Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 4:03:24 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

Allah is Great...and Allah is Good ...and Allah be Praised , Chris . You have been given a choice here to see the real truth that has been hidden from you for so long . Open your heart and the the Truth will flow like milk and honey ! And ALLAH the Most Merciful will show you the way. Read here of the many True and Perfect names of the One Creator, The Originator, The Fashioner and Most Exalted and Most Wise God ----> *ALLAH* jannah.org AN EXPLANATION OF THE PERFECT NAMES AND ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH "He is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, The Fashioner, to Him belong the most beautiful names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, do declare His praises and glory. And He is the Exalted in Might, The Wise. (Quran 59:24) "The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on Him by them;..." (7:180) It is not possible to perfectly translate the names and attributes of Allah from their original Arabic into English. However, here are some fairly close explanations. ^= letter ain of arabic '= letter hamza of arabic Allah Allah, He who has the Godhood which is the power to create the entities. Ar-Rahmaan The Compassionate, The Beneficient, The One who has plenty of mercy for the believers and the blasphemers in this world and especially for the believers in the hereafter. Ar-Raheem The Merciful, The One who has plenty of mercy for the believers. Al-Malik The King, The Sovereign Lord, The One with the complete Dominion, the One Whose Dominion is clear from imperfection. Al-Quddoos The Holy, The One who is pure from any imperfection and clear from children and adversaries. As-Salaam The Source of Peace, The One who is free from every imperfection. Al-Mu'min Guardian of Faith, The One who witnessed for Himself that no one is God but Him. And He witnessed for His believers that they are truthful in their belief that no one is God but Him. Al-Muhaimin The Protector, The One who witnesses the saying and deeds of His creatures. Al-^Azeez The Mighty, The Strong, The Defeater who is not defeated. Al-Jabbaar The Compeller, The One that nothing happens in His Dominion except that which He willed. Al-Mutakabbir The Majestic, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creatures and from resembling them. Al-Khaaliq The Creator, The One who brings everything from non-existence to existence. Al-Bari' The Evolver, The Maker, The Creator who has the Power to turn the entities. Al-Musawwir The Fashioner, The One who forms His creatures in different pictures. Al-Ghaffaar The Great Forgiver, The Forgiver, The One who forgives the sins of His slaves time and time again. Al-Qahhaar The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything. Al-Wahhaab The Bestower, The One who is Generous in giving plenty without any return. He is everything that benefits whether Halal or Haram. Al-Razzaaq The Sustainer, The Provider. Al-Fattaah The Opener, The Reliever, The Judge, The One who opens for His slaves the closed worldy and religious matters. Al-^Aleem The All-knowing, The Knowledgeable; The One nothing is absent from His knowledge. Al-Qaabid The Constricter, The Retainer, The Withholder, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy. Al-Baasit The Expander, The Englarger, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy. Al-Khaafid The Abaser, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment. Ar-Raafi^ The Exalter, The Elevator, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment. Al-Mu^iz The Honorer, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem. Al-Muthil The Dishonorer, The Humiliator, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem. As-Samee^ The All-Hearing, The Hearer, The One who Hears all things that are heard by His Eternal Hearing without an ear, instrument or organ. Al-Baseer The All-Seeing, The One who Sees all things that are seen by His Eternal Seeing without a pupil or any other instrument. Al-Hakam The Judge, He is the Ruler and His judgment is His Word. Al-^Adl The Just, The One who is entitled to do what He does. Al-Lateef The Subtle One, The Gracious, The One who is kind to His slaves and endows upon them. Al-Khabeer The Aware, The One who knows the truth of things. Al-Haleem The Forebearing, The Clement, The One who delays the punishment for those who deserve it and then He might forgive them. Al-^Azeem The Great One, The Mighty, The One deserving the attributes of Exaltment, Glory, Extolement,and Purity from all imperfection. Al-Ghafoor The All-Forgiving, The Forgiving, The One who forgives a lot. Ash-Shakoor The Grateful, The Appreciative, The One who gives a lot of reward for a little obedience. Al-^Aliyy The Most High, The Sublime, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creatures. Al-Kabeer The Most Great, The Great, The One who is greater than everything in status. Al-Hafeez The Preserver, The Protector, The One who protects whatever and whoever He willed to protect. Al-Muqeet The Maintainer, The Guardian, The Feeder, The Sustainer, The One who has the Power. Al-Haseeb The Reckoner, The One who gives the satisfaction. Aj-Jaleel The Sublime One, The Beneficent, The One who is attributed with greatness of Power and Glory of status. Al-Kareem The Generous One, The Bountiful, The Gracious, The One who is attributed with greatness of Power and Glory of status. Ar-Raqeeb The Watcher, The Watchful, The One that nothing is absent from Him. Hence it's meaning is related to the attribute of Knowledge. Al-Mujeeb The Responsive, The Hearkener, The One who answers the one in need if he asks Him and rescues the yearner if he calls upon Him. Al-Wasi^ The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Knowledgeable. Al-Hakeem The Wise, The Judge of Judges, The One who is correct in His doings. Al-Wadood The Loving, The One who loves His believing slaves and His believing slaves love Him. His love to His slaves is His Will to be merciful to them and praise them:Hence it's meaning is related to the attributes of the Will and Kalam (His attribute with which He orders and forbids and spoke to Muhammad and Musa -peace be upon them- . It is not a sound nor a language nor a letter.). Al-Majeed The Most Glorious One, The Glorious, The One who is with perfect Power, High Status, Compassion, Generosity and Kindness. Al-Ba^ith