The Construction of Judaism

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, snowymountains said:

YHVH as the monad corresponds to the Self (with capital S) archetype

 

YHVH corresponds but is not limited to the Self.  It is the Self and more.

 

If you disagree, I can show you if you define the monad and/or the Self.

 

6 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Mystical experiences of prophets, Jesus etc

 

How do you evaluate Prophet or not?

 

How is clarity of the revelation produced lacking contrast?  If there is contrast, then there are counter-example which need to be sifted from the others.  If there is no contrast then YHVH does not will to be clearly revealed.  Therefore, if there is no contrast nothing can be clearly asserted about this concept called:  "YHVH".

 

Do you see the dilemma?  Unless some distinction is made among these mystical experiences, somehow filtering out false positives, there's no reason to make any conclusions at all.  Agnosticism is the only rational choice.

 

6 hours ago, snowymountains said:

there's no one size fits all answer to this.

 

Agreed.  There's no "one-size-fits-all" answer to this.

 

There's a "one-size-fits-all-and-more" answer to this.

 

Always more.  Forever more.

 

Forevermore = eternity = YHVH

 

Edited August 12 by Daniel

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

All archeological evidence is dated

 

Yes , otherwise it is  removed from history .

 

 

 

Edited August 12 by Nungali

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

I didn't write that.

 

 

 Denial , Daniel ?

 

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Then you know that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism. 

 

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Then you know that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism.  The dates are "the latest beginning", but could be much earlier.

 

Since your view is possible I shall  soon post some information about the view that  the  construction of Judaism began in the Persian Period  * .

 

A few others  have traced Judaism's construction to the Persian Period .

 

*  That is , when Persia  ruled in that area and the 'Jewish Kings'  where under their rule.

 

This view holds some weight , as Persia started to decline and with Egypt as a neighbour  a new political entity was formed  to fill the void .   And it is not unique for some newly formed aggressive political entity , that is going on a land grabbing violent rampage  to claim some 'extravagant glorious and God ordained ' privilege / past / racial identity  and special reasons to do so .

 

< shrug  >  thats history for ya ... they all have done it  in some form .

[snowymountains]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

YHVH corresponds but is not limited to the Self.  It is the Self and more.

 

If you disagree, I can show you if you define the monad and/or the Self.

 

It is more but the extra bits are transcendental, when people project God onto something, they project the Self. So when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

How do you evaluate Prophet or not?

 

How is clarity of the revelation produced lacking contrast?  If there is contrast, then there are counter-example which need to be sifted from the others.  If there is no contrast then YHVH does not will to be clearly revealed.  Therefore, if there is no contrast nothing can be clearly asserted about this concept called:  "YHVH".

 

Do you see the dilemma?  Unless some distinction is made among these mystical experiences, somehow filtering out false positives, there's no reason to make any conclusions at all.  Agnosticism is the only rational choice.

 

That's the difficult question, isn't it, and has no easy answer. How can we know thousands of years later if a religious experience had been true or if it's a faery tale or it was a psychotic episode. We can't know 100%.

We can look at the experience itself and see if it makes sense symbolically and also do a "background check" on the experiencer, but there's no bulletproof way to evaluate it.

 

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

Agreed.  There's no "one-size-fits-all" answer to this.

 

There's a "one-size-fits-all-and-more" answer to this.

 

Always more.  Forever more.

 

Forevermore = eternity = YHVH

 

 

Still, unless someone first learnt about YHVH through a religious experience, they first learnt about YHVH through a religious tradition, which is an intellectual framework.

So while it also is a defence, the religious framework also passes down knowledge from previous generation.

 

If you mean that God doesn't need our frameworks then yes, if a disaster happened civilization was destroyed and with it all our texts and online backups and a new civilization emerged almost from scratch, then yes, without any of our texts, through their own spiritual development, they would rediscover God.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It is more but the extra bits are transcendental, when people project God onto something, they project the Self. So when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

.....

 

Do they?  Or do they seem to?

