|
|
|
|
This is a post which derives from another thread, but I fear that if I posted it there it might constitute the hijacking of a very important thread.
Cossie, I know about the parallels between Noah and Utnapishtim, but I would be very grateful for references regarding Abraham parallels.
Everybody: Cossie described the historical background to the rise of Christianity as a world religion in the 4th century. For those who prefer their history packaged as historical fiction I can heartily recommend the novel "Julian" by Gore Vidal. (Julian was one of Constantine's successors who tried to revert back to paganism - and failed.) For those who don't know, Gore Vidal has been out of the closet for years now.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way JFR. Do you know who Malchesideck (thats probably spelled wrong) was and why he blessed Abraham. Also why the Bible says that Jesus would become a priest with the authority of Malchesideck.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way JFR. Do you know who Malchesideck (thats probably spelled wrong) was and why he blessed Abraham. Also why the Bible says that Jesus would become a priest with the authority of Malchesideck.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian, you're seeing double. Has your grandfather been plying you with the malt again?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hes teaching me well
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Not sure what you are looking for, JFR. What I had in mind when posting was a book I read two or three years ago comparing the non-Judaeo-Christian religions of the Middle East in the pre-Mohammedan era, but am I not right in thinking that Abraham is cognate with the Islamic prophet Ibrahim, and that the followers of Islam believe themselves to be descended from the prophet Ismail, who is cognate with Ishmael, Abraham's son by Sarah's handmaiden?
Can you clarify the problem?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... how often do I have to tell you that you should never drink more than half-a-pint of malt whisky a day?
Seriously, though, this business of Melchisedec / Melchizedek is a bit of a bummer. He's one of the most enigmatic individuals in Old Testament history, though most of what we know of him comes from the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews. It doesn't help that the King James Bible translation of Hebrews contains some of the clumsiest English in the whole book.
Apparently, Melchisedec was King of Salem - possibly, but not necessarily, another word for Jerusalem. Of course, in those days 'Kings' were simply tribal chieftains; their 'kingdoms' would be pretty small. Some so-called 'Kings', led by Chedorlaomer, had attacked Sodom and Gomorrah, and had captured Abraham's kinsman, Lot. Abraham was rather put out by their impudence, and sallied forth to do battle and liberate Lot. He was successful, slaying 'kings' in some quantity, but the battle was exhausting. On his way home, he was met by Melchisedec, who brought food for his entourage and gave him a blessing. In return, Abraham - following the custom of the time - gave Melchisedec tithes (theoretically, one-tenth) of the booty captured in the battle.
Then it gets confusing. Melchisedec was said to be a priest - very unconventional in the Jewish tradition, in which Prophet, Priest and King were separate and distinct offices. Not only that, he is described in terms which imply that he was immortal. Theologians have had a field day arguing about him; some argue that he was a man of little significance; others argue that he was a manifestation of God himself. You pays your money and you takes your choice! My own view is that Melchisadec was hijacked by the Christians to justify their belief that Jesus was a 'Priest of God'. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, and the Levites had a monopoly on priesthood - think of Leviticus, and those annoying verses! A Google search will bring up enough material to keep you researching from now until Christmas, but frankly it's all rather boring. The only sensible conclusion is that our Mel was a bit of an enigma, and we don't have sufficient evidence to go beyond that. And, indeed, why would we want to?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mal, blessed Abraham, who was the most beloved of God. that means that Mal had to have had a higher power than Abraham. His name means King of Rightiousness, and he was also the King of Salem (king of peace). He was also a priest of the most high God. You are right, Jesus could not clam the priesthood Because he was not of the tribe of Levi. Mal was the father of all priest. this is where Jesus got his priesthood. There are some books available (notably one by Dr. Eugene Scott) that is interesting. Mal was Shem, Noahs son, the father of all priest of the most high God. He was a forshadowing of what was to come. In other words he forshadowed the coming of Jesus.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Brian,
Cossie gave you a quick 'run through' of the traditional view. What follows here is based upon modern biblical archeology and university scholarship.