The Reserrector, The Raiser (from death), The One who resurrects His slaves after death for reward and/or punishment. Ash-Shaheed The Witness, The One who nothing is absent from Him. Al-Haqq The Truth, The True, The One who truly exists. Al-Wakeel The Trustee, The One who gives the satisfaction and is relied upon. Al-Qawiyy The Most Strong, The Strong, The One with the complete Power. Al-Mateen The Firm One, The One with extreme Power which is un-interrupted and He does not get tired. Al-Waliyy The Protecting Friend, The Supporter. Al-Hameed The Praiseworthy, The praised One who deserves to be praised. Al-Muhsee The Counter, The Reckoner, The One who the count of things are known to him. Al-Mubdi' The Originator, The One who started the human being. That is, He created him. Al-Mu^eed The Reproducer, The One who brings back the creatures after death. Al-Muhyi The Restorer, The Giver of Life, The One who took out a living human from semen that does not have a soul. He gives life by giving the souls back to the worn out bodies on the resurrection day and He makes the hearts alive by the light of knowledge. Al-Mumeet The Creator of Death, The Destroyer, The One who renders the living dead. Al-Hayy The Alive, The One attributed with a life that is unlike our life and is not that of a combination of soul, flesh or blood. Al-Qayyoom The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end. Al-Waajid The Perceiver, The Finder, The Rich who is never poor. Al-Wajd is Richness. Al-Waahid The Unique, The One, The One without a partner. Al-Ahad The One. As-Samad The Eternal, The Independent, The Master who is relied upon in matters and reverted to in ones needs. Al-Qaadir The Able, The Capable, The One attributed with Power. Al-Muqtadir The Powerful, The Dominant, The One with the perfect Power that nothing is withheld from Him. Al-Muqaddim The Expediter, The Promoter, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills. Al-Mu'akh-khir The Delayer, the Retarder, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills. Al-'Awwal The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning. Al-'Akhir The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end. Az-Zaahir The Manifest, The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies. Al-Baatin The Hidden, The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies. Al-Walee The Governor, The One who owns things and manages them. Al-Muta^ali The Most Exalted, The High Exalted, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creation. Al-Barr The Source of All Goodness, The Righteous, The One who is kind to His creatures, who covered them with His sustenance and specified whoever He willed among them by His support, protection, and special mercy. At-Tawwaab The Acceptor of Repentance, The Relenting, The One who grants repentance to whoever He willed among His creatures and accepts his repentance. Al-Muntaqim The Avenger, The One who victoriously prevails over His enemies and punishes them for their sins. It may mean the One who destroys them. Al-^Afuww The Pardoner, The Forgiver, The One with wide forgiveness. Ar-Ra'uf The Compassionate, The One with extreme Mercy. The Mercy of Allah is His will to endow upon whoever He willed among His creatures. Malik Al-Mulk The Eternal Owner of Sovereignty, The One who controls the Dominion and gives dominion to whoever He willed. Thul-Jalali wal-Ikram The Lord of Majesty and Bounty, The One who deserves to be Exalted and not denied. Al-Muqsit The Equitable, The One who is Just in His judgment. Aj-Jaami^ The Gatherer, The One who gathers the creatures on a day that there is no doubt about, that is the Day of Judgment. Al-Ghaniyy The Self-Sufficient, The One who does not need the creation. Al-Mughni The Enricher, The One who satisfies the necessities of the creatures. Al-Maani^ The Preventer, The Withholder. Ad-Daarr The Distresser, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He willed and benefit to whoever He willed. An-Nafi^ The Propitious, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He willed and benefit to whoever He willed. An-Noor The Light, The One who guides. Al-Haadi The Guide, The One whom with His Guidance His belivers were guided, and with His Guidance the living beings have been guided to what is beneficial for them and protected from what is harmful to them. Al-Badi^ The Incomparable, The One who created the creation and formed it without any preceding example. Al-Baaqi The Everlasting, The One that the state of non-existence is impossible for Him. Al-Waarith The Supreme Inheritor, The Heir, The One whose Existence remains. Ar-Rasheed The Guide to the Right Path, The One who guides. As-Saboor The Patient, The One who does not quickly punish the sinners. "...There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). Qur'an [42:11] (Arabic transliteration: Laysa Kamithlihi Shayun Wa Huwa As-Sami' ul-Basir) NOTE: I found many different versions of the 99 names. The above 99 are on a poster I have. Another list includes Al-Mu'tiy - The Bestower, The Giver and does not have Al-Ahad - The One. Another list did not have Al-Razzaaq -The Sustainer, The Provider but did have Al-Maajid The Noble, The One who is Majid. Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala)'s names are not limited to 99, which is a common misconception. There are a couple of evidences, one is the du`aa where one calls upon Allah by the names He (subhanahu wa ta`ala) has kept to Himself (obviously not taking these names since Allah has not revealed them to us); another is the fact that in the narrations of the famous ninety nine names hadith that do contain 99 names, the names are not consistent between narrations (for example, imam al-bayhaqi reports two versions of this hadith, with different 99 names in each). It is suggested by one commentator that the names were not explicitly stated by the rasul (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 4:13:05 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

What did Jesus really say ? Know the real truth of AllAH's will, revealed by the One True God----> to the Prophet Mohammed ...may peace be upon him. beconvinced.com Who embroidered so many of the passages later in the Bible , and why do they pretend that they were the words of the teacher ? Read here more above of the truth and be satisfied , and when you protrate yourself humbly before God , know it is to ALLAH's grace that you may to be saved . As revealed by the words of The Prophet Mohammed. There is still time for you to be shown the light, Bishop Land . ;-)