 

I think it is perhaps more about narrative construction around 'something' inexpressible.  If I have a transcendental experience say and I want to tell others about it - and they ask where did you get this knowledge - then you might say 'it spoke to me' ... just as on hearing great music you might say the same thing.  Then this is written down as 'God spoke to him' because it is a way of communicating the source of knowledge to people who have not had transcendent experiences.  

 

If one was to actually project Self onto this ineffable presence, say, then actually you are having a filtered and lesser experience of the divine.  If you see what I mean.

 

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It is more but the extra bits are transcendental, when people project God onto something, they project the Self. So when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

Why the "but"?

 

If the individual is talking to a projection of Self, not to YHVH, then YHVH is not the Self.  There is a correspondence, but it is not equivalent.  We're in agreement?  

 

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

YHVH corresponds but is not limited to the Self.  It is the Self and more.

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

IF YHVH corresponds to the Self but is not limited to the Self ...

THEN when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

they talked to a projection

 

 

All communication is the product of adoption-and-projection.

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

That's the difficult question, isn't it, and has no easy answer. How can we know thousands of years later if a religious experience had been true or if it's a faery tale or it was a psychotic episode. We can't know 100%.

We can look at the experience itself and see if it makes sense symbolically and also do a "background check" on the experiencer, but there's no bulletproof way to evaluate it.

 

Let's assume this is true.  If so, then, there is nothing that can be rationally asserted about YHVH.  Agreed?  If there is no way, then YHVH is not bestowing a way.  If what you write is true, then, YHVH's will is not to reveal itself to its creations.  This is the opposite of Abrahamic scripture, and that's fine.  There is nothing wrong with taking this point of view.  Agnosticism is the rational choice here, if what you wrote it true. 

 

And, IF what you wrote is true, then, the entire Abrahamic construct and our literature is false.  Again, that's a perfectly fine approach. A person can do everything they need to do, and more, without anything relating to Abraham or the Jewish stories.  Perhaps, one reads the stories for inspiration and illumination, but, none of this is actually describing a God that exists outside the human mind-and-heart.  The aspects of the story which resonate with the individual are nothing more than projections of their own self ( individual soul ).  The aspects of the story which resonate as universal truths are still nothing more than projections of the individual's perception of the world which is being shaped by their own life experiences as they are perceived in their mind-and-heart.  Again, this is a completely self-centered, self-contained approach.  

 

Self... contained...

 

Question:  Is the Hebrew bible telling a story about a people chosen to be free?  Or Is the Hebrew bible telling a story about a people chosen to be contained?  Or is it something else?

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Still, unless someone first learnt about YHVH through a religious experience, they first learnt about YHVH through a religious tradition, which is an intellectual framework.

So while it also is a defence, the religious framework also passes down knowledge from previous generation.

 

What happens if the knowledge is incomplete, and, the individual is relying only on knowledge?

 

Knowledge is always and forever incomplete.  That's the nature of knowing.  No one knows what they don't know.  Because of this, releasing oneself from the rat-race of needing to knowing is the first step, a necessary step, to opening the mind, and escaping from the limitations of the self/Self projections.

 

Hypothetical:  Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections.  OK?  Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form?   Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Yes , otherwise it is  removed from history .

 

~eye-rolls~

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Denial , Daniel ?

 

Your lack of attention to detail is not my problem.

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

I shall  soon post some information

 

Correction:  You shall post incomplete information.

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

thats history for ya

 

Historians don't make assertions in the manner you are doing in academic settings.   But I have seen them become overly enthusiastic on YouTube.  What's published in academic peer reviewed journals is much more measured and reasonable.

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It is more but the extra bits are transcendental, when people project God onto something, they project the Self. So when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

The 'wicked' Aleister Crowley  wrote ;  Man is the creation of God ,  but God is the creation of Man  

 

That's the difficult question, isn't it, and has no easy answer. How can we know thousands of years later if a religious experience had been true or if it's a faery tale or it was a psychotic episode. We can't know 100%.

