• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Son of God...pagan influences

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?
Because it's so mixed with Hellenic philosophy and religious concepts. Not only with Jesus being a God-man but the teaching of theosis seems to be influenced by the concept of apotheosis.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
In much older Sumerian texts, the gods and goddesses that exist in their religions , were never described as angels, because angels don’t exist in this culture, or in successive culture that followed the Sumerian culture, eg the mid-3rd millennium Akkadian, the Amorite and Kassite dynasties of Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE (these 2 dynasties coincided with respective Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian languages), the 7th & 6th centuries Chaldean dynasty in Babylon (Neo-Babylonian).
The word angel is modern. We're talking about heavenly beings, servants or messengers of God or the gods. The Bible uses the term "sons of God" They did exist in the lore of these cultures even though of course they aren't called angels.
You are right that Ur was a “Sumerian city”, but by 2000, it was no longer important, because the Sumerians were weakened by repeated invasions. It had collapsed when the 3rd dynasty of Ur ended around 2004 BCE.

Just because Genesis can named some cities in Mesopotamia, doesn’t mean who wrote them know history around that time.

That “Ur” you talked about, Genesis 11 say:
And you assume it's not true without evidence.
The fact is in -
  1. the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 -1595 BCE) or Middle Bronze Age, which coincided with the Amorite dynasty or the 1st dynasty of Babylon,
  2. and Middle Babylonian period (1595 - c 1155 BCE ) or late Bronze Age, which coincided with the Kassite dynasty or the 2nd dynasty of Babylon,
- there were Chaldeans living in Babylonia, around these times.

The Amorites lived in the land of what called Syria, and the Sumerians have known of their existence as far back as 2400 BCE. The Amorites were partly responsible for the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, and established originally minor Akkadian city of Babylon into their capital.

The Amorite dynasty ended with the Kassite invasion of Babylonia.

The Kassite dynasty didn’t end until the Assyrians invaded Babylonia and captured Babylon itself a few years later.

The Chaldeans, originally known as the Kalhu, didn’t migrate into marshy region, southeast of Ur, to the Persian Gulf, until early 9th century BCE. Ur was still in Assyrian hand when the Chaldeans arrived.

So what Genesis say “Ur of the Chaldeans” around the time of Abraham, this anachronistic.

It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis, didn’t know Chaldean history, let alone the history of Ur.
By that reasoning if I found a dinosaur bone in Nevada; I must be lying because it was not called Nevada when dinosaurs lived. The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.
First, you are the impression that Moses’ did happen, and you believed that invasion of Canaan, as narrated in Exodus and Joshua...

...neither of these belief in these events happen, because there are no evidence that either happen

And 2nd the most popular form of writing in much of the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, including Canaan, were cuneiform. The palace archive in Megiddo in the mid-2nd millennium BCE (c 1700 - c 1250 BCE) were all in cuneiform, including the discovery of fragments of Epic of Gilgamesh (clay tablet fragments dated to about 1400 BCE).

So your argument against cuneiform being used in this region around this time is seriously flawed.

And the paleo-Hebrew alphabet evolved from Proto-Canaanite alphabet were developed by the Phoenicians, not from Egyptian hieroglyphs, nor hieratic.

The Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar are evidence from the 10th century BCE.
Just as I assume Moses did happen; you assume the opposite so let's not pretend we don't both have assumptions. I think you're using circular reasoning by assuming it didn't happen without even considering anything to the contrary.

As for cuneiform. I did not claim it was not used in Canaan. Actually there is evidence of it being used. You seem to be assuming that the Hebrews were never nomadic and instead were always Canaanites. When in reality there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The Habiru of Egyptian writings for example being nomadic. Egyptian artwork of similar Semitic nomads etc.
While I understand the significant of the tunnel and inscriptions been dated to around Hezekiah’s time, and Hezekiah is a real historical person, as the Assyrian annals independently indicated as contemporary to Sargon II and Sennacherib, the inscriptions is more about the construction of the tunnel, not inscriptions of biblical passages.

I am talking about the oldest surviving passage from Numbers 6, the Priestly Blessing, actual reference to the biblical work. The Siloam inscriptions quoting nothing from scriptures.

The Silver Scrolls aren’t the oldest writing ever, but they are the oldest evidence that have quoted passage from biblical book.
While they don't quote the scriptures they commemorate an event referenced in the scriptures.

