Was Moses even a Hebrew?

[9-18-1]

If Moses wasn't a Hebrew, Judaism is obviously false.
If Judaism is false, Christianity and Islam are also false.

The son of Amenhotep III (Akhunatun) has almost too many striking similarities to the biblical Moses.

He grew up and was educated in the Egyptian mystery schools, attained a co-regency with his father and began preaching monotheism: the worship of only one god (Atun) [or Aten]. He decommissioned all other existing forms of worship to the point where he was expelled from Egypt by the military (controlled by the clergy who were losing business), only to return to claim the throne and be rejected and taking his own followers with him into the desert. All of this transpired around the time between 1300 BCE and 1000 BCE (depending on when one places the Exodus, of which there were actually two).

So if Moses is a mythical figure who was given a Hebrew identity, despite having actually been an Egyptian, then the entire god of Abraham paradigm is based on falsehood from the beginning regarding the Hebrews being the "chosen" people. The Canaanite god 'el' is found everywhere in the books of Moses, only to later be replaced by YHVH.

This would render Moses a false prophet, Jesus a false prophet, and Muhammad a false prophet. It would also explain why humanity has been at war for thousands of years due to the principle division of "believer" vs. "unbeliever" as is so prevalent in Christianity and Islam: both having spread by the sword. Judaism treats non-Jews in a similar way: so-called "gentiles" and/or "goyim". The labels begin in religion: someone is always something.

The profound attachment(s) [worship] people have to/for these religious figures is precisely the scheme that has been used time and again: erect a central figure (not necessarily physical), imbue this figure with fantastical qualities, start a religion based on them, and implore adherents to take this figure as their "example" on how to live.

If Moses wasn't a Hebrew, all of these Abrahamic faiths are essentially idol worship. As it is obvious to me what probably "happened" with Moses/Akhunatun, the (earlier) god of Abraham is nothing but a mythological story concocted by the Jews (Shasu; "Israelites") to justify their existence. This has interesting implications relating to why Islam is hostile to Jews and the State of Israel: of course they would be, but unfortunately Islam is just as degenerated as Judaism is, as it is a product of it. Islam makes the same claims for itself that Judaism does: both are (apparently) in possession of the perfect word of god, both worship only one god, and both are gods "chosen" people. This huge mess is inherently a Semitic problem that has its roots from ancient Egypt, and these "cults" have (and continue to) create many problems on the planet, none of which have ever ended without bloodshed.

 

[Remté]

If Moses wasn't a Hebrew, Judaism is obviously false.
If Judaism is false, Christianity and Islam are also false.

You lost me. That doesn't add up.

 

[Misunderstood]

I posted in the section on Moses below. It might help explain what happened; why he is Hebrew and raised as an Egyptian. Its kind of long, but worth the read.


Exodus Chapeter1 (Starting at verse 8)

8Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; 10come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.” 11Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage—in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.
15Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; 16and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”
19And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”
20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.
22So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”

Exodus Chapter 2

Moses Is Born

1And a man of the house of Levi went and took as wife a daughter of Levi. 2So the woman conceived and bore a son. And when she saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months. 3But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank. 4And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him.
5Then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river. And her maidens walked along the riverside; and when she saw the ark among the reeds, she sent her maid to get it. 6And when she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby wept. So she had compassion on him, and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”
7Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?”
8And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go.” So the maiden went and called the child’s mother. 9Then Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him. 10And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. So she called his name Moses, saying, “Because I drew him out of the water.”

 

[Kenny]

He was a Hebrew.

#3

 

[Misunderstood]

He was a Hebrew.

#3

Much shorter and to the point than mine.

 

[9-18-1]

He was a Hebrew.

#3

Much shorter and to the point than mine.

Here comes the triggering.

There was no Hebrew Moses - it is a fictional character based on the historical Akhunatun, who was not a Hebrew, but an Egyptian. Just because it is written in the Bible (which has at least four different authors) doesn't make it true, which is the first problem: "belief". The second problem is idol worship: "wanting" something to be true because it is the "belief" one has.

