I would suggest the "Christians" you describe are the fundies. Plenty more of the moderate/liberal Christians don't believe that Genesis should be taken literally. And some reject the idea of original sin. Still, good points.

Jews don't get a pass either because your post downplays them as more liberal. I know you don't buy their deity anymore than you do the Christian one.

BUT, as you said, in correctly rejecting the superstition of other religions, you applied the same logic to Christianity and Jewish religions.

There is tons of evidence that even the Jews stole their ideas from prior polytheism. Of course they would argue that they don't mean the same thing, but that is besides the point.

Names out of the OT appear prior polytheism, EL, ELOHIM, BAAL and ASHURA are all part of the Ugartic pantheon which were adapted into the early Hebrew faith. Jewish historians will claim that they have nothing in common. THATS TRUE, if one is to go by the parameters of the Hebrew stories.

BUT, as we have seen in business competition, we see Coke come up with a new flavor soda, and Pepsi will look at that and come up with their own version with a different flavor and different color can. What people miss is that the "motif" is the same SODA.

So while "BAAL", for example, had different powers and different attributes in polytheism, the name, even if only in name, was taken from a prior religion and adapted and changed to suit the newer religion.

In the Ugartic text it says, "Let us make them in our image" which ment the head god "El" was summoning his divine family(lesser gods) to make humans in their image. We see this same motif occur in the OT.

We see older motifs such as curing blindness, flood stories, eye for an eye, creation motifs, purity motifs, in polytheism long before the monotheism of the god of Abraham.

The core of religion is quite simple, "My deity(insert label here) chose us, "chosen people" and someday a super hero(monotheism) or "super heros(polytheism) will save us".

This motif was born out of tribal kingships who attributed their wealth and power to gods.

Which makes more sense?

1. "Thor makes lighting"

OR,

2. Someone made up that story?

If one rightfully rejects that claim, what makes them think their own religion is immune to making false claims?

It makes much more sense that humans make things up and believe them as fact, than it would be to litterally believe that their magical claims are real.

 

 

 

I agree that Yahweh aka El is probably derived from the older gods and may in fact be the same as El or Ba'al. Some legends say Yahweh's consort Ashtoret was the daughter of El and Asherah.  Some of the legends have Yahweh and Ba'al both as volcano gods, gods of war or gods of thunder. Yahweh, El and Ba'al may be the same god renamed depending on the culture and region. Followers of Yahweh worshipped Asherah/Athtoret sometimes called Anat through the 3rd century BCE. Athirat or Asherah was said to be the wife or consort of El or Yahweh or both.  There is conjecture Yahweh developed from the ancient god Ba'al as Ba'al simply means Lord, owner,  master or prince. As with Yahweh his true name was never used.  The Ba'al cycle  tablets contain the story of Ba'al's conflicts with Yamm as well as Mot the god of death which are reflected in the Hebrew Bible.

My point in using Judaism was to show how Christian beliefs morphed from it in a new direction not supported in their scriptures. It in no way suggests I see Yahweh as anything other than another god derived from ancient beliefs of the superstitious Canaanites.

All?
I don't think so.
I think you're idealizing a more liberal take on Judaism and comparing it with fundamentalist Christianity.
Both religions have their liberals and their fundies.

Yeah.
Not like that anyhow.
They believe that the Bible is a history of people and their experiences and trying to make sense of God.
Not so much a literal history of events on earth so much as history of people making sense of God.
They see sin as turning away from God and their relationship with him.

That's as good as I can give you as I don't believe it myself and don't much care, but if you're interested in a genuine non-fundamentalist theology, you might find this book an interesting read. It's by a Catholic Theologian who doesn't resort to the old "That's old Testament - it doesn't mean anything anymore" cop-out.
His mystical interpretation comes across pretty coherent.
It's a nice and easy read.
While I hardly agree with it and although  there were atleast a couple of points that might have raised my eyebrow, as Christian books go that's actually pretty good!

There's also one on the New Testament that I might try sometime.
As atheists we'd probably disagree with a great deal with it, but I think that it's good evidence that there is genuine moderatism theology out there rather than just people who can't commit to the fundamentalist 'real deal'.

I was raised Lutheran near the extreme end of the scale for fundies and became a Catholic at 19. I became a skeptic in college and an atheist by the time I was 35. I sometimes slip and forget that not all Christians believe like  the indoctrination I had as a child.  I hadn't realized some Christians were taking a similar stance as Judaism where sin is more the turning away from God. I was mostly trying to understand how Christians justified the differences just for understanding. I know I never thought about how the Jews missed all of the Christian concepts in their own Bible when I believed. Thanks for the suggestions on the books.

Actually, it's a far, far simpler matter than that, and it all comes down to one guy:

Saul of Tarsus. Paul the Usurper, as some call him.

The early church in Judea, in Jerusalem, was very much a judaic sect. The Disciples gathered for their sabbath services and then a communal meal, during which they'd talk about their friend and rabbi, tell stories, reminisce, and generally look forward to seeing him again... which makes sense, when you consider that JC kept saying things like 'some who are in their mother's wombs now will yet live blah blah blah'. He very much made it sound like 'God is going to give the signal for general ass-kicking very soon. Watch for the signs.'

