who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[jonathan180iq]

Hardly. It is my position with my supportive documentation. You say I am wrong but you haven't given me a reason to believe I am wrong. Why should I change my position?

Your supportive documentation is a timeline based on the Bible... You're asking me to accept an ancient book of mythology as evidence that Judaism not only predates the other Mesopotamian religions, but that instead of being influenced by them it was indeed the starter of all religions, both ancient and modern.

I'm asking you for credible supportive documentation.

You have shown examples of parallel belief systems but then applied it to the fact that Judaism/Christianity was influence by it. I showed you how the majority of your claims were after Judaism started so it would be in reverse. Those that were at the same time period simply shows they existed at the same time. Monotheism is the one faith that was different than all the rest. It doesn't show any influence but a declarations that they are different.

You cited Attis (a known evolution of Adonis, who is a known evolution of Tammuz, who is a known evolution Dumuzid etc, etc) as being basically contemporary to Exodus...
You need to think about that for a second and then explain how an established belief system, somewhere else in the world, would have been influenced by what your source material depicts as little more than slaves and tribesmen wandering around in the desert. Even IF it has significant influence somehow, and was in the right place, the time frame is 62 years...

More on that later.

It is my theory. You don't have to accept it. I have no reason to reject it.

You can maintain your theory all you like - just don't state it as fact and attempt to pawn it off on others as accurate history.

And yet, likewise, you haven't pressed in any form that I am wrong. Is it because you have a weak case?

To which land does your Bible say the people of Israel invaded before settling down?
Did the people who previously inhabited that land have their own set of evidenced religious beliefs and practice? Yes... Yes they did.
Prior to the period of Judean monarchy, which obviously came after the invasion of Canaan, is there any evidence of Judaism outside of the Bible?

Not before 1200 BCE there isn't.

And yet somehow we know what some of the world's oldest religions were like because we have evidence...

Semitic Religions - Ancient Semitic religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canaanite Religion - Canaanite religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monoaltrism - Monolatrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And prior to all of that, were there or were there not, already existing on the planet, incredibly established societies with well-formed belief systems from which the entirety of Jewish history begins?

Cradle(s) of Civilization - Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth of Monotheism - Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First mention of Israel in antiquity - Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1208 BCE)

So, again, if your only source material is based on information that isn't substantiated anywhere in the world of common knowledge, let alone academia, what does that say about the validity of your argument?

 

[sojourner]

Prior to the period of Judean monarchy, which obviously came after the invasion of Canaan, is there any evidence of Judaism outside of the Bible?

There is no sign of invasion in the archaeological record. The best evidence we have is that the "invading" Israelites were canaanite in culture before the separate Hebraic religion developed.

 

[godnotgod]

.

Human sacrifice simply wasn't part of the picture.

Moloch Baal | The West’s Darkest Hour

 

[sojourner]

Moloch Baal | The West’s Darkest Hour

Yeah, but that's got very little to do with the Judaism we're talking about. And it's largely an "interpretation" by an "apologist" -- not textual evidence that has been exegeted.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, but that's got very little to do with the Judaism we're talking about. And it's largely an "interpretation" by an "apologist" -- not textual evidence that has been exegeted.

Are there more than one kind of Judaism?

The OT quotes reference infanticide by the Jews.

As I understand it, some scholars are suggesting that Yaweh is none other than Ba'al/Moloch, all solar deities.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It isn't that complicated:

It was the time when the shepherds were watching sacrificial lambs that were going to be used. There are other factors. But the exact date is not known.

We don't even know that. The birth narratives are literary constructs whose details are chosen for specific reasons, but factuality isn't one of them. The visitation by the shepherds is part of Luke's kingship narrative, for example, in which he constructs scenes that are reminiscent of Hellenistic kingship and then subverts them in major ways to indicate that Jesus was a different sort of king than the earthly type. And that in turn is part of his thesis that viewing the Messiah as an earthly king figure is wrong and always was, so Jesus's early death shouldn't disqualify him from the position. And that is in fact the main point of his Gospel.

