (the father of heaven) and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath. These were the words of the father in heaven." Jesus speaks with much the same feeling when he says "The Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."

Finally the most important similarity between the Egyptian religion and Christianity is the concept of a holy trinity. The tradition of the trinity goes back to the Amon theology of the Rameside period. The one god has three appearances or forms which are combined and treated as a singular being. In the later periods, the Egyptian trinity was taken to be Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit. This is of course paralleled in the Christian trinity of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is clear that not only the Persian cult of Mithra, but also the ancient pagan religions of Egypt strongly influenced the formation of the Judeo- Christian religion which grew up trapped between these two giants.

Article by Brice C. Smith
elrond@MIT.EDU

 

[Amergin]

Conclusions

With all of these comparisons and similarities, I have not intended to imply that the Bible is merely plagiarized from these earlier sources. Nor have I intended to prove the that the Bible is a work of fiction. What I have intended to show, and what is apparently clear, is that when the founders of the Christian faith set out to document the life and message of their founder, Jesus, they drew from the best sources of religious doctrine available.

Just as any other writer, the writers of the Bible were influenced by their own cultural biases and view points as well as by the religious figures they met. And as time went on and Christianity was adopted and spread throughout the Roman Empire and the rest of the world, it is not surprising that it was infused with the religious doctrine, symbolism, and mysticism of the cultures it encountered.

To show that these were not just isolated examples from two religions, here is a list of over thirty saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, and furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works. Each laid the foundation for salvation, all were worshipped as Gods or sons of Gods, many were said to have been born to virgins, and many were also said to have been crucified. The list includes such figures as Chrishna of Hindostan, Budha Sakia of India, Salivahana of Bermuda, Zulis and Orus of Egypt, Odin of the Scandinavians, Crite of Chaldea, Baal and Taut of Phoenecia, Indra of Tibet, Bali of Afganistan, Jao of Nepal, Wittoba of the Bilingonese, Thammuz of Syria, Atys of Phrygia, Xamolxis of Thrace, Adad of Assyria, Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam, Alcides of Thebes, Mikado of the Sintoos, Beddru of Japan, Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids, Thor of the Gauls, Cadmus and Adonis of Greece, Hil and Feta of the Mandaites, Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico, Universal Monarch of the Sibyls, Ischy of the island of Formosa, Divine teacher of Plato, the Holy One of Xaca, Fohi and Tien of China, Ixion and Quirinus of Rome, Prometheus of Caucasus. So, truly, the study of the Christian faith must be a study of world faiths. For if we ignore or dismiss the beliefs of others, even those of ancient civilizations, then we are missing an essential part of our own faith.

Radical Christians don't want truth. They want myth.

Posted by Amergin

 

[Dogbrain]

First, using "Roman Catholic" to describe Church Historians of the early centuries only discredits a source.

Second, the implicit anti-semitism of these pieces is repulsive. Why do neopaganizers always try to pretend that Judaism is not every bit as ancient as the "pagan" religions they want to hold up as the "true source"?

 

[bob x]

Now, there is actually a lot of good information in some of these posts, but the bad information is really, really bad. THIS kind of stuff, in particular, seemingly cannot be killed no matter how often its falsity is pointed out:

here is a list of over thirty saviors who were said to have descended from heaven, taken the form of men, and furnished evidence of their divine origin by various miracles and marvelous works. Each laid the foundation for salvation, all were worshipped as Gods or sons of Gods, many were said to have been born to virgins, and many were also said to have been crucified. The list includes such figures as Chrishna of Hindostan, Budha Sakia of India... Zulis and Orus of Egypt...

The list contains a lot of bogus spellings and other ridiculous errors ("Thor of the Gauls"????) but let's talk about what the actual stories were, in a few of the best-known cases. I am tired of hearing that Krishna, Buddha, and Horus are examples of "virgin births" or "crucifixions" and this kind of absurdity.