It's when Saul enters the picture that things change. Saul, who cannot even keep the story of his own conversion straight (check it out. He relates the story multiple times. Each time, the details change. Once he sees Jesus. Once he only sees a light. Once he sees nothing, only hears the voice. In one telling, his companions see everything. In another, they see nothing, hear nothing. The single most life-altering event he's ever experienced, and he can't keep the details straight). Saul, you see, is preaching to the gentiles. Where the Disciples, including Simon/Cephas/Peter, are mostly just bringing a message of 'have hope, have faith, trust in the Lord, the day of liberation is nigh' to their fellow jews, Saul's got to actually convert people who believe in their own gods.

And make no mistake, he does have to convert them... because he's a con artist of the worst sort. He moves from place to place, a charismatic cult leader who makes dire statements about how everyone is doomed, but offers hope for salvation... and a story of a prophet risen from the dead, to seal the deal. Saul makes claims of miracles in his conversion, in his journeys, and eventually in his 'deliverance' from the Roman authorities, which will always make you popular... but he's never actually charged with any crimes when he's 'arrested', leading more than one researcher to speculate that Saul, Mr. Influential Tax Collector (remember, he's a jew who's got enough juice that he's going to Damascus, which is not in Judea, to haul people back to face the sanhedron) was more likely taking periodic breaks from slumming amongst the poor and hopeful, and getting Roman friends to let him crash on the couch while claiming he was under arrest. And when it's time to move on, he 'escapes' from his 'jail', goes to the next city in the area, and adds that miracle to the growing list of bullshit.

It's Saul who tells people that Jesus, despite coming to alter 'not one jot or tittle' of the Law of Moses, has given them dispensation to violate it in choice ways... wear more ostentatious clothing (clothing of multiple fabrics), eat whatever they like (Peter's epistle claims the vision that declared all creatures clean, but Saul had already established the practice by then)... and then, after claiming that he gets to violate Jewish Law because he's among Gentiles and is 'all things to all people', when Peter visits him and adopts similar behavior so as not to clash w/Saul... he mocks Peter for his pride and arrogance in not following the Law. Great guy, that Saul.

He's also the one that takes the communal meal, the remembrance of a dear friend's life and hopes, and turns it into a celebration of his murder. He's the one that makes Christianity into a death cult, instead of a tradition of venerating a rabbi's life and teachings.

All those changes were about one thing: Selling the new religion to the Gentiles, so Saul could live high on the hog, give orders to the populace, and never actually have to take any responsibility for a damn thing. Any time things got tense, he skipped town.

From that standpoint, the 'rejection' of the Jewish beliefs isn't illogical at all. It's calculated as part of the sales pitch, and the gentiles who would very quickly form the majority of the early church (because of the efforts of Saul and assistants like Timothy) didn't reject the Jewish traditions... because they were never exposed to them.

I agree that Paul is responsible for the warped religion called Christianity. I usually call it Paulinity as that is what it really should be called. My namesake as you say couldn't tell the same story about his conversion nor was it remembered in any one way by his propaganda agent Luke in the book of Acts.

Acts 9:3-22 - version 1 - Paul's companions hear the voice but don't see anything. He is to see Ananias in Damascus who had a vision of Saul for further instructions.

Acts 22:6-16 - version 2 - Paul in front of a lynch mob actually a stoning crazed mob on the steps of the Roman jail  - Paul's companions see the light but hear nothing. Ananias is involved but no vision. Could be due to large rocks about to be cast his way or yelling from the crowd he used a shorter version.

Acts 26:12-32 - version 3 - Paul in front of King Herod Agrippa- no idea if companions heard or saw anything they all fall down. Ananias isn't mentioned neither is blindness. It is more complex with the mention of Satan.

Galatians 1:11-24 version 4 - Here blindness isn't mentioned nor is a vision only that God's son Jesus was revealed in him.

I'm not sure if Paul was a con artist, mentally ill, or distorted by his converts into something he was not. One thing is for sure there are serious holes between Paul and James or James the Just. Note after Paul's arrest and the revelation he is a Roman no more is said about James, Peter, or the Jerusalem Church having any relationship with him at all.

I'm not sure that I buy that Acts was written that far after the fact, considering that it's used by the descendants of all five of the Apostolic Thrones, and not just those that adhered to the Latin Pope. Certainly, Alexandria had very little use for Rome's doctrines by the 3rd century, including rejecting most of the ecumenical councils.

Lol! Sounds like you've both researched this a lot better than I have.
Pauljohn, that book I recommended is mainly the books themselves with a small introduction to each one.
If you're more interested in the historical explanation on how they came together then that would probably be one of his other books.
His "Da Vinci Fraud" book did a couple of chapters on it, but I'm sure there's a more specialised one out there.
Unfortunately, those are the only two I've tried out so far.

Perhaps someone else here has a better recommendation?