The same can be said of the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which enters the tradition as a way to tie him to David (again, suggests legitimate kingship, justifies the title "Son of God," goes with the competing but equally fictitious genealogies that make him a direct descendant of David through various lines). But otherwise there's no indication that Jesus was from anywhere other than Nazareth, including our earliest sources. Luke's explanation for it is patently absurd—there was no mandate that people return to their hometowns for a Roman census—and his audience would have known that, but he gets away with it in the name of artistic license.

If we are reconstructing an accident and there are four witnesses, we take a statement to see if there is agreement and from their statements we reconstruct what happened.

Since we have the letters before the passing of the first century, there wasn't time to have a "reconstruction of his character and teachings".

Obviously you can disagree, but you have no support for that position. If there is some changing, one can certainly pinpoint what was changed by the multiplicity of evidence.

It's not my personal position; it's the position of mainstream Biblical scholarship. And the eyewitness analogy doesn't work because we have no eyewitnesses to Jesus's life. Paul is the earliest source we have, and he never met Jesus in a corporeal sense, although he claims to have come to know him in a mystical vision. And while Paul does claim to have met Peter and Jesus's brother James, it's also clear that they didn't exactly agree on the subject of the teachings.

I'm not saying we don't have any idea about Jesus's teachings, just that it behooves us to keep in mind that what we have has been filtered through an existing tradition, complete with a certain amount of interpretive work baked in. We don't have it directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The same is true of Socrates, for whose teachings we have to rely on his students Plato and Xenophon—who depict him in significantly different ways. And that's a closer relationship than any Biblical author had with Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

The OT quotes reference infanticide by the Jews.

But not by faithful Jews. These were Jews that worshiped gods other than YHWH.

As I understand it, some scholars are suggesting that Yaweh is none other than Ba'al/Moloch, all solar deities.

There's a difference between Baal worship and YHWH worship. "Some scholars" and "suggesting" is a pretty weak argument. And it doesn't change the fact that the Judaism from which Xy sprang did not practice human sacrifice.

 

[godnotgod]

But not by faithful Jews. These were Jews that worshiped gods other than YHWH.

Yes, I realize that, but they were still Jews. There is a name for such Jews, which escapes me at the moment. All I'm saying is that pagan worship/sacrifice did spring up within the religion itself, even though it was condemned by mainline Jews.

(I apologize for the referenced site, as I was unaware of it's slanted position in general, but the article itself is valuable if only for the Biblical references.)

[/QUOTE]There's a difference between Baal worship and YHWH worship. "Some scholars" and "suggesting" is a pretty weak argument. And it doesn't change the fact that the Judaism from which Xy sprang did not practice human sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

I deliberately used the word 'suggesting' as a matter of caution. But the connections are a bit stronger than this. The idea here is that Yaweh is rooted in Ba'al/Molech, even though there an obvious difference in worship developed later.


Nature of the Worship:

The name "Molech," later corrupted into "Moloch," is an intentional mispointing of "Melek," after the analogy of "bosheth" (comp. Hoffmann in Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 124). As to the rites which the worshipers of Molech performed, it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase "pass through the fire to Molech," that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isa. lvii. 5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice. From Jer. vii. 31 and Ezek. xx. 25, 26, it is evident that both prophets regarded these human sacrifices as extraordinary offerings to Yhwh. Jeremiah declares that Yhwh had not commanded them, while Ezekiel says Yhwh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their first-born, so that through chastisement they might know that Yhwh was Yhwh. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh as King or Counselor of the nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it and denounced it because it was introduced from outside as an imitation of a heathen cult and because of its barbarity. In course of time the pointing of "Melek" was changed to "Molech" to still further stigmatize the rites.

Motive of Sacrifices.

The motive for these sacrifices is not far to seek. It is given in Micah vi. 7: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" In the midst of the disasters which were befalling the nation men felt that if the favor of Yhwh could be regained it was worth any price they could pay. Their Semitic kindred worshiped their gods with offerings of their children, and in their desperation the Israelites did the same. For some reason, perhaps because not all the priestly and prophetic circles approved of the movement, they made the offerings, not in the Temple, but at an altar or pyre called "Tapheth" (LXX.), erected in the valley of Hinnom (comp. W. R. Smith, "Rel. of Sem." 2d ed., p. 372). "Tapheth," also, was later pointed "Topheth," after the analogy of "bosheth." In connection with these extraordinary offerings the worshipers continued the regular Temple sacrifices to Yhwh (Ezek. xxiii. 39).