As for the silver scrolls ... of course they exist because they were written on silver. As I said most scriptures would have been written on parchment. It's the obvious choice for the Hebrews. The scriptures themselves use the word "scroll" in Hebrew. So they never even claim to have been written on clay tablets like cuneiform is. The ten commandments were carved on stone rather than clay tablets.

In any case; there is no reason to believe that cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics and even an early alphabet couldn't have been in use at the same time in Canaan. Your assumption seems to be that they could not exist simultaneously when history shows us the opposite is the case.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The Jesus of the Gospels was an observant Jew, conversant with Jewish scripture. But Galilee was a Hellenised region of Judea, and Christianity became a religion in it’s own right in the Greco/Roman world. Hardly surprising therefore, that it absorbed elements of Hellenic thought and religious practice. As it spread around the world, it absorbed North European, African, South and Central American, and Asian influences.

Buddhism has followed similar patterns, growing out of Hinduism before absorbing elements of Taoism, Tibetan Shamanism, Shinto and Bushido philosophy in Japan, materialism and secularism in California, etc. It’s what human culture does, it adopts, adapts, shares, mixes and evolves.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
The Jesus of the Gospels was an observant Jew, conversant with Jewish scripture. But Galilee was a Hellenised region of Judea, and Christianity became a religion in it’s own right in the Greco/Roman world. Hardly surprising therefore, that it absorbed elements of Hellenic thought and religious practice. As it spread around the world, it absorbed North European, African, South and Central American, and Asian influences.

Buddhism has followed similar patterns, growing out of Hinduism before absorbing elements of Taoism, Tibetan Shamanism, Shinto and Bushido philosophy in Japan, materialism and secularism in California, etc. It’s what human culture does, it adopts, adapts, shares, mixes and evolves.
True, yet for those whose hearts are true, the essential truth of the message of Jesus is not obscured, the kingdom of God is within.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.

No, 74x12.

Genesis 11:28 say of the Chaldeans because the book of Genesis was written around the time when the Chaldeans have already occupied Babylonia, as the 3rd dynasty of Babylon, and created the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Chaldea never exist as a region southeast of Ur to the Persian gulf until their migration brought them there, as I said from the early 9th century BCE, or perhaps at the earliest as late 10th century BCE. But entire Babylonia were under Assyria rule since the 2nd dynasty of Babylon (Kassite dynasty) had fallen, around 1155 BCE.

The region the Chaldeans occupied was a large marshy region, because before their arrival, the marsh didn’t exist in the mid-6th millennium BCE and the shoreline of Persian Gulf was much further inland.

What I am saying Eridu, Ur and Lagash used to be coastal cities.

Eridu was first original settlement in the Neolithic period, near the shore, as early as 5400 BCE. I don’t know when Lagash was first built, but the foundation of Ur have been dated to between 4000 and 3800 BCE.

By the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 - 2900 BCE), it was the start of Sumerian proper, Sumerian civilization and culture, and these 3 cities became important and prosperous city-states.

My point is that at some points in the 2nd millennium BCE, the shoreline moved away from these cities, gradually because of built up of soil erosion creating increasingly larger but uninhabited marshland.

The marshy region was uninhabited until the Chaldeans migrated to the region. There were no Chaldea and no Chaldeans in Ur during the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 - c 1595 BCE), in which Abraham was supposedly born and later left Ur.

As I said, that Genesis 11:28 states “Ur of the Chaldeans” is anachronistic. Genesis wrote of some people and place that didn’t exist at the time. If Abraham did exist, he wouldn’t know of any Chaldeans, because Chaldeans weren’t natives to the region.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Genesis 11:28 say of the Chaldeans because the book of Genesis was written around the time when the Chaldeans have already occupied Babylonia, as the 3rd dynasty of Babylon, and created the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Chaldea never exist as a region southeast of Ur to the Persian gulf until their migration brought them there, as I said from the early 9th century BCE, or perhaps at the earliest as late 10th century BCE. But entire Babylonia were under Assyria rule since the 2nd dynasty of Babylon (Kassite dynasty) had fallen, around 1155 BCE.

The region the Chaldeans occupied was a large marshy region, because before their arrival, the marsh didn’t exist in the mid-6th millennium BCE and the shoreline of Persian Gulf was much further inland.

What I am saying Eridu, Ur and Lagash used to be coastal cities.