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 4:34:34 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

The dangers of extremism or religious excess God warns against in the Q'uran: beconvinced.com read and be enlightened , Chris. (you're welcome ) ;-)

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 5:35:48 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

Jerusalem and Judaism before the Return , Faith or Myth ? askwhy.co.uk Van der Toorn, a Dutch biblical scholar, is remarkably honest for those of his type. He says in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies—1998 that those involved in the study of religion always have, in one way or another, a personal stake in the matter and therefore cannot be expected to set an example of dispassionate scholarly enquiry. Doubtless he says this because the study of Israelite religion is at present racked with ill-tempered disagreement between different factions. The central difference between them is whether faith requires the bible to be upheld or not—whether the bible really depicts the forward march of God's unfolding revelation. Otherwise the different parties are in almost total agreement! In these pages we make no apologies for taking the view that much of the bible is myth—indeed "myth" is perhaps too noble a word and "lies" would be better because, unlike myth which is intended to edify, the founders of these biblical "myths" always intended to fool people. Most of the relevant material has been available from time immemorial and it might be surprising that these matters are not settled. They are, of course, settled for believers in Christianity and Judaism, but if belief were sufficient, we should all be still expecting Santa Claus to fall down the chimney every Christmas with his sack of goodies. Today, even more so than in the time of Celsus, those who merely believe are fools. Whatever way one imagines the Creator, we have been created with intelligence, so to turn round and say that we are not meant to exercise it in case it tests our belief is absurd—not just absurd, a blatant insult to God, if God is who created us. What is new today is the results of a hundred years of archaeology in the Holy Land. As soon as it is accepted that some of the biblical material might be in error, it is necessary to decide what is. Evidence external to the bible and its proponents is needed and archaeology is the one which is most objective. No reputable scholars have the gall to claim that archaeology is not the prime method of discovering facts about early Israel that are not tendentious and can be dated to a particular time. And that is the trouble for those "scholars" whose knees are permanently bent, and not by excessive trowelling! The history of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the hill country of Palestine seems non-existent before about 700 BC, but whereas one faction sees this as evidence that much of the Old Testament is mythology written much later than most believers think, the other factions takes comfort in scraps of "proof," however indirect, that the Old Testament accounts are nevertheless true history. Jerusalem Much of the archaeological work that has failed to support the biblical story has been carried out in Jerusalem, notably under Kathleen Kenyon. Latterly skilled Israeli excavators have been busy in Jerusalem but much of their work has been left unpublished or even has been reportedly lost through disagreements. Not a little of this dissension will be due to the archaeologists not producing what Israeli nationalists would like to see. The oldest part of Jerusalem is the hill south of the temple area where the city of David was considered to have been, and tombs found here have been dated to 3000 BC. A small building with benches along the walls might have been an early shrine but the evidence is that the people concerned were herdsmen. Several small villages dating to about 2000 BC have been found in the valleys around Jerusalem, but no sign of occupation in the city has been found at this period. However, about 1800 BC signs of activity appear and several parts of a city wall have been found. The trouble is that very little of the town itself remains because of subsequent building work. Nevertheless Kenyon unearthed several large storage jars taken to indicate that the town was a regional centre of trade—a market town. This deduction ties in with the source of the clay of the jars being local farms of the period that seemed to produce sufficient milk for trade, that the jars were used for, and meat. Jerusalem at this time seemed to be quite prosperous to judge by the polished stone and faience beads that have been found and the inlaid bone for decorating furniture. It was obviously a regional centre of some wealth and importance with a popualtion between 1000 and 2500 people. Egyptian References Now a place called "Rushalimmu" has been noted on the Execration Texts found in Egypt and dated to this period. The Execration Texts were plainly some magic cursing ritual because the names of peoples, rulers and towns that the Egyptians wanted to defeat had been inscribed on to pots that had then apparently been deliberately broken. The magic is that commonly associated with names—that possession of the name gives possession of the owner of the name. This is a reason why the names of gods like that of the Hebrew god were kept secret. By forbidding anyone from uttering the name no enemies could discover the name of the god to get control of him. The Egyptians were hoping that by breaking the names on the pots, they would facilitate the breaking of the resistence of the people, rulers or towns. Of course, there is no sure way of associating the excavated Jerusalem with Rushalimmu and, indeed, the excavated Jerusalem is hardly likely to have cause the Egyptians enough trouble to merit such a ceremony, but conceivably the excavated Jerusalem was the centre of a chiefdom and so might have been seen by the Egyptians as a potential nuisance. Unfortunately, this Jerusalem ceased to exist after a life of only about a hundred years. Perhaps Egyptian magic really worked! About 500 years later the administrators of the Pharaohs were at the new town of Amarna busily archiving the Pharaoh's correspondence. In the Amarna letters were six