It is the problem of people placing authority over (as) truth rather than truth itself over (as) authority. I am sorry for those who reside in the former, as it necessarily leads to idol worship, which is essentially what the Abrahamic religions are and/or have become.

 

[Remté]

Here comes the triggering.

There was no Hebrew Moses - it is a fictional character based on the historical Akhunatun, who was not a Hebrew, but an Egyptian. Just because it is written in the Bible (which has at least four different authors) doesn't make it true, which is the first problem: "belief". The second problem is idol worship: "wanting" something to be true because it is the "belief" one has.

It is the problem of people placing authority over (as) truth rather than truth itself over (as) authority. I am sorry for those who reside in the former, as it necessarily leads to idol worship, which is essentially what the Abrahamic religions are and/or have become.

If only we could ever know...

Idol worship which is essentially what the Abrahamic religions are / have become? How do you define idol worship?

 

[9-18-1]

If only we could ever know...

Idol worship which is essentially what the Abrahamic religions are / have become? How do you define idol worship?

How I do not define it: physical objects, statues, images etc. This is all mundane and a base understanding of idolatry.

Before anything finds physical expression, it must first find expression in the mind, whence we derive the axiomatic 'as above, so below'. As such, idols are first imagined in the mind and need not necessarily have anything remotely to do with anything physical.

For example, Jesus is an idol. He has a Greek name based on a Jewish messiah, and there are just as many imaginations of Jesus as there are "believing" Christians. Muhammad is also an idol: a central figure upon which rests an entire empire. The premise of Islam is to imitate the life of Muhammad, and it is by virtue of the fact that Islam legislates the death penalty for insulting Muhammad, this is revealing of their reverence / worship of him. Jesus and Muhammad are probably the two of the most destructive idols that humanity has ever made.

This began in Judaism: turning the Egyptian Akhunatun into a Hebrew savior-man that justifies the state of Israel. This is exactly how all empires are formed: it starts with a dictator-type conqueror wherein they conquer others. It is only after the fact that the 'idol' is made retrospective to suit or "justify" the presence of the empire. Egyptians did it with their gods, the Greeks did, the Romans and their Jesus, and Muhammadans and their Muhammad etc. There is a recurring theme throughout all: central figure(s) to imitate/emulate which is profoundly predominant in the Abrahamic religions originating with/in Judaism which, itself, began as a Canaanite consolidation.

But of course we have these institutions teaching adherents idols are physical objects, much in the same way adherents are being taught that Jesus and Muhammad were real and as described by their respective holy books or "perfect" word of god: of which none actually are (Torah/Bible/Qur'an) as they are all man-made. It is like a global celebration of stupidity and idol worship which has been the catalyst for numerous wars, hundreds of millions dead and women are essentially enslaved by men esp. in Islam - it's complete barbarism.

Idol worship most fundamentally begins with ego and "taking offense": if you take offense to something/anything, it is because you are worshiping an idol(s) that is often ones own ego. For example that Christians/Muslims take offense to criticisms to their idols are idol worshipers by virtue of the fact they take offense to such criticisms. Islam tries to chastise the Christians for associating partners with Allah, yet the messenger of Islam is literally called 'companion of Allah'. Islam is like a mental illness: completely backwards in their thinking and projecting their own deficiencies and imbuing everything/everyone else as having them. It's all projection.

 

[Remté]

The premise of Islam is to imitate the life of Muhammad,

Not in true Islam in my view. There are plenty of Muslims who do but it is not the premise of Islam.

and it is by virtue of the fact that Islam legislates the death penalty for insulting Muhammad,

That also can only be in some communities. Not in Islam in general.

 

[9-18-1]

Not in true Islam in my view. There are plenty of Muslims who do but it is not the premise of Islam.

That also can only be in some communities. Not in Islam in general.