Melchisedek (or Melkizedek or any other transliteration) means in Hebrew "Righteous King". He was king of the village of Salem, which is an abbreviation of the name of the then pagan city of Jerusalem. Salem was the name of one of the Canaanite gods. We know this from countless references in Canaanite artifacts that have survived - particularly from the Canaanite city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra in Syria). The "Jeru" part of the name means "set up by" or "set up for": it means that the earliest settlement in Jerusalem was around a stone pillar set up by the Canaanite founders of the place in honour of the god Salem. (Canaanites did this kind of thing quite a bit.)
At the time of which Genesis 14 recounts, therefore, Jerusalem was a Canaanite village, perched on top of a reasonably defendable hill. Genesis 14 refers to Melchizedek as being a priest-king (i.e. fulfilling both functions, as was quite usual in the petty Canaanite kingdoms of the time. Genesis 14 also describes him as being a priest of "God most high" and for millennia this has led to a complete misunderstanding (including that perpetuated in the New Testament).
The Hebrew which King James' translators rendered "God most high" is "El Elyon". In Hebrew "El" is a noun which means 'god'; 'elyon' means most high'. However, in Canaanite (a language which was almost identical to Hebrew) El was the chief god of the pantheon, the father of Baal and other Canaanite deities. (Later on El was shoved back into a remote place and Baal became the chief Canaanite deity together with his sister Anat or Ashtoret.) Therefore, Melchizedek was the king (head man) of the Canaanite village of Jerusalem and he was also a priest of the chief Canaanite god El.
Most modern scholars hold that the verse which describes Abraham as giving a tithe (one tenth) to Melchizedek is a later addition to the story. Its purpose is to suggest that even in remote history people gave a tithe to the priests in Jerusalem - which certainly was the case by the time Jerusalem was an Israelite city and the temple had been built there (after 950 BCE). So, according to modern scholarship, Genesis 14 must have been written in the 10th century BCE or later, but clearly contains material which is much older.
Sorry that this post was so long and convoluted, Brian, but you did ask!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
...am I not right in thinking that Abraham is cognate with the Islamic prophet Ibrahim, and that the followers of Islam believe themselves to be descended from the prophet Ismail, who is cognate with Ishmael, Abraham's son by Sarah's handmaiden?
All this is quite correct. But what you said in your original post was that both Noah and Abraham had parallels in ancient near eastern literature. I know about the Noah parallel with the Sumerian Utnapishtim but I have never heard of any ancient parallel for Abraham. Hence my query.
Remember that Islam postdates the historical Abraham (?) by 2500 years!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im looking at a translation of the Hebrew word Salem (peace), Jerusalem (city of peace). The old testiment, If you believe everything written, is a shadow cast by the future. Abraham was told to take his son Issac to a place and sacrifice him. About the time Abraham was going to smite (love that word) Issac, God stayed his hand. Abraham was shown a spotless ram which was to take Issacs place. Abraham represited God, Issac reprisented Mankind, The spotless ram represented Jesus. Abraham was being shown that God was ready to destroy man but a spotless ram was chosen to take on mans sins.
Discussions about the old testiment can go on for ever and never be settled. we dont actually know if any of these people lived. Most people dont realize that the God of the old Testiment and the God of the new, were two different beings. All these people who attend church faithfully, never study, never try to learn. The only thing they know is what that man in the pulpit says.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... what I said was this:
"We know this because stories of Abraham and Noah (or their counterparts) survived in other cognate religions."
I do take your point, though!
Of course, what I was trying to emphasis was the common root, and I didn't over-elaborate - which is just as well, considering the length of the finished post! There seems to be a wide spectrum of learned opinion about the development of non-Jewish religion in Asia Minor during the two millennia before the Christian Era. It appears that some religions - like Judaism - were monotheistic, whilst others were pantheistic. Some were not dissimilar from Judaeism. All were subjected to Hellenistic influences, and subsequently to Roman influence. It is often said that only the Jews preserved the purity of their religion, and in a sense this certainly seems to be true. That does not of course mean that other religions were abandoned; they may simply have been modified. For example, in Britannia the Roman pantheon assimilated many of the existing British deities.