MOLOCH (MOLECH) - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Vishvavajra]

You certainly haven't offered a reason for me not to believe it. Apparently, according to Hebrews, they still believed it to be true.

Yes... that is the English translation that those who read it believe the one who would bruise the head of the serpent would be the Messiah. Targum's Jonathan and Onkelos agree. Why should I disagree?

Well, there's the problem that the Messiah concept evolved over time and there's no evidence that it existed at all when the texts that became Genesis were composed. Projecting later developments back onto Genesis is the favorite sport of a number of modern laymen, but it's problematic in a whole host of ways, which is why scholars are loath to do it.

As for Hebrews, all it really stands as evidence of is the novel ways in which 1st century Christians reinterpreted scriptures to suit their particular program. No Christian scripture serves as evidence of how ancient Jews understood them. The serpent in the garden is a prime example, as there's no evidence that ancient Jews saw it as symbolic of anything in particular or as anything other than a snake. Christians later rationalized it to accommodate their new mythology about Satan and read that view back into the text, to the point where many today don't even realize it's not actually there unless you put it there. Apparently some people are doing the same with Messiah concepts. Poor snake can't catch a break, I tell you.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If I am to assume that the historical presentation of Genesis is correct...

I can't believe I missed this. Here is where you go off the rails. Genesis contains nothing that qualifies as history by any accepted definition of the word. You're taking one culture's creation myths as evidence of the actual origin of things, including that culture's being of greater antiquity? You might as well be fair and accept the creation myths of all other peoples. You'll find that they make exactly the same claims and that their cultures were also the first ones in existence. In other words, it's not evidence of anything whatsoever, except that Hebrew myths are not actually different from anybody else's.

I don't find it self serving. The fact that monotheism is archaeologically proven to be during the time of Mesopotamia, supports the position that I hold. You certainly haven't proven me wrong in my position.

I happen to work with archaeologists. They would find your assertion amusing for a moment, then shake their fists in the air at the failure of modern education. In short, there is no archaeological evidence for monotheism. That's not how archaeology works at all. There is literary evidence for monotheism in the Exilic period and after, which is when much of the Hebrew Bible was composed and the earlier works redacted. Before that, not so much. We can't even say it for pre-Exilic Judaism, since the only accounts of that period are coming from a later time and are being made to fit with the ideology of that time. And what archaeology there is doesn't support the idea that the pre-Exilic Hebrews were monolatrous, as shrines and idols to other divinities have been found. And that shouldn't surprise us, as the prophets wouldn't have been pushing monolatry so hard if it weren't the case that people were behaving more or less like any other ancient Mediterranean person in that regard.

It's an old rhetorical technique that people in the region were quite fond of: claim that your way is in fact the original way and the stuff you're speaking against is a novelty that has crept in and corrupted everything—even if the reality is closer to the reverse. The Greeks and Romans were also fond of it.

In short, while some people here are in fact overstating how much Judaism has adopted from "paganism" (whatever that means), instead of simply developing out of its own early traditions, at the same time Judaism is coming from roots that aren't appreciably different from any other ancient Mediterranean culture. They certainly evolve in their own direction, but the starting point was similar and not devoid of influence from their neighbors. And most importantly of all, monotheism was something that developed over time and didn't solidify until relatively recently (as classicists understand the term "recently"). None of that is remotely controversial in the field of academic study of religion in general or the Bible in particular. It's been a couple of centuries since anybody could take Genesis uncritically as source for anything other than early Judaic myth and be taken seriously as a Biblical scholar. That ship sailed a very long time ago, around the time Biblical scholarship became a real academic field with actual methodological considerations.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Heh...heh...you're being foiled by your own argument.

The atmosphere and the weather are one and the same, in the same way that a tree is not made of wood; it IS wood.