received from the scribe of the prince of "Urasalim." If this is Jerusalem it was apparently a walled city and the assumption was that it continued the city of 1800 BC. Again, though, the excavations of Late Bronze Age Jerusalem do not bear out this deduction. There is no trace of a fortified city of this time. Not only are there no walls or towns, very few sherds of pottery can be definitely assigned to this time. There is a tomb on the Mount of Olives and traces of an Egyptian temple north of the city, but no city itself! If Jerusalem was occupied during the time of the Amarna letters, it was situated somewhere else. Possibly, of course, the hills around Jerusalem at this period of history were all part of a chiefdom or small city state called Jerusalem. The main city itself perhaps was moved in 1800 for some reason and was still elsewhere when its scribe wrote to the Pharaoh. Since no trace of an alternative site for the town has ever been found either, a more likely solution is that the Urusalim of the Amarna letters was not a city at all but one of the Pharaoh's country estates. Such an estate, especially in wild country, might well have been fortified. The letters mention a tribute of slaves. If the estate managers were in the habit of taking slaves locally in payment of tribute, the fortifications might have been necessary. The real point, though, is that there is no way that archaeology supports the old idea of an ancient Jerusalem continuously occupied from the Middle Bronze Age. The possible appearance of Jerusalem in Bronze Age documents must refer to the district rather than a specific city. Scholars of all persuasions now recognise that the culture of the Judaean hills was continuous from the Late Bronze Ages to the Early Iron Age, precluding any foreign invasion or infiltration, and it was a culture based on smallholdings and villages living by husbandry and organised on the basis of kin. All scholars see these people as partial bandits raiding the civilised valleys but otherwise sharing the culture of the region including practices that later would be condemned. United Monarchy and After In the couple of hundred years preceding the supposed kingdom of David, Jerusalem was, in the bible, the city of the Jebusites, a small but well fortified town that David decided could be his capital. Besides the bible there is no historical evidence for this belief and the archaeological work is equally negative. Kenyon found successive built terraces of some size, but no city walls, no signs of occupation and no buildings that might have been public buildings. The Iron Age date of the excavation is certain from a complete jar found on the floor of the site and other sherds. Margreet Steiner judges the terraces to be part of a fortification, but for what purpose? It is the only fortification in the hill country in that period. Nothing suggests it is an Egyptian fort, and, indeed, everything suggests it is local, but perhaps the Egyptians made the locals build a watch tower, or the locals built one to watch for the Egyptians! Iron Age II is the designation of the period when the United Monarchy of David and Solomon ruled the Levant in a powerful empire. In fact, several buildings large enough to have been administrative buildings are dated to the period but no pottery considered previously to have been typical of David and Solomon is found there! However, a large rampart has been found thought by some to be the "millo" mentioned in the bible. Others date it to the earlier period. Several unused or discarded parts of buildings have also been found and some have reliably been dated on style to the ninth century. Interestingly a bronze fist was discovered that seems likely to have been part of a statue of a god. All of these are exiting finds, especially for those who want to see David and Solomon emerge into history, but the city seems to have had no population—there is no evidence of occupation—no houses! The buildings and fortifications are all high on the hill with no space for dwellings above and no sign of them below. In the Middle Bronze Age occupation and the later permanent occupation from the seventh century onwards, the walls were lower down so that dwellings behind were protected. Possibly the domestic part of the city was further north, but nothing has been found of it. What has been found here dates from a century later. So, the Jerusalem of David was a small apparently administrative centre with no attached domestic quarter. No more than 2000 people could have lived within and presumably were administrators and those who serviced them. It must have been an administrative centre for a statelet but could not have been the capital of a state such as that of Solomon. Other cities of the same type have been excavated from the tenth and ninth centuries like Geber, Hazor, Lachish and Megiddo, all with apparently public buildings and few dwellings. They suggest small city states that functioned mainly as administrative centres for a locality. No trace has been found of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem and the United Monarchy has to be rejected as not historical. The earliest date for a temple in Jerusalem is the 700s BC when the city finally became established as the centre of a small state. On the eastern slopes of the "City of David," naturally outside its fortifications, houses for artisans and small traders at last appeared in the ninth century BC. The buildings were small and simple and were plainly not the homes of nobility. However, tombs found cut in rocks dating roughly 850 to 650 BC show that people were getting rich and one tomb is a fine multi-chambered mausoleum. A simple blessing like that of Numbers 6.24-26 has been found on silver funereal plaques from a tomb at Ketef Hinnom. Pottery and Jewellery show the tomb is later than the seventh century. The destruction of the city by the Babylonians in 586 BC left a mass of debris that has yielded sufficient for life in the city just before its destruction to be reconstructed. It had grown enormaously in about a hundred or so years and could have reached a population of 10,000. Substantial walls had been built in about 700 BC and the water system was sophisticated. In contrast to the earlier city, no public buildings are found but many residential buildings, some obviously of wealthy families able to import luxuries from Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Cyprus. The