It is stated 89 times in the Qur'an that Muhammad is the most exemplary pattern of conduct or example to emulate. It also clearly calls for the killing of anyone who "wages war" against Allah and/or Muhammad. Muhammad routinely had poets executed for pointing out his obvious hypocrisy - such a penalty was carried out by the prophet himself and will always be a part of Islam, which is most practically and pragmatically a death cult: the subjugation and eradication of any/all people that do not "believe" as Muslims do. This is most practically and pragmatically fascism, and at least one of the major roots of it (as is the case in Judaism before/with it).

 

[Remté]

It is stated 89 times in the Qur'an that Muhammad is the most exemplary pattern of conduct or example to emulate.

Really? Wow

also clearly calls for the killing of anyone who "wages war" against Allah and/or Muhammad.

I believe all nations have this on their list as well. Someone attacks to with an army to kill you - you kill them

Muhammad routinely had poets executed for pointing out his obvious hypocrisy - such a penalty was carried out by the prophet himself and will always be a part of Islam, which is most practically and pragmatically a death cult: the subjugation and eradication of any/all people that do not "believe" as Muslims do. This is most practically and pragmatically fascism, and at least one of the major roots of it (as is the case in Judaism before/with it).

No evidence or even proper reasoning.

 

[Firemorphic]

It is stated 89 times in the Qur'an that Muhammad is the most exemplary pattern of conduct or example to emulate

What an odd thing to say, when Muhammad is barely mentioned 5 times in the book. (and only alluded to in other places, as the Qur'an doesn't focus around him......)

 

[9-18-1]

Really? Wow

I believe all nations have this on their list as well. Someone attacks to with an army to kill you - you kill them

No evidence or even proper reasoning.

Muhammad's Dead Poets Society: The assassination of satirical poets in early Islam

Muhammad essentially killed anyone/everyone that questioned his so-called being the final 'companion' to Allah, which is the only true god according to Islam. 1400 years later, hundreds of millions are dead, Islam is waging war against the entire West, and the House of Islam executes people who criticize or insult Muhammad. Look at what happened with Aasia Bibi: see how the idol worshipers are offended by this woman. This Canaanite desire to spill blood goes hand in hand with taking offense and idol worship, which are both the same.

This is precisely what is idol worship: how Islam portrays Muhammad, and how Muslims regard Muhammad. A central, sole and infallible figure who has a companionship to Allah. This is idol worship; and one can not even join Islam without breaking at least one of the ten commandments: thou shalt not bear false testimony (shahada). When measured against these ten commandments, which Muslims either knowingly or unknowingly claim were delivered by their same Allah, Muhammad's "life" violated every single one of them, and the testimony every single Muslim must take is false: a definite severance from the god of Moses (who wasn't even a Hebrew - he was an Egyptian).

So as far as I am concerned, even in light of the ten commandments, Christians and Muslims are idol worshipers, and they so stand as such with their endless wars, conquests, trafficking of women and children, corruption etc. These are the things the idol worshipers worship, and I do not worship these things.

What an odd thing to say, when Muhammad is barely mentioned 5 times in the book. (and only alluded to in other places, as the Qur'an doesn't focus around him......)

Muhammad is never the speaker: he is allegedly imparting messages from an angel, and this angel (ridiculous) is revealing what Allah is saying through Muhammad. It is therefor often said "We have given you," or "We have provided you with," followed by any manner of way to describe the companion Muhammad - the implication being Muhammad is not acting on his own accord (even though he was) but by the will of Allah. This association of man to Allah is precisely what makes Islam idol worship, like Christianity before it.