The spelling "Chrishna" is a willful distortion of Kr.s.n.a to make the name look more related to "Christ". The Greek christos meaning "oil-smeared" (hence used as a translation for Hebrew maschiach "anointed") is cognate to English "greased", and the word does occur in Sanskrit as ghee, the sacred clarified butter. The sounds in Kr.s.n.a are quite different: the "k" is distinctly not like the "ch" of the Greek word, which turns into "gh" in the Sanskrit (words beginning with these sounds would no more be confused than we would confuse "God" with "cod"); the "r." is actually r-as-a-vowel (like the "-er" ending we find on English words like "butter" which really has no "e" sound in it), not r-plus-a-vowel (it only gets transliterated "ri" because we are not used to r-as-a-vowel anywhere except at the end of a word); the "s." is identical to our "sh", not like our "s" (and the two would no more be confused than we would confuse "sit" with "sh*t"); and the "n." though somewhat different from our "n" is definitely no kind of "t". Was he a virgin birth? No, he was the EIGHTH child of his mother. Was he the "Son of God"? No, the fact that his father was a rightful heir to the throne, displaced by an evil usurper who wanted to kill the whole family, is a crucial plot point. Was he "crucified"? No, he was killed by a poison arrow to the foot, strongly reminiscent of the Achilles story but nothing like the Jesus story. However, he was a divine incarnation, animated not by an ordinary human soul but by the god Vishnu taking on a human form; in this respect we do have some parallel to Christian doctrine.

Was the Buddha Shakyamuni a "virgin birth"? No, again the fact that his father was the king of Shakya is a crucial plot point: the king asked the astrologers how the child would turn out, and hearing that he would be either a world-conquering king or a world-inspiring teacher, asked how to make it come out the first way, and was advised to prevent the child from ever learning what human suffering was; so prince Siddhartha was raised in a cocooned existence, perpetually entertained, until he escaped from the palace and saw sickness, old age, and death... Was he the "Son of God"? Quite the contrary: the gods are beneath him; Brahma created this world in the hope that someone like him might be born in it. Was he "crucified"? No, he died eating a piece of rotten pork; he opposed killing animals for meat, but taught his disciples never to refuse a sincere offering, and took this bad food knowing it would poison him because the poor peasant was wanting to give him all he had to offer.

Was "Horus" (I have no idea who "Zuli" is, or how the spelling "Orus" got chosen) a "virgin birth"? No: Set chopped his father Osiris into pieces, and Isis had to hunt all over to re-assemble Osiris, finally managing to conceive a child who could take revenge when she found the last part, the penis of course. Was he the "Son of God"? Yes, of course, he is "a" son of "a" god, since he is a god himself; there is no element whatsoever in the story here about Horus coming down to earth or becoming "human" or anything like that; he is a member of the race of gods, one of many. Was he "crucified"? No, there is no possibility of Horus ever dying, in any fashion. An earlier post contains the bizarre notion that Horus is associated with "lions" and "lambs" and is called the "Good Shepherd": no, Horus is associated with falcons, and no other animal.

 

[taijasi]

The masked assassin ... strikes again.

 

[Amergin]

First, using "Roman Catholic" to describe Church Historians of the early centuries only discredits a source.

You are right. It was not the "Roman" Catholic Church, it was simply Catholic. In the 4th and 5th centuries there were two kinds of Christians, Arian Christian and Catholic Christian later termed Orthodox. Roman Catholicism only arose after the schism between Eastern and Western Catholicism. History describes Orthodox Catholic (the original in my opinion) and the Roman Catholic roughly corresponding to the division of the Empire into eastern and western halves.

Second, the implicit anti-semitism of these pieces is repulsive. Why do neopaganizers always try to pretend that Judaism is not every bit as ancient as the "pagan" religions they want to hold up as the "true source"?