Eridu was first original settlement in the Neolithic period, near the shore, as early as 5400 BCE. I don’t know when Lagash was first built, but the foundation of Ur have been dated to between 4000 and 3800 BCE.

By the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 - 2900 BCE), it was the start of Sumerian proper, Sumerian civilization and culture, and these 3 cities became important and prosperous city-states.

My point is that at some points in the 2nd millennium BCE, the shoreline moved away from these cities, gradually because of built up of soil erosion creating increasingly larger but uninhabited marshland.

The marshy region was uninhabited until the Chaldeans migrated to the region. There were no Chaldea and no Chaldeans in Ur during the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 - c 1595 BCE), in which Abraham was supposedly born and later left Ur.

As I said, that Genesis 11:28 states “Ur of the Chaldeans” is anachronistic. Genesis wrote of some people and place that didn’t exist at the time. If Abraham did exist, he wouldn’t know of any Chaldeans, because Chaldeans weren’t natives to the region.

The book of Genesis does not have to have been written in the Babylonian period for the reference to Chaldees to be there.
Chaldeans were an Aramean tribe and could have been in control of Ur at the time of Abraham.
It seems that secular chronology is sufficiently different to Biblical chronology for stuff like this to happen and secular historians not to know the problem and assume the Bible is in error.
Abraham was born around 2200 according to Biblical chronology.
Another possibility is that a later updater of the book of Genesis could have undated some place names so that people would know where Genesis was referring.
With Ur it would be important to know which Ur was being referred to as there is more than one.
Ur of the Chaldees: Abraham’s original home
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Chaldeans were an Aramean tribe and could have been in control of Ur at the time of Abraham.
No, during the time of the 1st dynasty in Babylon or Old Babylonian period - 1894 to 1595 BCE, Babylon and other cities in Babylonia including the southeast Mesopotamia, like Uruk and Ur, were overrun by Amorites, not Chaldeans, and certainly not Arameans.

All you are doing is making excuse about Genesis 11:28 that never happen in this time period, because the Chaldeans never migrated to southeast Babylonia in that time period.

Chaldeans never migrated to the land that were later referred to as Chaldeans until the late 10th century or early 9th century BCE, WHICH WAS AFTER THE 2nd dynasty of Babylon (1595 - 1155 BCE) had fallen to the Assyrians. Assyria was in control of Babylonia including the region called chaldea, which was south and east of Ur.

It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis was unaware that there were never any Chaldeans present in region during the Old Babylonian period.

Hence, the author was writing something about Ur that was anachronistic - the Chaldeans issue.

All you are doing is making excuses and trying to twist history to fit in with Genesis-Abraham timeline.

Genesis isn’t just wrong about Ur and Chaldeans, Genesis 10 were also wrong about Egypt (biblical Mizraim), and wrong about when Erech (Uruk), Nineveh and Calch (Kalhu) first built. While in Exodus, when Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was built, and in Joshua, when Jericho was abandoned.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No, during the time of the 1st dynasty in Babylon or Old Babylonian period - 1894 to 1595 BCE, Babylon and other cities in Babylonia including the southeast Mesopotamia, like Uruk and Ur, were overrun by Amorites, not Chaldeans, and certainly not Arameans.

All you are doing is making excuse about Genesis 11:28 that never happen in this time period, because the Chaldeans never migrated to southeast Babylonia in that time period.

Chaldeans never migrated to the land that were later referred to as Chaldeans until the late 10th century or early 9th century BCE, WHICH WAS AFTER THE 2nd dynasty of Babylon (1595 - 1155 BCE) had fallen to the Assyrians. Assyria was in control of Babylonia including the region called chaldea, which was south and east of Ur.

It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis was unaware that there were never any Chaldeans present in region during the Old Babylonian period.

Hence, the author was writing something about Ur that was anachronistic - the Chaldeans issue.

All you are doing is making excuses and trying to twist history to fit in with Genesis-Abraham timeline.

Or the other reason (excuse) for the Genesis anachronism could be true, that a later editor said 'Ur in the land of Chaldeas' just to identify which Ur was being referred to.

Genesis isn’t just wrong about Ur and Chaldeans, Genesis 10 were also wrong about Egypt (biblical Mizraim), and wrong about when Erech (Uruk), Nineveh and Calch (Kalhu) first built. While in Exodus, when Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was built, and in Joshua, when Jericho was abandoned.