IOW, the weather is simply a behavioral change of the atmosphere, just as ocean waves are a behavioral change of the ocean itself. Waves are not separate from ocean; they ARE 'ocean'.

That's what I'd call a pseudoprofundity: it sounds really clever and deep on the outside, but on the inside it doesn't actually say anything, apart from pointing out basic semantic relativism. And while it's good to know that words and concepts can be deconstructed, at the same time that doesn't change the fact that the conventional meanings of words and concepts can be meaningfully different and those differences can be useful. Moreover, while I'm more than capable of playing the same game, the fact is that "waves are the ocean" is not more true than "waves are not the ocean." Nor is "a tree is wood" more true than "a tree is not wood." This was hashed out literally thousands of years ago, and one would have a hard time finding an authentically ancient wisdom tradition that was not based on this understanding. Those from India in particular show a great deal of linguistic sophistication. It's the New Agers who think that lumping everything together into one big mass is somehow the most profound thing ever.

What we mean by the term "weather" isn't identical to what we mean by the term "atmosphere," even if they are related and even mutually dependent concepts. One might as well say that "foot" and "running" are the same thing and that feet require running to exist—and that moreover running is a concept independent of feet (which is where it really goes off the rails). And thus things get really sketchy, since you go well beyond simply mutual dependence and actually posit that one aspect of the allegedly identical pairing is in fact primary and independent of the other. It doesn't work both ways.

We have some scientific evidence to show that consciousness grows the brain. Long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non meditators.

The emergence of the brain in higher forms of life is the way consciousness deals with more complex tasks that the organism must face. It relegates certain repetitive duties to the brain so that it can then focus on what is going on up front. This way, it does not have to deal with heartbeat, breathing, blood flow, muscle action, digestion upfront all at once, 24/7, especially when danger presents itself. It wants automatic and immediate supercharging of the muscles for fight or flight if, for example, a tiger suddenly appears.

Meditators aren't more conscious than other beings, by your own admission. For if consciousness is the true cosmological constant and the very ground of being, how can one being have more of it than another? As for the rest, it's simply a matter of redefining "consciousness" to mean whatever one wants it to mean at the moment. For a very long time people have been using the term to refer to an emergent, complex, self-aware form of mental activity. Now some folks want to reduce it to any sort of reaction whatsoever, just so they can say that everything is consciousness, thereby robbing it of any intelligible meaning.

This also gets into the fallacy of division, which is based on the assumption that if something has a particular characteristic, then all its constituent parts must also have that characteristic. But it's simply not true, as we know from many, many examples in the world. Properties emerge from the confluence of a variety of causes and conditions; they are not essentially inherent in things. Water molecules do not contain the essential characteristic of liquidity within their particles, nor is there essential coldness. Nor does the compound we call table salt reflect the individual characteristics of the highly toxic constituent atoms, nor do sodium or chloride individually possess the quality of saltiness. The atoms and subatomic particles that make up a ripe strawberry are not individually red, nor tart, nor sweet, nor juicy. Nor do they possess even a plant's subtle degree of awareness, which itself does not qualify as sentience, much less as sapience.

The fallacy is based on the failure to acknowledge that properties are emergent and depend on complexity, rather than being infinitely divisible. It's also basically a form of essentialism, which is another stroke against it, as no essentialist doctrine can ever be demonstrated or hold up to analysis, since no component or quality of the phenomenal world of our experience is simultaneously other than a component or quality of the phenomenal world and therefore transient, relative, and lacking independent existence. Hence the refusal to stick to operational definitions, which is just a way to weasel out of critical analysis without admitting defeat.

The error in your argument here is that the alleged consciousness of an atom or of any form, is localized within that form. The consciousness of all forms is universal and non-local. We, as humans, falsely create a static image of ourselves called 'I', which is a total illusion. It is based on our accumulated life experiences and social indoctrination, which, altogether, we call 'I'. We then think this 'I' is the localized ego that acts upon the world. Total illusion. We call this illusion the state of Identification, the Third Level of Consciousness.