It is simple. Judaism was invented by Moses following the Exodus. This means that Judaism arose some time after the eruption of Mount Thera which influenced that exodus. That was about 1625 BCE. It produced the column of fire at night and column of smoke by day that led Moses. Once across Moses formulated a unifying religion based on the Fire God JHWH. Methane vents on Mount Sinai frequently caught fire (i.e. the burning bush).

Moses wrote the Ten Commandments. But the Jews were polytheists until their stay in Egypt. Some resorted to an older pagan polytheism and worshipped a Golden Calf. Moses ordered the Levites to slaughter those 3000 Jews clinging to an old religion.

So Judaism dates at approximately 1620's or 1630's BCE. We know Zoroastrianism is several millennia older and the Indo-European Common Religion dates back to the time the Indo-Europeans started to separate into Eastern and Western migratiions. Then the Indo-European religion can be see to persist in Celtic, Illyrian, Teutonic, Slavic, Roman, Greek in the west. To the East Indo-Europeans spread out with Tocharians to North China, Iranians and its branches, and Hindu and its branches. They are much older than Monotheistic Judaism.

Realistically all these religions devolved from ancient religions lost to history because of lack of writing. I think that humans like Neanderthals, Sapiens, and Heidelbergensis. They show archaeological evidence of religious ceremony in burials and strange arrangements of Cave Bear Skulls by Neanderthals (Cave Bear Cult.)

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

It is simple. Judaism was invented by Moses following the Exodus. This means that Judaism arose some time after the eruption of Mount Thera which influenced that exodus. That was about 1625 BCE. It produced the column of fire at night and column of smoke by day that led Moses. Once across Moses formulated a unifying religion based on the Fire God JHWH. Methane vents on Mount Sinai frequently caught fire (i.e. the burning bush)...
Amergin

Actually Judaism gets its name from the only tribe that was able to maintain its identity after Israel was disolved. The religion that Moses "invented" was no religion at all, but simply, a monotheistic faith. The "religion" of the Hebrews or Semites (not only Judeans) began developing during the 40 trek in the desert, but the seeds of which were planted while the Hebrews lived in Egypt. And ironically, it was the Levites who created the core of beliefs, rituals and laws that governed the whole of the people (including Judeans).

 

[bob x]

You are right. It was not the "Roman" Catholic Church, it was simply Catholic. In the 4th and 5th centuries there were two kinds of Christians, Arian Christian and Catholic Christian later termed Orthodox. Roman Catholicism only arose after the schism between Eastern and Western Catholicism. History describes Orthodox Catholic (the original in my opinion) and the Roman Catholic roughly corresponding to the division of the Empire into eastern and western halves.

So far so good. And there is good information in your opening post, about how early Christianity developed within the context of a Judaism that was more ideologically diverse than what it became in medieval times, and I will write some stuff in agreement with you and amplification of your points there, but I don't have time right now.
But where your information is bad, it's really bad:

It is simple. Judaism was invented by Moses following the Exodus. This means that Judaism arose some time after the eruption of Mount Thera which influenced that exodus. That was about 1625 BCE.

Thera is more like 1500 BCE, but that is still many centuries away from the Exodus, c. 1200 BCE.

Moses formulated a unifying religion based on the Fire God JHWH.

YHWH is the God of "existence itself": not a god of fire, not a god of mountains, not a god of the planet Saturn, not a god of this-that-or-the-other particular thing, THE one and only God of EVERYTHING all together. If you miss that point, then you are missing the whole story.

Some resorted to an older pagan polytheism and worshipped a Golden Calf.

The worshippers of the golden calf in the later shrines of Bethel and Dan did not think they were worshipping a different God from YHWH, the one and only God of everything; they simply disagreed about whether an image to represent YHWH was appropriate. I believe that the story about the golden calf during the Exodus is just a back-projection, the Jerusalem sect (which used no images) writing this story to claim that the position of the Dan sect had been disfavored from the beginning.