attack by the Assyrians had the effect of destroying most of the small towns that had earlier rivalled Jerusalem. The Assyrians therefore left Jerusalem as an unrivalled buffer city enabling it to prosper out of the misfortune of the others. There must have been a quid pro quo for this favourable treatment and whatever it was the victorious Babylonians a hundred years later did not appreciate it, but the Persians a half a century further on did. The Jews were eminent for their loyalty to the Persians, remaining steadfast to the "Great King" and regaining their prosperity as a consequence. Though the Assyrians are depicted as wolves in the scriptures, the inhabitants of Jerusalem obviously reached an accord with them and prospered as a result when all their rivals were destroyed. Religious History So what was the religion of the Jews before they were exiled and "returned" with a more sophisticated religion? Formerly, believers, not least among them professional biblical scholars, saw history as the evidence of God's progressive revelation as declared in the bible. Perhaps the sense that the earlier optimism was misplaced led to a backlash against history and a religious inclination towards biblical theology—religious interpretation of the mythology to find its theological importance vis-a-vis God's revelation. All formal religion was idolatrous and true religion came only as a personal revelation of God. Religious history was therefore irrelevant. Latterly, the importance of history has returned but with a great deal more skepticism about revelation and a great deal more emphasis on history—what ordinary people, women and families were doing, considering where the Goddess had gone and seeking corroboration from different sources. Standard texts had concentrated on orthodoxy's definition of acceptable religion that had expunged whole areas of religious evolution that were considered unimportant or even embarrassing. Christians see the pure worship of God in pre-exilic times when the strange figures of God's prophets were thought of as warning His people of their false steps. After the exile the Jews were thought to have got caught up in an excessive legalism that took all the spark out of God's revelation. Jews, of course, saw it quite differently—the prophets warned the Jews against straying from God's laws, so they applied them with firmness. The seed of Abraham knew there was only one god from about two millennia BC, according to the clerics, and Christian clerics tell us that the Chosen People were truer to God's wishes from then until they returned from Babylon. This then is an important period for study, especially for Christians. What though is found? The evidence suggests that Israelites worshipped their ancestors and "local" gods, not any universal god! Dead Ancestors and Local Cults Though a few disagree, most students now see the cult of dead ancestors as an important part of the Israelite religion before the exile. Dead ancestors had divine qualities and were called "elohim"—divine beings. The family estate was passed down by the ancestors and so families were more or less wealthy depending upon their ancestors' endeavours. For this they had to be honoured whatever level the family began at. Even slaves became members of their master's family. Families kept little statuettes—terephim—that stood for their elohim or "gods" and who represented the family's identity and fortunes. Rights of passage involved ceremonies of presentation of family members to the terephim for recognition and approval. Besides the cult of ancestors, successful families also had a cult of a founding "father" as a god. Plainly this was an extension of ancestor worship into a personal god of the family handed down by the father—the head of the household. By the early part of the final millennium BC, large clans had turned their family god into a localised cult with local shrines or temples. Generally he was called "Baal" meaning "Lord" because the senior member of a family is always addressed as Lord by his descendants, but he also had a toponym, a place name, or a clan name. Baal-Peor, the name of a Moabite god, was one such toponymic name. The names of Yehouah were similarly distinguished as excavators at Kuntillet Ajrud found in 1976 when they found references to Yehouah-Samaria and Yehouah-Teman. Just as Baal was not a single god, Yehouah was not a single god but a set of regional gods. Yehouah seems to mean "He Lives" or "He Is," rendered for scriptural purposes as "I Am". Thus the God of the Christians and the Jews is always called "The Living God." It seems he was originally a god of life or existence, a god who brought things into life, and therefore of fertility as scholars have long thought. Transfering the creation of everything to him when he displaced El as the creator was therefore easy. To his worshippers he was the "Lord of Existence." In any event the plurality of Baals was matched by the multiplicity of Yehouahs. There is good circumstantial evidence for a Yehouah-Hebron and a Yehouah-Zion. The sponsors of the cult of the temple at Jerusalem wanted to gather all of the local Yehouahs into one, whence their slogan: Hear, O Israel: Yehouah is one Yehouah (Deut 6:4), which plainly shows that there was a multiplicity of Yehouahs, but it is not the message the clerics want to tell their monotheistic flocks, and so is deliberately mistranslated as: Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord. The Moabite Stone illuminates our ideas of pre-Persian Israelite beliefs. In the Bible, the Moabites and Ammonites were kinsmen of the Israelites, and the Moabite Stone shows they had the same language. Though their gods had different names, the two peoples shared similar beliefs. The national god of Israel and Moab, who controlled national affairs, was each shown as an angry tyrant to be obeyed and mollified. Chemosh, the god of Moab, ruled directly according to Mesha who did what the god told him to do. Moab was oppressed by Israel because Chemosh was angry at his people, and Moab prospered because Chemosh dwelt with his people. Substitute Yehouah for Chemosh and the bible appears. Chemosh ordered Mesha, "Go, take Nebo from Israel!" just as Yehouah ordered Joshua to take Ai (Joshua 8:1). Both the Israelites and Moab used the "ban," or vow in warfare. The king would make a vow to kill the entire population of an enemy city, vowing also treasure for the god. Now the king had to enforce the vow. In Joshua 6:17-21, Joshua put Jericho under the ban and ended massacring them all, "men and women, young and old, even the oxen and sheep and donkeys." Saul failed to fulfil a "ban" by sparing the choice sheep and cattle, leading to his downfall. Jephthah vowed his daughter to Yehouah (Judges 11:30-40) and also could not avoid the outcome. Mesha built houses such as the "house of Baal-Meon," a common element in Canaanite place names, apparently as the place of a shrine to a deity. con'td