I don't know who "we" is. Is it a specific New Age movement you identify with? In any case, you don't have to lecture me on the illusory nature of the self. Buddhadharma is the first known system to have worked that one out in a systematic way, around 2500 years ago, and it did so without positing an essential, elemental consciousness as a replacement for the self. Without essentialism of any sort, actually. Or positing the identity of different things. Or positing that qualities are inherent or infinitely divisible. Or making pseudoscientific claims about the objective nature of reality. Or requiring appeals to anything outside of everyday experience. But most importantly, while maintaining logical rigor and consistent operational definitions so that theories could be tested and refined and, if necessary, discarded. For just because mental constructs are only conventionally true, that doesn't mean precision isn't important. Or that all conventional models are equally useful.

Again, it all looks like New Age appropriation of ancient ideas without understanding the context. When the Yogacarins said "all is Mind," for example, they didn't mean anything like what you're saying and would have found your arguments incoherent. They're the ones I thought of as a possible garbled source for all of this, since they were the original "Mind-only" sect. But it occurs to me that what you're talking about really sounds more like an odd form of neo-Stoicism, only approached from the opposite direction. But most likely it's a case of some people trying to reinvent the wheel without caring much what people who've invented wheels before have had to say on the matter.[/quote][/quote]

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is no sign of invasion in the archaeological record. The best evidence we have is that the "invading" Israelites were canaanite in culture before the separate Hebraic religion developed.

I should've known that.
Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I realize that, but they were still Jews.

By heritage only -- not by religion; especially not in the time of Jesus, when the concepts for the new Movement were being laid. Therefore, since the whole point of this is that Substitutionary Atonement has its roots in ancient Judaic religious practice, I'd say that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The Jews out of which Xy was formed despised the practice and the concept of human sacrifice.

All I'm saying is that pagan worship/sacrifice did spring up within the religion itself, even though it was condemned by mainline Jews.

OK, but that's not cogent to the point here, which was my whole argument. Of course human sacrifice existed within the region and the racial stock, but that's hardly the issue.

 

[Vishvavajra]

By heritage only -- not by religion; especially not in the time of Jesus, when the concepts for the new Movement were being laid. Therefore, since the whole point of this is that Substitutionary Atonement has its roots in ancient Judaic religious practice, I'd say that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The Jews out of which Xy was formed despised the practice and the concept of human sacrifice.

Indeed, the theory of penal substitutionary atonement could only have been invented by medieval Christians like Anselm who were looking back at Judaic sacrificial practices (and were thus even further removed from the realities of sacrificial cult themselves). The concept would have been abhorrent to early Christians, which is no doubt why it took 1000 years to appear on the theological scene.

The author of Hebrews may seem to walk a fine line, but in that case I believe context is everything. Hebrews isn't actually arguing for substitutionary atonement in particular or for regarding Jesus as a human sacrifice in general; it's written to be a bridge that conservative Jews can cross to arrive at the Christian view, in which temples and sacrifices are unnecessary because everybody is a temple in which Christ dwells. And after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem that message would have been seen as timely. Later readers, of course, blithely ignoring context, would see it as evidence that Jesus was literally a blood sacrifice to atone for wrongdoing.

 

[Kenny]

Your supportive documentation is a timeline based on the Bible... You're asking me to accept an ancient book of mythology as evidence that Judaism not only predates the other Mesopotamian religions, but that instead of being influenced by them it was indeed the starter of all religions, both ancient and modern.

We have a couple of problems here. You say it is a book of mythology but have not proven it, have not given me supportive documentation and have not validated your position but you want me to validate mine. Then there is the issue of whether your personal mythology is better.

You say that the pagan religions affected Judaism but, by and large, have offered no supportive documentation other that simply noting that other religions have similarities which does not mean that it was influenced. It simply states that there are similarities.

I'm asking you for credible supportive documentation.

And credible for you, basically means credible for you. Obviously it has been credible for many people over the years.

You cited Attis (a known evolution of Adonis, who is a known evolution of Tammuz, who is a known evolution Dumuzid etc, etc) as being basically contemporary to Exodus...
You need to think about that for a second and then explain how an established belief system, somewhere else in the world, would have been influenced by what your source material depicts as little more than slaves and tribesmen wandering around in the desert. Even IF it has significant influence somehow, and was in the right place, the time frame is 62 years...