So Judaism dates at approximately 1620's or 1630's BCE. We know Zoroastrianism is several millennia older

WTF??? Zoroaster lived c. 600 BCE, roughly contemporaneous to Buddha Shakyamuni and Lao-Tzu.

 

[taijasi]

yeah really ... what the ****
that is what wtf stands for, is it not?

 

[Amergin]

So far so good. And there is good information in your opening post, about how early Christianity developed within the context of a Judaism that was more ideologically diverse than what it became in medieval times, and I will write some stuff in agreement with you and amplification of your points there, but I don't have time right now.
But where your information is bad, it's really bad:

Thera is more like 1500 BCE, but that is still many centuries away from the Exodus, c. 1200 BCE.

Geologists and Geotectonic scientists have indicated that Santorini erupted in the huge explosion in 1630 BC.
How Volcanoes Work - Santorini Eruption

For me that is the most reliable date of the events between 1800 and 1200. The biblical records vary with many differrent dates for the Exodus of the Semites from Egypt. I still think that the description in the Bible's Book of Exodus fit so well with a volcanic and tectonic event. This is why I think the Exodus really happened. Previously I thought Exodus was just a legend. Christians and Jews should be happy that the Exodus verses fit so neatly with the series of Tectonic events from the Eruption on Santorini, the column of fire, the column of smoke, the dark dust blinding the pursuing the Jews, the uplift of Sinai-Suez causing the lakes and Sea of Reeds to empty, then the return of the water in a huge wave as the land sank back to approximately its previous level.

Geologists talk about what happens when one major fault moves. The movement stimulates tectonic events along a series of faults in what we call an Earthquake Storm. Iain Stewart, Ph.D. of U. of Bristol did a TV series "Hot Rocks" specialising on the tectonics and general geology of the ancient Mediterranean Sea coasts.

YHWH is the God of "existence itself": not a god of fire, not a god of mountains, not a god of the planet Saturn, not a god of this-that-or-the-other particular thing, THE one and only God of EVERYTHING all together. If you miss that point, then you are missing the whole story.

God is a concept formed in the mind-brain of humans. I do not believe JHWH was real. The Jews had a long history of polytheism as evidenced by the plural Elohim. JHWH is thought to be the older Semitic God of Fire. The Fire vents of methane on Mount Sinai led to the legend of the burning Bush God. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone. We know now that it was a Jordan Valley Rift eruption spewing lava in giant flows (i.e. Golan Heights). Brimstone is burning sulphur. People who escaped naturally thought it was their Fire God destroying city people. After the eruption and fall of both sides of the fault into the emptied magma chamber which became the Dead Sea. (As it filled with rain water.)

The worshippers of the golden calf in the later shrines of Bethel and Dan did not think they were worshipping a different God from YHWH, the one and only God of everything; they simply disagreed about whether an image to represent YHWH was appropriate. I believe that the story about the golden calf during the Exodus is just a back-projection, the Jerusalem sect (which used no images) writing this story to claim that the position of the Dan sect had been disfavored from the beginning.

Why did Moses order the Levites to slaughter 3000 fellow Jews for worshipping the Golden Calf? No other Gods?

The First Commandment does not say that there are no other gods. It says JHWH forbids Israel having any other gods. It does not deny the existence of other gods. It says you Jews worship only me and not any other gods.

WTF??? Zoroaster lived c. 600 BCE, roughly contemporaneous to Buddha Shakyamuni and Lao-Tzu.

My mistake. I was thinking of the ancient Proto-Indo-European original religion that may go back 8000 years. The Aryan religion split into Old Iranian and Hindu. Over time the Iranians were influenced by the conquered people and the Iranian religion existing long before the time of Zoroaster. Indo-European Core Religion is the father of Hinduism, Iranian and Zoroastrian, Tocharian, Scythian, Sarmation, Alan, Hittite, Thracian, Greek, Lydian, Baltic, Slavic, Teutonic, Celtic, Illyrian, Roman, and Ligurian. It took millennia for all of these Indo-European religions to evolve to their status of 100 CE.