Wrong about Egypt would depend just when the flood was. The genealogies in Genesis I hear are not like genealogies these days and not all generations were included, so the time frame stretches back even further than what Bishop Usher and other literalists might say.
Uruk is certainly very old according to this site and subject to the same genealogy problems that Egypt has no doubt.
History of Uruk.
Calah, I cannot tell if there was an earlier city on the site from the histories given or if Calah was somewhere else.
Rameses was not built by Israel in Egypt if the Biblical chronology is correct. That would be an anachronism because of a later editor wanting to identify where the city was imo.
Jericho also is not a problem when the Biblical chronology is accepted.

Even camels at the time of the Patriarchs in Genesis is not a problem if it is realised that the domestication of camels was not on a large scale back then. There is archaeological evidence for camel domestication back then.
 
The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

I don't think they would have 'chosen to follow foreign pagan example'.

My, admittedly speculative, belief is that he was an apocalyptic prophet who died before the eschaton he had expected to see during his lifetime. This left his disciples with a conundrum to solve. We know from modern examples that when the world fails to end as expected, people don't simply say 'oh, I was wrong, back to the day job', they tend to double down and explain away the failed prophecy.

So Jesus' execution ruining his prophecies became 'Jesus died for our sins' and his redemptive sacrifice temporarily delayed the apocalypse and over time the story got further exaggerated until he became the Son of God, and then God himself.

There was debate about whether Jesus was the Son of God by birth or by adoption at a certain point. If the early belief was he was adopted by God, then you simply have an example of something that existed in Graeco-Roman culture being applied to Jesus without any link to pagan myths.

It may not have happened this way and it can never be known how it really did occur, but it gives a plausible example of how such a concept could have evolved organically rather than as an appropriation of competing mythology.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
By that reasoning if I found a dinosaur bone in Nevada; I must be lying because it was not called Nevada when dinosaurs lived. The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.
We are not talking about dinosaurs in Nevada.

You are simply making excuse that have nothing to do with Genesis.

We are talking about the writing of Genesis 11.

Genesis allude to the city of Ur, being a Chaldean city in “Abraham’s time”, talking about people that did exist in Ur (Early Bronze Age). And it talk of people called “Chaldeans”, hence “Ur of the Chaldeans”; Genesis didn’t say anything about a place called called “Chaldea”.

Chaldeans were only around this region in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE (hence early Iron Age), so whoever wrote about Abraham’s birthplace, didn’t write Genesis in Abraham’s time, nor in Moses’ time, who was supposedly wrote Genesis, according to traditions.

This is why the Genesis 11 is anachronistic.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
We are not talking about dinosaurs in Nevada.

You are simply making excuse that have nothing to do with Genesis.

We are talking about the writing of Genesis 11.

Genesis allude to the city of Ur, being a Chaldean city in “Abraham’s time”, talking about people that did exist in Ur (Early Bronze Age). And it talk of people called “Chaldeans”, hence “Ur of the Chaldeans”; Genesis didn’t say anything about a place called called “Chaldea”.

Chaldeans were only around this region in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE (hence early Iron Age), so whoever wrote about Abraham’s birthplace, didn’t write Genesis in Abraham’s time, nor in Moses’ time, who was supposedly wrote Genesis, according to traditions.

This is why the Genesis 11 is anachronistic.

So why go down that road instead of the one that says that a later editor said the land of the Chaldeans to identify which Ur?
Maybe you are just making excuses for your view that Genesis was a later composition than tradition has it.:)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How about 2PM on 6th March 5600BC?
I don't think you are giving me a serious answer at all...

...because that would put Abraham, Moses, David and even Jesus completely out of alignment, when Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman civilizations don't exist.

You are not being serious at all. Try again.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
To cause confusion. o_O

There is no confusion unless you think that Christianity copied the story of Jesus from pagan religions.
That idea however has been shown to be false and the idea of the Messiah being the Son of God and divine can be seen in the Old Testament without having to go to any other religion.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I don't think you are giving me a serious answer at all...

...because that would put Abraham, Moses, David and even Jesus completely out of alignment, when Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman civilizations don't exist.

You are not being serious at all. Try again.

We are talking about prehistory here. Why would the existence of nations such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia etc be a problem?
The dating I see for the flood from the Mediterranean, that broke through the Bosporus and doubled the size of the Black Sea turning it from fresh to salt, is about 5600 BC.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
We are talking about prehistory here. Why would the existence of nations such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia etc be a problem?
The dating I see for the flood from the Mediterranean, that broke through the Bosporus and doubled the size of the Black Sea turning it from fresh to salt, is about 5600 BC.
Because if you do the maths, it would put Jesus in the Bronze Age, where there were no Roman Empire.