If I understand you correctly, how were the others influenced by Adonai? It has been proposed by some that Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. With Abraham, Isaac and Jacob living there, interacting and impacting that area in their times, it isn't unusual for the name to be spread throughout. As with so many cultures of that time, if there was a god, many would simply "adopt" the next god that seemed to be important.

You can maintain your theory all you like - just don't state it as fact and attempt to pawn it off on others as accurate history.

Interesting, however, is the fact that you can pawn of your theory as accurate history. Why is that?

To which land does your Bible say the people of Israel invaded before settling down?

Did the people who previously inhabited that land have their own set of evidenced religious beliefs and practice? Yes... Yes they did.
Prior to the period of Judean monarchy, which obviously came after the invasion of Canaan, is there any evidence of Judaism outside of the Bible?

I'm trying to find continuity of thought here.

If we find something written on the Egyptian pyramids, do we take that as evidence of something? If it mentions a war, do we take that as evidence that they were in a war? So, why would I then reject what was written by the Jews as not a possible historical happening?

Or, if you want to attack it another way as people so often do, if The Iliad has some truth in it but it is fiction and therefore the Bible is the same, then should I then say that all historical documents are therefore fiction?

And if it is historical and each country followed their own god, why would there be evidence of the God of the Jews in the area of the god of the Canaanites?

And yet somehow we know what some of the world's oldest religions were like because we have evidence...

Semitic Religions - Ancient Semitic religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canaanite Religion - Canaanite religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monoaltrism - Monolatrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And prior to all of that, were there or were there not, already existing on the planet, incredibly established societies with well-formed belief systems from which the entirety of Jewish history begins?

Cradle(s) of Civilization - Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth of Monotheism - Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First mention of Israel in antiquity - Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1208 BCE)

So, again, if your only source material is based on information that isn't substantiated anywhere in the world of common knowledge, let alone academia, what does that say about the validity of your argument?

Yes.. these have evidence. But imagine if I threw out all the papyrus information because it was "self serving". We don't do that. But you want us to throw out all the evidence that has been collated into what we call "The Torah". We know that the Jews didn't erect gods like the Canaanites, Amorites etc but, indeed, they were commanded not to make gods and bow to them, but you want us to provide a figurine to support their beliefs beyond what was commanded them?

It just isn't logical. IMV

 

[outhouse]

We have a couple of problems here. You say it is a book of mythology but have not proven it,

That is not possible. No one can prove to you anything as you refuse credible education and knowledge.

You also made a claim that your working on your doctorate, which im finding more then hard to believe .

 

[outhouse]

We know that the Jews didn't erect gods like the Canaanites

That is not true.

Israelites evolved from Canaanites and used the previous Canaanite deities. Yahweh existed before Israelites did. So did El.

 

[outhouse]

It just isn't logical.

That is what people say who refuse logic.

 

[outhouse]

If we find something written on the Egyptian pyramids, do we take that as evidence of something? If it mentions a war, do we take that as evidence that they were in a war? So, why would I then reject what was written by the Jews as not a possible historical happening?

Because the Egyptians were writing about the present time period.

Israelites wrote pseudo history because they wrote a thousand years in the past, from a time period before they even existed. AND they were beat down so many times by other civilizations, that had no clue what their own origins even were anymore.

This is grade school history 101, not something someone going for a doctorate should be educated on. You cannot pick up a credible book today that does not describe the mythology in these early books YOU refuse credible education and knowledge on.

 

[outhouse]

why would there be evidence of the God of the Jews in the area of the god of the Canaanites?

Because the gods of the Canaanites WERE gods of the Israelites.

The Canaanite people disbanded in the bronze age collapse. Do I need to spell that out for you too Dr?

These displaced people started to settle the highlands as semi nomadic people who picked up the name Is ra El just before 1200 BC, who were for the most part wiped out.

Is Ra El is for El the deity. They are not named Is ra Yahweh