Islam arose from the teaching of the prophet Mohammed, but of course it had a past as well as a future. I understand that the religion practised in Mecca when Mohammed was born was to some extent pantheistic; Allah was simply the principal deity among a group of others. Clearly this proto-Islamic religion was not Jewish, though Mohammed's teaching revealed many historic parallels with the Jews. I haven't seen any convincing evidence to determine whether the 'Jewish' elements were directly imported from contemporary Judaism, or were inherited from some earlier fragmentation.
None of this is surprising; all religions in the group have had a tendency to spawn breakaway sects. Orthodox Judaism would continue as the mainstream, but variant forms could have been exported many times during its history.
Of course I don't claim any academic expertise in the field, but it's certainly a subject with sufficient diverging opinions to make it interesting!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I confess that I didn't know about the recent theory described by JFR, but it makes absolute sense to me.
If Salem was indeed a Canaanite (i.e. Phoenician) community at the relevant time, then as JFR says, Melchisedec's god would not be the same as Abraham's god. That would remove the problems of relative status. It would also explain the tithing; Melchisedec not a Jew but a potential future enemy, as much so as Chedorlaomer and the other 'kings' whom Abraham had just defeated. If Abraham's entourage was in need of food and supplies, payment would be required.
The curious thing is the New Testament 'take' on the matter. It is difficult to think of any purpose for the passage in Hebrews other than the validation of Jesus's priesthood. But what is really interesting is why the writer of Hebrews felt that this was so important. If Jesus was indeed the Son of God, his divine authority would be superior to that of any mortal priest.
That, of course, reminds us that at this early stage of Christianity it was by no means universally agreed that Jesus WAS the Son of God rather than the ultimate Prophet of God. And of course the final decision on that issue was a product of man, rather than a declaration by God - and the scriptures could easily have been adapted to underscore the validity of that decision.
The parallel between Abraham's sacrifice and the crucifixion of Jesus is of course part of the Christian propaganda of the last two thousand years. The Christians had a vested interest in identifying as many sympathetic prophecies and parallels as possible from the Old Testament scriptures, and they milked these as much as the possibly could. Nevertheless, this IS one of the better parallels!
Excuse me while I go off in search of someone to smite!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permit me to do a wee bit of nitpicking.
Brian1407a wrote:
Im looking at a translation of the Hebrew word Salem (peace). See a previous (and tedious) post of mine about the origin of the name Salem.
The Hebrew word for peace is "Shalom", not "Salem" which comes from a root meaning 'complete, whole'.
Abraham was shown a spotless ram which was to take Issacs place.
If you read the Genesis story carefully you will discover that the bible is completely silent as to the physical (or spiritual) condition of the ram: it is just a ram, spotless, speckled or otherwise: who knows?
Abraham represited God, Issac reprisented Mankind, The spotless ram represented Jesus. Abraham was being shown that God was ready to destroy man but a spotless ram was chosen to take on mans sins.
This sounds like a Christian 'take' on the Genesis story; but it directly contradicts a statement attributed to God by the Prophet Jeremiah (7:32) according to which the sanctioning of human sacrifice in any shape or form never even entered into the divine mind!
Most people dont realize that the God of the old Testiment and the God of the new, were two different beings.
Amen! And I thank God for this every day!
All these people who attend church faithfully, never study, never try to learn. The only thing they know is what that man in the pulpit says.
You place a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the man in the pulpit.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, you really should take something for that cough! Try some Irish whiskey with honey. (Oh dear. I fear he might now go into an apoplectic fit!)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drinking a pint of malt and heading for bed.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... the pipesh, the pipesh are caaaaaling, from gleeeeennn to gleeeennnn and down the (hic!) mountainshiiiiide .....
What did you put in thish honey, JFR?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youuuuuuuu takeee the highhhhhhhh road (hic) and Illllll takee the lowwwwww road (hic) and illllllll be innnnnn whereever beforrrrrrr yahhhhhh(hic) If the room will slow down I can find the bed.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Speechless::-)
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