According to Genesis, there are only 292 years gap between Noah boarding the Ark and Abraham’s birth. There are no thousands of years between these two times (flood and Abraham’s birth).

Did you even both to calculate the years between Noah and Abraham?

And beside that the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis is still a hypothesis.

The evidence point to that the Bosporus being flooding and receding - on and off - for the past half-a-million years, many times.

The 5600 BCE dating doesn’t indicate massive flooding, especially not in the scale Genesis talk off, and it had no effect in regions like the Levant, Mesopotamia, nor Egypt.

Genesis point to massive flooding in all the lands, occurring in a single year, no such consistent evidence were found in 5600 BCE in regions.

You are not thinking logically. In no way does Black Sea deluge hypothesis support Genesis Flood. And as usual, you are grasping at straws.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Because if you do the maths, it would put Jesus in the Bronze Age, where there were no Roman Empire.

According to Genesis, there are only 292 years gap between Noah boarding the Ark and Abraham’s birth. There are no thousands of years between these two times (flood and Abraham’s birth).

Did you even both to calculate the years between Noah and Abraham?

And beside that the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis is still a hypothesis.

The evidence point to that the Bosporus being flooding and receding - on and off - for the past half-a-million years, many times.

The 5600 BCE dating doesn’t indicate massive flooding, especially not in the scale Genesis talk off, and it had no effect in regions like the Levant, Mesopotamia, nor Egypt.

Genesis point to massive flooding in all the lands, occurring in a single year, no such consistent evidence were found in 5600 BCE in regions.

You are not thinking logically. In no way does Black Sea deluge hypothesis support Genesis Flood. And as usual, you are grasping at straws.

I myself am piecing together the evidence to see if it confirms my faith. If it does not then I have troubles with my faith.
The 5600 BC flood does fit with the beginnings of ancient cities such as Uruk and so I chose it for that reason over the evidence of floods in the 3rd Millenium which probably would have been much smaller than the 5600 flood even though more amenable to Biblical chronology if the Chronology is taken literally. A larger flood equates more with the Genesis account and
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education
So that is the point, the chronology of the genealogies was not meant to be literal as we might see chronologies today. "The father of" can be read "the ancestor of" and gaps are probably more common than not in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
After that we have summations of years from person X to person Z or a certain event so the genealogies can be seen to be more literal (used as we would use a genealogy) even though gaps still occur in those also.
Here is a couple of sites that give an overview of the idea, which you probably know already.
Are the Genealogies in Genesis 5 Complete?
The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 | Reasonable Faith
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I myself am piecing together the evidence to see if it confirms my faith. If it does not then I have troubles with my faith.
The 5600 BC flood does fit with the beginnings of ancient cities such as Uruk and so I chose it for that reason over the evidence of floods in the 3rd Millenium which probably would have been much smaller than the 5600 flood even though more amenable to Biblical chronology if the Chronology is taken literally. A larger flood equates more with the Genesis account and
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education
So that is the point, the chronology of the genealogies was not meant to be literal as we might see chronologies today. "The father of" can be read "the ancestor of" and gaps are probably more common than not in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
After that we have summations of years from person X to person Z or a certain event so the genealogies can be seen to be more literal (used as we would use a genealogy) even though gaps still occur in those also.
Here is a couple of sites that give an overview of the idea, which you probably know already.
Are the Genealogies in Genesis 5 Complete?
The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 | Reasonable Faith
Wow! :eek:

This is so incredibly absurd.

You are trying to match the Genesis Flood timeline with a hypothesis - the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis (BSDH) - that have been for decades systematically dismantled by evidence that BSDH have never occurred. BSDH is popular concept, BUT it is heading towards total failure, and more than likely becoming pseudoscience.

But then you are faced with the rest of biblical timeline (Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, the gospels, the Acts, etc) that are EVEN MORE OUT OF ALIGNED with history, archaeology, anthropology.

To tell you the truth, I don't really care if you believe Genesis Flood equals BSDH.

You don't need science or archaeology or history to debunk the Bible, because you are doing great job at debunking the Bible with your own claims.

Bravo! :)
 
Top