Followers of the Jesus cult know Jesus was not a god. Pagans who converted to the moral superiority of the Jesus Cults. They brought Indo-european beliefs with them. The Trinity is an Indo-European constant. Each such as Celtic, Teutonic, Greek, and Iranian has a Father God, a divine Son of God, and either a Holy Spirit or an Earth Goddess. The syncretism of Jesus-ism into Christianity (a Pagan Religion) took 300 years. It still might have died out except for one key convert, Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Imperator of Rome who forced everyong to join Athanasian Trinitarianism the most pagan form of Christianity differing little from Sol Invictus, Cult of Isis, and the many Indo-European faiths from Ireland to eastern China and India.

Athanasius took Christianity away from Jesus. Emperor Theodosius I and Theodosius II completed the "Christian" conquest of the empire by vast persecutions of Arian Christians, all of the early Jesus faiths, and all of the classical Pagan faiths.

Do not take this as critical. I find it fascinating if not improbable course of belief from Judaism to Paganism with incorporation of Jesus as a new God. Some scholars think of Jesus as a renaming of Mithras. Celts thought of Jesus as Lugh the Sun God. Interestingly the Irish Cross predates Christianity. It is a stone cross with a circle around the centre of the cross. This is the same symbol of Sol Invictus that Constantine saw (hallucinated) on the march to victory.

Amergin

 

[taijasi]

yeah really ... what the ****
that is what wtf stands for, is it not?

WTF? Oh, ok, just making sure.

 

[Saltmeister]

WTF? Oh, ok, just making sure.

It is a sin to talk to yourself. This is your last warning.

 

[Dream]

Amergin,

I hate to admit it myself, but history is an area where laymen must rely upon the experts and accept some confusion. That is better than risking false conclusions. The History of Christianity shouldn't make sense, because we don't have all of the pieces. I accept that its likely Mithraism was involved, but that's all. Missing a single detail changes every part of the story. It takes a lot of study to be able to put it all together; a lot of time and detailed, interested study -- much more detailed than just saying that 'Things changed for 300 years + synchretism and then Constantine did such and such...' which really leaves out too many important parts to make any conclusions at all. I've heard various people say that, and they all had differences on what happened. You also can't say 'Well there was a volcano near to Moses so apparently God was a fire-god'. The history is not simple, and there is no perfect explanation. Its best we accept that in order to move forward.

History is a balance sheet for tedious accountants.

 

[Thomas]

God is a concept formed in the mind-brain of humans.

Quite.
Within that we have two streams informing the intellect ... one is the self-reflective nature of being, upon which man can speculate and arrive at reasoned conclusions, and these form the foundations of 'natural religions'. The other is Revelation, which no-one is obliged to accept.

Followers of the Jesus cult know Jesus was not a god.

Well that's factually incorrect. Or to be more precise, the Early Christians believed Jesus to be the Son of God ...

As you point out, some cults, like the Ebionites, accepted Jesus as a Messiah, but nothing more. Others, like the Nazarenes, accepted both the Divinity of Jesus, and the Virgin Birth, so your claim is ill-informed and an over-generalisation in favour of your own position, which ignores anything that refutes it.

The Trinity is an Indo-European constant.

The triune is a constant, but the doctrine of The Trinity is totally unique, to such a degree that it actually refutes the common Indo-European triune divinity idea, which is usually an expression of a fertility cult.

Each such as Celtic, Teutonic, Greek, and Iranian has a Father God, a divine Son of God, and either a Holy Spirit or an Earth Goddess.

Again, a somewhat sweeping and inaccurate generalism.

Rather than just blindly assume that because Christianity has a triune, it must be the same as all other triunes, there might be more to discover if you look into how that triune is composed. Central to the Doctrine of the Trinity is circumincession ... I don't think you'll find that in Indo-European triune systems.