When you combine this with the fact that the Qur'an is knowingly forged from Christian strophic hymns and apocryphal works, along with the modifications the book has undergone since its only-existing version was the Uthmanic one after he burned all others (book burning is never a good thing), as well as the fact that there was never a central historical prophet Muhammad until the time of Abd al-Malik (late 7th CE) when he starting distributing a currency with prophetic imagery on it. The real history of Islam is not as the House of Islam claims: it is very different, and if people knew the extent of it, they would probably commit suicide (especially the women) - this is also true for Muslim men if they knew who the real historical Muhammad was and what he actually did, and who helped him do it. The "good" version of Muhammad that is sold to the Muhammadans is an idol that is concealing a very degenerated man: who lived a life of polygamy and nightly fornication, daily war and cutting off of heads in genocidal (organized) fashion, and never appointing a successor to his rule. His death erupted into a bloodbath of factions fighting one another over who is the rightful heir: Sunni vs. Shia which has lasted 1400 years. Approx. 270 000 000 are dead as a result of Islamic jihad.

Christianity did the same before: central figure, cutting off heads of whoever doesn't "accept" Jesus (in the case of Islam, Muhammad as the final messenger) and building an empire of idol-bound idol worshipers. In this way I see both Christians and Muslims as idol worshipers and unite them into that category. Both Jesus and Muhammad are idols worshiped by idol worshipers - whether or not they realize they are idol worshipers is the same problem with an insane person being unable to realize they are insane. One who is insane can not inquire in/of themselves. Worshiping, or using as example, dead men is insane, that applies equally to both Christianity and Islam for me. I understand war as a manifestation(s) of human ignorance: thus to eliminate war is to eliminate ignorance (and vice versa), and idol worshiping religions are cults of ignorance that lead to war.

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - those who call themselves "believers" are lost. Belief (or ones own) has absolutely no grounds to reality - it is ones own bubble of ignorance. In order to 'know' something, you must first understand it. When something is fully understood, one derives wisdom which unites two or more into one: as truth has no polarity, it simply is. Regarding truth, there are two ways people handle it: authority as truth, or truth as authority. The former leads to division and idol worship, the latter unites all things as one, which is what everything is anyways before being divided by the false sense(s) of separation.

 

[rosends]

Let's assume for a moment that we are talking about the notion of an historical Moses, so the claims presented in the religious texts need not concern us. The similarity between the Moses character and a non-Hebrew historical figure would allow someone to conclude that Moses was not a Hebrew. Except for one problem. Heck, maybe even 2.

The first is that the Hebrews grew as a group through a combination of birth, marriage and accepting outsiders. Abraham "made souls" -- that is, he, and his household (including slaves) became the "Hebrew" group. Upon the Exodus, the mixed multitude attached itself to the escaping slaves and became part of the group. So Moses, even without the birth connection, could, by philosophy and belief, be a "Hebrew." His wife was from Midian and yet she became part of the Hebrew people (Moses even invited his father in law to join up).

Second -- the moment you talk about a "false prophet" you lend credence to the idea of a "real prophet." As such, you are buying into the biblical narrative and the concept of a divinity that speaks to humans. If so, then one can easily say that God can choose to appoint anyone his particular messenger. Balaam was a prophet with a valid messagr from God and he wasn't a Hebrew. Aharon is said to be a prophet speaking on behalf of God and Moses. So not being a Hebrew would not invalidate a textual claim to being a proper prophet from God.

 

[Remté]

: how Islam portrays Muhammad, and how Muslims regard Muhammad. A central, sole and infallible figure who has a companionship to Allah. .

I partly agree with this part (mind if I cut it out of context so I can agree with at least one thing you said) *Some* Muslims do have an attitude to Mohammad too much like as if he was God himself. They think everything he did was right. I'm not contrasting it to wrong here, but they even say, for instance, that because *allegedly* Mohammad always sat down to drink instead of remaining standing, it is the right thing for a Muslim to do. But that is not Muslims in general.

 

[9-18-1]

Let's assume for a moment that we are talking about the notion of an historical Moses, so the claims presented in the religious texts need not concern us. The similarity between the Moses character and a non-Hebrew historical figure would allow someone to conclude that Moses was not a Hebrew. Except for one problem. Heck, maybe even 2.