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 5:36:36 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

The Hebrew Goddess askwhy.co.uk Both textual and archaeological information testifies to the presence in the religion of the Israelites at least before the exile of a Goddess—Anat or Asherah—as a consort of Yehouah. Papyri found at the Jewish Egyptian centre at Elephantine include an oath of Anat-Yeho or Anat-Bethel, Bethel ("House of El") being a standing stone at the Elephantine sanctuary used as a cult symbol for Yehouah. A standing stone universally is a phallic symbol, so the "House of El" was his son, Yehouah, and Anat was the consort of both El and Yehouah! Anat-Yeho is the "Queen of Heaven" who is defended by her worshippers (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19;44:25) as superior to the god, Yehouah, doubtless the Yehouah imported by the Persian "returners" from exile. Archaeologists have also found Hebrew inscriptions at Kirbet el-Qom in the Judaean hills that speak of "Yehouah and his Asherah." Asherah is also linked with Yehouah-Teman and Yehouah-Samaria in blessings inscribed at Kuntilla Ajrud in Sinai. Mesha of Moab also refers to an apparently dual god named "Ashtar-Chemosh." Ashtar must have been a variant of Ishtar. Asherah was a Mother-Goddess known from the Canaanite Ras Shamra tablets. The "returners" were keen to be rid of images of the Asherim, phallic poles or pillars probably surmounted with an image and Deuteronomy 12:3 orders their destruction. 1 Kings 18:19 and 2 Kings 21:7 prove that Israelites worshipped this goddess in both of the kingdoms of the Yehudim. Micah reiterates Deuteronomy in having Yehouah promise to destroy those who do not destroy these Asherim. Whether Ashera, when it occurs in the bible, refers to the goddess or to phallic pillars, the "returners" wanted to be shot of them, much to the annoyance of the Am ha-Eretz and their wives who, over the centuries, had grown fond of them. It is this popular veneration of the goddess in her phallic form that explains the many cult fertility figurines found in Palestine but rarely spoken about—the pillar figurines. They are probably models of snctuary images sold to worshippers for persoanl devotional purposes. The Astarte Plaques are low reliefs of the goddess often surrounded by a frame probably meant to be the recess containing the cult image in the sanctuary. The Astarte Plaques therefore depict the goddess in the context of her shrine. Icons Scholars of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, have chosen to examine the many icons and images that have been found in Palestine with a view to providing a basis for understanding Israelite religion independently of the tendentious hagiography called the scriptures. No one is suggesting that the biblical writings can be thrown away. Even though they are much later compilations than most of the faithful have been led to believe, they still contain fragments of much earlier work and so can still be valueable historical information. The difference is that whereas the scriptures were formerly accepted as the standard, they no longer are. The hints at religious practice deducible from icons is likely to be a sounder yardstick and biblical information will have to fit in with the archaeological work, not the other way around. Doubtless the modern interest in images rather than words is related to the ease with which we communicate with images in the modern world of TV, cinema and computers. The earlier obsession with documented religion led to Protestant scholars particularly looking down on religions for which there was no such documentation. Religions of the "book" had been seen as having progressed beyond the primitive religions of mere sacerdotal ritual. The modern view is that images can be as valuable as text. The religions of the Hebrew God were thought of as being free of images because this advanced god could not be pictured. Images of goddesses were found in Israel but not images of Yehouah, a strange and illogical imbalance. If the god could have a consort, both must have been visible. The standing stones were symbolic of the god but there seemed not to have been any recognisable images of Him. The Calf of Samaria of Hosea 8:6, apparently the image of a bull in the temple of Bethel, has been apologised for as the pedestal supporting... nothing! Or an image of the invisible god, if you like! In fact, of course, the prohibition of graven images in the bible is late and the incident of the "Golden Calves" ("These be thy gods, O Israel") in Exodus 32:4 is a legend written in justification of it, but proving that image worship had occurred. The Norwegian scholar, Mowinckel, in the early part of the twentieth century was already telling people who wanted to listen that the Jewish proscription of images was late and that the temple of Jerusalem for long had an image of Yehouah in some form. More recently a number of scholars have pointed out that references to the appearance of God in psalms such as Psalm 27:4, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple, imply that somewhere was a fine image of God to be seen! Here the implication is clear that the "beauty of the Lord" is to be beheld in the temple, the "House of the Lord" (bethel). Cult statues of Yehouah must have been erected in his the various sanctuaries. The many towns called "Beth-something" in the bible must have been sites of sanctuaries to Yehouah or Baal. Only the "House" of a god is going to be remembered as a notable place. Evidently statues to Yehouah were present in the temples of Jerusalem, Samaria and Bethel. The capping evidence, that cannot be denied, is that Assyrian documents refer to cult images of the Israelites. Israelite and Canaanite Religion Biblical theology required the religion of the Israelites, sponsored, as it was, by God himself, to be vastly