 

By context ?    Woman I know started convulsing in street, talking some rubbish language and blathering , ended up in psyche ward .  On her release , a mutual friend  hosted her , she appeared better but then disappeared .  We found her much later, she was in another town and had married the pastor of an evangelical church .  Mutual friend declared ; " You convulse and talk to 'possessing forces' in the street,  they call it crazy . You do it in church, they call it religion . "

 

We can look at the experience itself and see if it makes sense symbolically and also do a "background check" on the experiencer, but there's no bulletproof way to evaluate it.

 

 

Still, unless someone first learnt about YHVH through a religious experience, they first learnt about YHVH through a religious tradition, which is an intellectual framework.

So while it also is a defence, the religious framework also passes down knowledge from previous generation.

 

If you mean that God doesn't need our frameworks then yes, if a disaster happened civilization was destroyed and with it all our texts and online backups and a new civilization emerged almost from scratch, then yes, without any of our texts, through their own spiritual development, they would rediscover God.

 

The 'Jungians '  would agree with that , the 'Freudians'  would not    

 

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It is more but the extra bits are transcendental, when people project God onto something, they project the Self. So when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

 

 

 

That also is the crux ( in a way ) of this thread .

 

If you have someone ¹ or some group  ²  constructing a political takeover , oppression of others , war,  invasion and slaughter ...1;  'Your God' is going to give you commands like that  when you 'talk' to him . '' Go forth ... it is your divine God given right , and those that stand before you shall fall ! "  Or 2; if you report such a 'revelation' it will be well received and considered valid within that group .

 

Now, in ritual magic and psychology , its not 'bad' to have such guides and forces , but we must look at what they are telling us to do ....  love they neighbor is better than 'kill they neighbor ' .... most sane people would agree  .

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Correction:  You shall post incomplete information.

 

Well, I am not the one claiming 'omnipotence' exists   .

 

 

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Historians don't make assertions in the manner you are doing in academic settings. 

But I have seen them become overly enthusiastic on YouTube.  What's published in academic peer reviewed journals is much more measured and reasonable.

 

Oh, the old  'academic peer reviewed  ' BS    You might have noticed that DaoBUMS   is not an 'academic' setting or institution .

 

 

Mr Sealion complains that stuff on DaoBUMS  is not  being 'academically peer reviewed '.    

 

 

 

if you want THAT ... go there !   And get off DBs .  forum .... or  any forum .  If you want a forum LIKE that , go to a history forum -

 

Except they would eat you alive there .

 

meaning , its about history and one's  private religious proclivities  and biases are immaterial .

Edited August 13 by Nungali

[Daniel]

31 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Well, I am not the one claiming 'omnipotence' exists   .

 

 

 

Neither did I.

[Daniel]

25 minutes ago, Nungali said:

its about history

 

History from that era is sketchy at best.

[Nungali]

On 8/12/2024 at 11:02 AM, Daniel said:

 

Yes.  That's included in omnipotence.

 

You are justifying something you said by referring to something you now say you never said   .

 

Typical .

[Nungali]

29 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

History from that era is sketchy at best.

 

You also forgot  to have a little tantie  about this ;

 

" History (and archaeology ) is a record of what we know .....  so far . "

 

Who knows what we will find or what might happen in the future .

 

The Jewish Messiah might appear and the dead be resurrected

 

All nations might recognize the God of Israel as the one true and only God .

 

A new heaven and a new earth are created .

 

And, if pigs   are not rejected , they might fly up to heaven too    

 

 

Edited August 13 by Nungali

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Typical .

 

Here.  Let me help you.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

You are justifying something you said by referring to something you now say you never said   .

 

Nungali.  What I wrote is above, it was in response to what you had written.  The capability to take any form is by definition formless.  It is not defined by any distinct form.  It is formless.  And.  This is included in omnipotence.

 

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Well, I am not the one claiming 'omnipotence' exists   .