The first is that the Hebrews grew as a group through a combination of birth, marriage and accepting outsiders. Abraham "made souls" -- that is, he, and his household (including slaves) became the "Hebrew" group. Upon the Exodus, the mixed multitude attached itself to the escaping slaves and became part of the group. So Moses, even without the birth connection, could, by philosophy and belief, be a "Hebrew." His wife was from Midian and yet she became part of the Hebrew people (Moses even invited his father in law to join up).

You just on the one hand said the religious texts need not concern us, then cited stories from religious texts. I do not grant there was an historical Abraham or Moses: hence the idolatry of Moses in regards to an historical figure that did exist, who was Akhunatun, who was an Egyptian, and even had an egyptian Queen Nefertiti whom he tried to make his equal by re-establishing the balance between masculine and feminine (something even I feel was/is needed). I respect the historical Akhunatun much more than a mythical Moses because i. Akhunatun actually existed and ii. many events described in the religious texts did not actually "happen" - they are fiction.

This is precisely why we need to avoid using the religious texts as history: while they may be shaped and/or inspired by historical events, that doesn't mean what is written there is 'true'. This is, once again, why "belief" is not a virtue.

Second -- the moment you talk about a "false prophet" you lend credence to the idea of a "real prophet." As such, you are buying into the biblical narrative and the concept of a divinity that speaks to humans. If so, then one can easily say that God can choose to appoint anyone his particular messenger. Balaam was a prophet with a valid messagr from God and he wasn't a Hebrew. Aharon is said to be a prophet speaking on behalf of God and Moses. So not being a Hebrew would not invalidate a textual claim to being a proper prophet from God.

I don't buy into any narrative: in saying "false prophet" I am not assuming there is such a thing as a true one - I am sorry if you understood it that way.

I do not grant that Balaam was a prophet, or that Aaron/Moses even existed - these are beliefs. If Moses (granting he or something like him existed) was not a Hebrew, this is fatal to Judaism - they can't claim any land/authority if their "account" of their oppression and liberation was/is false: that a Hebrew led them out and they are gods "chosen". If Moses was actually an Egyptian (Akhunatun) then the entire basis of Judaism (and everything after it) is unsound, which brings us back to, idol worship and thousands of years of war. If we had the truth about Moses (Akhunatun) this so-called only-one-god wouldn't be severed and split into Judaism/Christianity/Islam: for what competence is there in a god that is one, who can't help but lead the masses into division and war? Of course, the other explanation is, it is all a product of man, and not of god. Idol worshipers struggle the most with even considering this as a possibility, despite it being the most likely to explain why humanity has been waging war over god for thousands of years.

 

[rosends]

You just on the one hand said the religious texts need not concern us, then cited stories from religious texts.

Only because you talked about a false prophet which requires that we rely on the existence of the biblical text. If you reject that Moses ever existed then there is no fear of "false prophet." There is also no "idolatry of Moses" because he is not a focus of prayer in Judaism.

If Moses (granting he or something like him existed) was not a Hebrew, this is fatal to Judaism - they can't claim any land/authority if their "account" of their oppression and liberation was/is false: that a Hebrew led them out and they are gods "chosen".

But that relies on the text, and, as cited, according to the text, one does not need to be born into the Hebrew group to be a valid messenger from God so your conclusion is here is false within the construct of the text.

 

[9-18-1]

I partly agree with this part (mind if I cut it out of context so I can agree with at least one thing you said) *Some* Muslims do have an attitude to Mohammad too much like as if he was God himself. They think everything he did was right. I'm not contrasting it to wrong here, but they even say, for instance, that because *allegedly* Mohammad always sat down to drink instead of remaining standing, it is the right thing for a Muslim to do. But that is not Muslims in general.