different—superior no less—to the religion of the other inhabitants of the Levant. The clerics therefore made a point of emphasising any difference they thought they saw between Israelitish religion and that of their contemporaries and compatriots, the Canaanites. Now a panther might be black all over but it is still in every other respect a leopard! To emphasise its different colour from other leopards is to miss every aspect of its true nature. Latterly the fashion among biblical scholars has been precisely to examine the similarities between Israelitish religion and that of the Canaanites. Only the balance of similarities and differences can fairly suggest whether "God's religion" was different in the beginning from Pagan religions. Now according to the Holy Book, in Deuteronomy, God wants His Chosen People to enter Canaan and wipe out the native people living there as idolaters. The native people would be eradicated and their idolatry would be expunged. This was, of course, a wish of the Maccabees—a thousand years—later who felt themselves threatened by the Greeks and was never a wish of the native Israelites who amicably shared the land with their Canaanite brothers. That, the Hellenised writers considered, was the trouble. The Israelites did not wipe out all other competing religions, but they should have done. Accordingly they put the warning into the scriptures. The temptations of Baal were made to represent the temptations of Zeus and Apollo and the philosophy of Plato, all the pertinent problems for Judaism at the time the scriptures were set down. Yet an archaeologist (W F Albright) besotted by biblical theology, despite a lifetime of "scholarship," can assure the readers of a "learned" book that "Canaanite and Phoenician paganism" contrasted with "the faith and practice of Israel." The only contrast here is in the author's tendentious choice of words to describe the religion he favours and the one he does not. Albright and all the many other biblical bigots can only see the source of their own religion as dynamic and true while the religions of the Canaanite neighbours of the Israelites were static and false. Because these religions are dead, they were seen as already dead even when they were alive, while the religion of a small minority of the people of Canaan, the Israelites, was alive, and so it has remained. God's religion was an active historical stage for Him to unfold his plan, though quite why God had to unfold his plan in this restricted and obscure way, rather than unfolding it for everyone he had created in the world, is never answered. No one knows because the whole thing is a fantasy of clerics intent on controlling simple people to their own financial advantage. Albright saw the Israelites as non-Canaanites who had entered the land from outside whether by conquest as the bible says or by infiltration, as the theologians accepted as a fall back position. There was not the least bit of evidence on or under the ground for any such invasion, and Albright was an archaeologist! The received view today is that, if there is no hint of a change of culture in some respect, then there was no change. There is no hint, so there was no change. What changed was the climate. Dessication of the land in the Bronze Age led to some Canaanites having to take to a more marginal method of living, pastoralism probably supplemented by the proceeds of banditry. These hill dwelling pastoral Canaanites and part time bandits were called the Apiru or Hebrews. At a later date, just as the Iron Age was beginning, the climate became less arid and conditions changed back to those suitable for sedentary life. The Hebrew bandits started to go straight, settling down first in the hills, then they were gradually admitted back into civilised society. They had not entered or re-entered Canaan, they were ethnically Canaanites, a mixed group anyway, and they had Canaanite culture throughout. What happened to Moses? Israelite religion must therefore have been a variant of the religions practised by Canaanites in general. The main difference which arose between this religion and other neighboring ones was that the Persians selected Jerusalem as the centre of a pseudo Zoroastrian cult based on the local god Yehouah. There was no particular slow variation from other Canaanite religions, but there was a sudden imposition of a foreign cult on to the local religion of Jerusalem. The imposition was resisted by locals for many decades but ultimately it triumphed, albeit in a highly fragmentated state. This imposition is the reason why Yehouah became monotheistic and is probably why the religion also rejected images. As Herodotus noted, the religion of the Persians was relatively free of images. Christianity was far from shy of sacred imagery despite its Judaic roots and monotheism is seen by many progressive people today as symbolic of religious intolerance rather than fidelity. In particular, the submergence of the Goddess is seen by many religious people as a huge disservice to both men and women through neglect of feminine attributes that today are seen as desirable in both sexes, but which have been unnaturally suppressed in favour of an exaggerated masculinity. Clearly, this history precludes the whole of the myth of Moses and the Exodus and, indeed, all of the bible until the Israelites were settled in Canaan. The Pentateuch or the five books of Moses, called by the Jews the Torah, are no longer thought by any scholars as early works as they once were. They were originally thought to have been written by Moses himself, a man who is supposed to have died about 1300 BC. Now they are thought to have been written no earlier than the "restoration.". Of course, it is possible that the books were written late but used much earlier sources. That seems quite likely but some scholars will not even go that far. And even if true, no one can be sure which parts of it are genuinely old and which parts are not simply a much later romance. People about the time of Christ, or just before, were just as able as more recent authors like Sir Walter Scott or William Shakespeare at writing historical fiction, but no bible basher will consider the possibility. The truth is that both books of the Christian bible are sugar baskets of popular fiction holding nuggets of historical truth. Dissolve away the fiction and the history remains, but no one has a suitable solvent, and so no one knows what is