 

Neither did I.  The concept includes the capability to take on any form.  That's all I claimed.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

" History (and archaeology ) is a record of what we know .....  so far . "

 

The dating of archeological evidence is TAQ, "The latest beginning".  Archeological evidence cannot be used to determine the date when an idea or a religion was conceived or constructed.  Later discoveries can push the date backwards, but not forwards.

 

For example:  if there is archeological evidence that Judaism became popular in 200BCE, that is the latest date, but it could have been earlier.    If at some point new archeological evidence is discovered and dated to 100 BCE.  That doesn't change anything, because there's earlier archeological evidence from 200BCE.  The latest beginning is still 200 BCE.  However, if archeological evidence is discovered from 400 BCE, the latest beginning shifts backwards.  The latest beginning is now, after this discovery, 400BCE, but it could be earlier.

 

That's TAQ.  It's how all archeological dating is utilized.  It's very simple.  But the YouTubers ignore it or simply don't know what they're talking about, and prefer to make their money off of the clicks.

 

Edited August 13 by Daniel

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Here.  Let me help you.

 

 

 

 

Nungali.  What I wrote is above, it was in response to what you had written.  The capability to take any form is by definition formless.  It is not defined by any distinct form.  It is formless.  And.  This is included in omnipotence.

 

 

Neither did I.  The concept includes the capability to take on any form.  That's all I claimed.

 

Your quoted 'post history' does not go back enough to realise the context .

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

The dating of archeological evidence is TAQ, "The latest beginning". 

 

Since you could not criticise the statement you quoted , you quoted it and then returned to this dead donkey ?

 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Archeological evidence cannot be used to determine the date when an idea or a religion was conceived or constructed.  Later discoveries can push the date backwards, but not forwards.

 

Of course they can , happens all the time .   You are  affirming things you dont seem to know about .

 

 

The linking of the relative chronological system with absolute dates is of major importance to understand the temporal dimension of the respective phases. Until the 1980s, the beginning of the EBA in Central Europe was dated to around 1700 BC on the basis of long-distance connections with the Mediterranean (for an overview cf. [18]). Since the late 1980s, a growing number of radiocarbon-dated contexts have enabled us to obtain scientifically determined dates of various phases. When Rüdiger Krause [19] published the radiocarbon dates for the Bz A1 cemetery of Singen in southern Germany, archaeologists were electrified by the surprisingly old dates for the beginning of the EBA. Following Becker et al. [20] it soon became common sense to locate the beginning of the EBA around 2300 BC or 2200 BC in central Europe at the very latest [21], [22]. As these dates enabled archaeologists to replace the insecurities of long-distance dating by the seemingly scientific truth of ¹⁴C dates, the new early dates were accepted widely and found their way into museum exhibitions as well as popular literature. At the same time in the late 1980s, dendrochronological dating of the so-called princely grave of Leubingen in Saxony-Anhalt helped to identify the beginning of Bz A2 in the 20^th century BC and dendro-dates from Alpine lakeside settlements suggested an end of the EBA in the 16^th century BC [23], [24]. Therefore, it seemed natural to date the transition from Bz A1 to Bz A2 to around 2000 BC.

Since then, new radiocarbon dates have produced more problems rather than improving our understanding of the connection between the relative and absolute chronology: 22 graves from the area around Stuttgart in southern Germany, which were typologically attributed to Bz A1, were dated to the 20^th and 19^th centuries BC and, therefore, seemingly too young [20], [25]. On the other hand, contexts with Bz A2 type objects in the area of the Únětice culture (Aunjetitzer Kultur) in eastern Germany were dated to the centuries before 2000 BC ([26], [10], [27]): e.g. Quenstedt grave 34 with an Ösenkopfnadel (eyelet pin): 2350–1907 BC (90.7% probability); hoard II of Melz: 2205–1952 BC (95.4% probability). These results also met criticism, as it seemed impossible to have such early dates for sophistically cast bronze objects [28], though the early date for a grave with Bz A2 bronzes from Feuersbrunn in Austria– 2198–2162 BC (8.4% probability) and 2152–1960 BC (87.0% probability)–further underlines the early appearance of Bz A2 types [29]. However, these contradicting results have not found adequate explanation so far. Moreover, the rarity of Bz A1 types in eastern Germany and the rare Bz A2 types in southern Germany should have already raised the question, whether the traditional EBA relative chronology can be applied for the whole of Central Europe without further modification [30]. Until now, the lack of radiocarbon dated Bz A1 and A2 type objects from different contexts from southern respectively eastern Germany has prevented us from better understanding EBA chronology as well as social and cultural developments.

