uche africanus wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:26 am
Thanks for your reply. Abraham was a man of faith and for that he was loved by G-d. But Abraham did not give the Jews a religion. It was Moses who turned Abraham descendants into a congregation. Now, you see my early claim that Moses was an initiate into an African religion is foundered on fact and not as you mistakenly believed, on a triumphalism.
Moses was not the first to believe in a one, undivided God. Akhenaten, who ruled Egypt for 17 years in 14 century BC abolished the complex gods of Egyptian pagan religion. Jews, like other congregants have struggled with the belief in a singular, ominopotent God. Even during their exit from Egypt, they raised a golden calf to worship despite the remarkable presence of G-d’s power of miracles in extricating them from Egypt. Moses witnessed this horror when he descended from Mount Sinai with G-d’s commandments.
Prophet Ezra felt compelled to restore the religion of Moses following the Babylonian exile because he believed and rightfully so that the religion had been tainted with pagan influences. The name Moses is an Egyptian honorific title for one who has been initiated. The same as Thutmoses.
Even Christianity arose out of Neoplatonism and strengthened itself by borrowing pagan ideas. As the Apostle Paul said, everything that needed to be in place for the coming of the sovereignty of Christ was already in place. The ways of G-d are mysterious, my dear neverfail.
All right, have it your way UA! The important thing is that they arrived at the truth: though centuries of helotry in a land that was not their own seems a heavy price to have paid for that awareness. But then, that seems to sum up the historic experience of the chosen people over the centuries.
You may be pleased to know that I now accept that ancient Egyptian culture was very likely African in its roots. However, there are "Africans" and then there are Africans. I have every reason to believe that Egypt's buildup from obscurity into one of the World's earliest, and most illustrious, high agrarian civilisations has a lot ot do with its "favoured" location at the northeastern extremity of the continent where it interfaces with (respectively) the Asiatic Middle East and the Mediterranean Sea.
It meant that, like ancient Canaan/Israel, Lebanon and Syria and for the same reason, it was able during times of prolonged peace, to profit richly from a three-way cross-continental commerce and trade. Historically, market place entrepots like that have been meeting places where news, gossip, rumors and ideas have exchanged and cross-fertilised one another. Unfortunately, such regions have also historically been arenas of turbulence where trade routes easily turn into invasion routes and paths for mass-migration.
So whilst I concede that the original Egyptian Old Kingdom was likely native African; with the collapse of that order into unspeakable chaos (for reasons that are still not entirely clear); invaders from the Asiatic Middle East (equipped with horse drawn war chariots as a new war-making technology) subsequently moved in and ruthlessly fashioned a new order that bore their hallmark as much as that of the earlier occupants of the lower Nile. In the process that likely drove a lot of survivors as refugees further up the Nile Valley. Their places were likely filled by immigrants from the Asiatic Middle East of whom the Hebrews might have been one of several. Ever since then Egypt's ties, civilisational and otherwise, with this region along with the broader Mediterranean, seems to have been consistently stronger than its ties with sub-Sahara Africa.
Meantime, whilst all of this historic high drama was going on along Africa's northern rim, south of the Sahara Africa, lacking these advantages and the cross-cultural influences that flowed from it, seems to have remained one of the World's prehistoric backwaters: mired down in a dark ages without end.