true and what is not. What we can say is that there is not the least evidence for large chunks of the Old Testament as it is presented to us and therefore it is likely to be mainly fictional. Norman Gottwald tries to retrieve something by saying that, although the people and specific places might be false, the cultural and social situation might be accurately represented. It is anoher way of admitting that the people who wrote these historical dramas were not fools. They had read poems, sagas, myths and books written in earlier times and just as any competent author can today, they were able to reconstruct a fair represention of a historical period. Into it they placed their fictional characters just as Scott or Shakespeare would. Gottwald tries to give this contrivance a scientific air by calling people and places H1 and period detail as H2. So, all right, the period detail might be correct but we can only be sure by using independent sources, and even then, so what? The period detail is not the point of the Old Testament stories. If Joshua or Deborah did not exist, what do their stories in the Old Testament tell us? The answer is that the Persianised or Hellenised Jews had a talented Catherine Cookson, quite able to write good stories. Apparently, the books of Samuel use the word "Hebrews" in a pejorative way that fits well with independent evidence that it meant bandits at that time. In other words, it is rather like the word "Viking" and who is to know that the word did not retain that connotation and that the Hebrews were not rather proud of it? It would fit in excellently with the self image of the Maccabees who probably sponsored the "Hebrew" scriptures and had stood as outlaws against the Greeks to win the independence of Palestine. This brings up the level of psychological truth that might be in the scriptures. They tell more about the writers than about the subject. Honest scholars will have a great deal more to discover about this aspect of the bible than they have hitherto. The themes throughout the scriptures are those of the people being liberated and returning to a promised land, of people who were lost and subject to the temptations of foreign gods, of people wandering and finding a home, of people crossing into a kingdom, all the time harassed by alien peoples. This is how the Maccabees saw themselves and the Jews, and it was their battles against the alien Greeks that the bible is a set of allegories about. A Proper Historical Approach There is not the least bit of evidence ever found that the Israelites were ever in captivity in Egypt and escaped to discover a Promised Land. It was the Maccabees who led the Jews to a promised land of their own, not Moses. What had happened in history and was known by Jewish writers at the time of the "restoration," was that Palestine had been a colony of Egypt for long periods of history. The decline of Egypt and the rise of Assyria, culminating in the annexation of Egypt by Assyria under Esarhaddon in the seventh century, allowed the Palestinian mini-states to throw off the yoke of Egypt. The metaphor of the Exodus served as an allegory of the freeing of Palestine from the Egyptians, as an expression of the Egyptians as traditional enemies of the Jews and as a vehicle for the adoption of the laws brought by the Persians. What the faithful do not like is that Palestine has a genuine history separate from the scriptural romances and the purpose of scholars should be to try to find out what it is. Once the bible is put on one side as untrustworthy, the way forward that suggests itself is to study all of the Palestinian mini-states together in a comprehensive study of the whole region between Egypt and the Euphrates. The religions in particular of the region should be studied independently of the major religions that later emerged because it has been the constant distortion of forcing everything through this unnatural sieve that has produced such a lot of incomprehensible intellectual spaghetti. Already archaeology has shown that Israel and Judaea were not religiously or ethnically distinct from other small states in the region like Moab, Edom, Ammon and the rest of Canaan. Even if these states existed before the eighth century BC they would not have prevented the other people of the region from travelling. If they existed, they existed for trade because the economies of the hill countries were based on a narrow range of produce, olives, vine and sheep, necessitating trade. The region's population must have had a certain mobility and must have continued to mix. Monotheism was not the norm until after the exile. It was the influence of Persia that created a distinctive Judaism stripped of earlier features such as a popular goddess, fertility rites, astrology and divination. The Christian and Jewish "scholars" to whom this is anathema object that their critics are anti-religious, as if any criticism of these artificial and backward religions implies criticism of all religion. In fact, some of the critics are perfectly conscientious Christians and Jews but ones who put integrity ahead of paperhanging. That, though, is something that too many sanctimonious wafer-nibblers cannot understand. They cannot see Israel and Judah as anything other than the singular nations their bibles say they were, and are quite unable to draw the conclusions that the evidence insists upon.

To: Chris land who wrote (15502)	6/5/2001 12:39:55 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

This explains a lot. " My agenda is to have an open debate with you..." I am not able to "debate" my beliefs. "so that we can see why you would believe in the Koran" I believe in God. The Quran is God's word. "or why you would ever encourage anyone to ever embrace the Muslim religion over Christianity." I have posted many testimonials about my belief in everything stated about Jesus in the Bible except the claim that "Others" make that he is God. It matches what many sects of Christianity believe. Sort that out among yourselves and then come back and discuss it with me. I do not expect your to change your perspective on that nor have I encouraged you to. I am not here to promote Islam. When a topic touches belief systems I mention mine. "I don't want you leading some lurker on into thinking they will get to heaven outside of Jesus Christ." God calls who God wills. I have no power to do any such thing. I am not of the "saviour" mentality.