The syncretism of Jesus-ism into Christianity (a Pagan Religion) took 300 years.

Wrong. Unless you can point our where this supposed syncretism differs from the Pauline teaching of Jesus (c50-65AD), the Didache (c125AD), etc.

It still might have died out except for one key convert, Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Imperator of Rome who forced everyong to join Athanasian Trinitarianism the most pagan form of Christianity differing little from Sol Invictus, Cult of Isis, and the many Indo-European faiths from Ireland to eastern China and India.

Factually wrong on a number of points:
1: A dispute arose between the Arians, who would define Christianity according to an essentially Platonic model, and the 'orthodox', who would define Christianity according to its Hebraic and Biblical heritage.
2: Constantine, being the atute political player he was, saw that such a dispute would threaten the stability of the empire, so paid for a Council in which the bishops could meet and determine the 'true doctrine'
3: Constantine's theological adviser, a Christian monk, suggested some clarifications to the council on the structure of the creed in an attempt to make the doctrine as simple as possible.
4: He failed, and the dispute rumbled on.
5: Arius was very quickly sidelined, and the 'Arian dispute' became a power-game to get control of the Church.
6: Athanasius, the theologian who had opposed Arius from the outset (he was secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria, in whose see Arius was a presbyter), was exiled and restored no less than five times, which shows the degree of politicking going on.

Athanasius took Christianity away from Jesus.

No, he took Christianity away from Plato and back to Jesus.
Hilary of Poitiers in the West, Athanasius' contemporary, was another. The doctrine had already become well established in Irenaeus. Arius was an over-ardent exponent of Origen, who sought to protect the Integrity of the Father because he couldn't get his head round the idea of Trinity.

Some scholars think of Jesus as a renaming of Mithras.

No, some populist writers do, scholars point out that Mithrasim was a cult formed by an educated Roman who was schooled in Greek philosophy ... furthermore the evidence suggests that Mithraism incorporated many elements from Christianity ... so much so that the reality of the Mithras cult has been very much distorted by the supposed 'similarities'.

This is the same symbol of Sol Invictus that Constantine saw (hallucinated) on the march to victory.

The point here is that nature religion is not utterly devoid of truth, but it's object is cosmological, whereas Christianity is not a nature religion, it is a supernatural religion.

If you like, I could detail the metaphysical idea of 'temple' through Greek and pagan philosophy, Hebrew Scriptures, and into Christian doctrine ... but does that mean that a Christian temple is simply a rebadged pagan one and nothing else? Not at all.

What Christianity did seek to do was identify what was true in nature religion and thereby incorporate it into Christianity, for which it is accused of 'theft' (as if anyone owns the truth), and when it brings to nature religion those transcendent elements which are uniquely its own, it's accused of invention.

Can't win, can we?

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

No, some populist writers do, scholars point out that Mithrasim was a cult formed by an educated Roman who was schooled in Greek philosophy ... furthermore the evidence suggests that Mithraism incorporated many elements from Christianity ... so much so that the reality of the Mithras cult has been very much distorted by the supposed 'similarities'.

That's interesting - isn't it generally reported that Tarsus was a region where Mithraism was particularly strong, not least while Saul was growing there?

 

[shawn]

Mithraism did predate christianity.
All this is merely a religion dyed a different color.

 

[Thomas]

That's interesting - isn't it generally reported that Tarsus was a region where Mithraism was particularly strong, not least while Saul was growing there?

That sounds a bit suspicious to me ... the implication a bit obvious?

I don't think anyone would seriously consider that Paul was a follower of Mithra, or borrow from the cult of Mithra.

Remember also that Saul was educated in Jerusalem, and apparently a 'high flyer' in Jewish circles.

According to modern scholarship, Mithraism was founded in and centred on Rome. It certainly spread with soldiers and merchants, but to Tarsus particularly? I don't know ... the tendency seems to be that it spread westward, rather than eastward.