I try not to look at it from the perspective of Muslims, but of the 'state' of Islam itself as an ideology and how it is constructed/designed to immediately appeal to idol worship before it even reaches the person (at a young age). Of course children are indoctrinated to love/respect the prophet Muhammad, and this is what many Muslims grow up feeling/believing. Not that these feelings are not genuine or insincere, they are just based on lies.

For example the Qur'an is out-of-order: it does not flow in a linear way. This is to conceal the step-by-step modus operandi of Islam in how it begins to infiltrate and take over from within. This is encoded into the life of Muhammad: he starts as a nothing-burger and becomes king of Arabia under the guidance of Allah. A Muslim then, whether or not they realize it, are adopting this same behavior/model by virtue of being a Muslim. That is what makes Islam inherently idolatrous: the entire spine or backbone of Islam is the life of Muhammad. You can not have Islam without Muhammad: he is the very structure of it.

 

[9-18-1]

Only because you talked about a false prophet which requires that we rely on the existence of the biblical text. If you reject that Moses ever existed then there is no fear of "false prophet." There is also no "idolatry of Moses" because he is not a focus of prayer in Judaism.

It is not required to rely on biblical text when talking about prophets of god - this is especially true if one denies the god of Abraham as being either a god, a true god, or the only god. For example one can talk of prophets of other religions.

But that relies on the text, and, as cited, according to the text, one does not need to be born into the Hebrew group to be a valid messenger from God so your conclusion is here is false within the construct of the text.

The text is unreliable. To say "relies on the text..." you're relying on something that is itself unsound - it is not entirely accurate. There are references to historical events having taken place which, historically, did not take place. If this is the case, which it certainly is, the bible is not the word of god: at a very minimum, it is unreliable. Any attachment to the scriptures beyond this (imbuing them with an authority or significance they don't actually have) is another form of idol worship: it's the same "problem" that Judaism started with their Torah, and the Muhammadans decided to make the same claim about their book: now we have two opposing factions both claiming they are in possession of a perfect and unaltered book. There are options here: only one is true, or both are false. I obviously advocate the latter, and therefor return to the point that the text itself is part of the problem. This is why I focus on what we know as actually having happened: Akhunatun initiates monotheism, gets expelled and later returns to take back power, is denied and leads an exodus of people out into the desert. This definitely happened: and the story of Moses is essentially the same - with details modified to make a heretical link with the people of Israel and god. This retro-reconstruction of history always commences when a state is established, often followed by a holy book and central figure (idol).

 

[rosends]

It is not required to rely on biblical text when talking about prophets of god - this is especially true if one denies the god of Abraham as being either a god, a true god, or the only god. For example one can talk of prophets of other religions.



The text is unreliable. To say "relies on the text..." you're relying on something that is itself unsound - it is not entirely accurate. There are references to historical events having taken place which, historically, did not take place. If this is the case, which it certainly is, the bible is not the word of god: at a very minimum, it is unreliable. Any attachment to the scriptures beyond this (imbuing them with an authority or significance they don't actually have) is another form of idol worship: it's the same "problem" that Judaism started with their Torah, and the Muhammadans decided to make the same claim about their book: now we have two opposing factions both claiming they are in possession of a perfect and unaltered book. There are options here: only one is true, or both are false. I obviously advocate the latter, and therefor return to the point that the text itself is part of the problem. This is why I focus on what we know as actually having happened: Akhunatun initiates monotheism, gets expelled and later returns to take back power, is denied and leads an exodus of people out into the desert. This definitely happened: and the story of Moses is essentially the same - with details modified to make a heretical link with the people of Israel and god. This retro-reconstruction of history always commences when a state is established, often followed by a holy book and central figure (idol).

I would say that your position begs a series of other questions, most predicated on your particular belief of what "definitely happened", but if that's your belief then have at it. If just seems that the title and supposed central challenge is secondary to your underlying denial of the validity of the entirety of the text and therefore the entirety of particular belief systems. Questioning Moses' position as a Hebrew seems too local a point to try and make. Best of luck to you.