 

In short :

 

" On the basis of the early radiocarbon dates .. the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe was originally dated around 2300/2200 BC ... to around 2000 BC ... On the basis of 140 newly radiocarbon dated human remains ...  We are now able to date the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to around 2150 BC and its end to around 1700 BC. "

 

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139705

 

 

Happens all the time .

 

Or to put it in the form of 'archaeological humour' .....

 

 

.....  wait for it  ....

 

 

It Harappans all the time .

 

 

Spoiler

 

How the 2008 Alamgirpur re-excavation challenged timeline of ...

theprint.in › Opinion

4 Sept 2023 · New dates from the site, ranging from 2600 to 2200 BCE, questioned the established timeline of Harappan presence in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab.

 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

For example:  if there is archeological evidence that Judaism became popular in 200BCE, that is the latest date, but it could have been earlier.    If at some point new archeological evidence is discovered and dated to 100 BCE.  That doesn't change anything, because there's earlier archeological evidence from 200BCE.  The latest beginning is still 200 BCE.  However, if archeological evidence is discovered from 400 BCE, the latest beginning shifts backwards.  The latest beginning is now, after this discovery, 400BCE, but it could be earlier.

 

See above .

 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

That's TAQ.  It's how all archeological dating is utilized.  It's very simple.  But the YouTubers ignore it or simply don't know what they're talking about, and prefer to make their money off of the clicks.

 

 

 

There you go with your irrelevant 'youtubers' stuff again .

 

The above evidence to refute THIS PART of what you where trying to claim is NOT a youtube .

 

Its one of those 'peer reviewed papers  you where complaining about that are not being cited and ' all I got is youtube dunderheads ' .

 

Note the copy  its opening page ;  

 

Open Acess

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large-Scale Radiocarbon Dating

 

Now, go on, try to 'muddy the water '  again .

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Your quoted 'post history' does not go back enough to realise the context .

 

No.  You're adding context to what I wrote.

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

of course they can

 

No.

 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

On the basis of the early radiocarbon dates .. the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe was originally dated around 2300/2200 BC ... to around 2000 BC ... On the basis of 140 newly radiocarbon dated human remains ...  We are now able to date the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to around 2150 BC and its end to around 1700 BC.

 

Originally the date was  2300-2000.  Then, this date was made more specific:  2150-1700.  That's not a major shift.

 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

new radiocarbon dates have produced more problems rather than improving our understanding

 

The article is describing the challenges of carbon dating.

 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

Quenstedt grave 34 with an Ösenkopfnadel (eyelet pin): 2350–1907 BC (90.7% probability); hoard II of Melz: 2205–1952 BC (95.4% probability).

 

These results also met criticism, as it seemed impossible to have such early dates for sophistically cast bronze objects [28], though the early date for a grave with Bz A2 bronzes from Feuersbrunn in Austria– 2198–2162 BC (8.4% probability)

 

and 2152–1960 BC (87.0% probability)–further underlines the early appearance of Bz A2 types

 

 

Do you see it?  The carbon dating for the archeological evidence in support of the 2300-2000 range is conflicting and less reliable.  

 

The article is reporting new evidence with more reliable carbon dating.

 

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

the beginning of the Early Bronze Age

 

The beginning of the iron age is not the same as the dating the conception of ideas or the construction of a religion. 

 

Apples =/= Oranges