From archaeological discoveries, it seems that Mithraism copied Christian motifs, rather than the other way round.

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Amergin,

I hate to admit it myself, but history is an area where laymen must rely upon the experts and accept some confusion. That is better than risking false conclusions. The History of Christianity shouldn't make sense, because we don't have all of the pieces. I accept that its likely Mithraism was involved, but that's all. Missing a single detail changes every part of the story. It takes a lot of study to be able to put it all together; a lot of time and detailed, interested study -- much more detailed than just saying that 'Things changed for 300 years + synchretism and then Constantine did such and such...' which really leaves out too many important parts to make any conclusions at all.

----------------------------------------------------------

I think the main conclusion is that Christianity is a Pagan Religion with some Jewish names, 1700 years ago. Naturally details can be lost and records fudged to protect the guilty. The structure of Christianity is fundamentally Indo-European with only a trace of Semitic religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I've heard various people say that, and they all had differences on what happened. You also can't say 'Well there was a volcano near to Moses so apparently God was a fire-god'.

--------------------------------------------------

It was not that there happened to be nearby. The Santorini Volcano was the largest explosive volcano before Krakatoa. As a scientist, I looked at the plate boundaries.

I have read history which is rather weak on the Exodus being a real event. I myself thought Exodus was a fable. Then I read Exodus. I noted the column of fire and the column of smoke supposedly leading Moses and the "Jewish" people east from Egypt toward Suez and Sinai.

I read that Egyptians were covered in darkness and suffocating dust. They were confused which by luck allowed the Moses band to continue eastward. That coincided with the rise of the land by perhaps several meters. That emptied the Suez Lakes and the Sea of Reads plus it also lifted the Mediterranean Coast emptying the sea further north. The Israelites were able to cross the mud flats to high ground in Sinai.

When the Egyptians followed, the land rebounded downward. The Sea rushed in from the Red Sea to the south and another giant wave from the Eastern Mediterranean. It probably looked a lot like the movie Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston standing between to giant walls of water. The two Tsunamis destroyed the Egyptian Army.

I do not know if this led to the Fire God aspect of JHWH. I think JHWH was much older when the Semites had a fire god JHWH and a Wind God (Allah). To a people many of whom believed in the Fire God, the column of fire would be considered their god.
----------------------------------------------------------

The history is not simple, and there is no perfect explanation. Its best we accept that in order to move forward

Right. History is often unreliable. It is usually written by the winners and not the losers. Many different documents can also get confused about the dates even the years. However, such things as geological chronology are remarkably reliable. We have found ash deposits from Santorini in Northeast Egypt. Isotope dating of lava from the Great Eruption on Santorini shows it erupted in 1625 BCE.

Monotheism began in Egypt before the time of Abraham.

Scriptural records indicate the Exodus in the 13th Century BCE. They wandered for 40 years in the desert. 40 is a magic number (40 days and 40 nights, fasting 40 days in the desert.) I do not believe this number. From the crossing of Moses with a band of followers probably Hebrews, Nubians, Hamites (Berbers), and perhaps other ethnic groups. Moses moulded them into a new Nation founded on Moses's Monotheism (Over time the various ethnic groups following Moses fused into the Hebrew Nation.) We know that the Jews wandered as nomadic raiders for a long time before settling in tribal regions and annexed Canaan. The First King of this nation was Saul in the 12th Century BCE. Saul was not strong enough to conquer the Philistines.

All we have is oral history written later for all of this. The only solid evidence we have is Mount Thera on Santorini in its major eruption of 1625. I try to fit facts into the Legends of the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------

History is a balance sheet for tedious accountants.

Aye. I thought it was rough in Partical Physics, Geology, Geotectonics, and Neuroscientists. I can't imagine the life of an accountant. What is their suicide rate?

Amergin