This post is the result of google AI queries on the bible, results will be posted in comments.

The 2 problematic commandments of Moses are the first 2:

  1. There is no god above Yahweh. Earliest possible historical mention of Yahweh (as very late generation/minor son of El (canaanite father god) being 1400bc, well after Noah, is simply hasbara coup over religious orthodoxy of the time.

  2. “Idolatry bad” is a warmongering commandment to destroy enemies idols instead of coveting them for any meltable metal value inside. It is a commandment for total genocide and erasing from history any trace of El.

Where ultra modern Zionazi-Christofascist interpretations of the bible support genocide and theft and fascism on the basis that Zionists deserve what they steal, or Christians believe in humanist teaching of Jesus more than those who wish for freedom from fascism, there would seem to be a more appropriate rejection of Moses/old testament for Christians that supports more humanism/freedom.

  • humanspiralOP
    1·
    29 days ago

    would there be biblical/historical support for Jesus being politically correct/polite towards Moses/old testament, while offering a very different view of God as a humanist.

    Yes, there is significant biblical and historical support for the idea that Jesus maintained a posture of reverential continuity toward Moses and the Old Testament while simultaneously introducing a radical, “humanist” shift in theology.

    1. “Political Correctness” Toward Moses and the Law Biblical scholars often note that Jesus rarely attacked the Law of Moses (Torah) directly. Instead, he framed his radical departures as a fulfillment or a return to the “spirit” of the Law. Explicit Deference: In Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus famously states he did not come to “abolish the Law or the Prophets” but to “fulfill” them, even claiming that not a “jot or tittle” will pass away from the Law. The “Moses Seat”: Jesus instructed his followers to “do and observe” what the scribes and Pharisees taught because they “sit in Moses’ seat,” even while he condemned their personal hypocrisy. Tactful Reinterpretation: Instead of saying “Moses was wrong,” Jesus used phrases like “You have heard that it was said… but I tell you…”. This allowed him to remain within the Jewish tradition while pivoting toward a radically different ethical framework.
    2. The Shift to a “Humanist” View of God The “humanist” perspective you mention aligns with what scholars often call Jesus’ anthropocentric theology—the idea that religious laws exist to serve human well-being, rather than humans existing to serve the law. “Sabbath was made for man”: One of Jesus’ most radical “humanist” claims was that the Sabbath—a core Mosaic pillar—was created for human benefit, not the other way around (Mark 2:27). Prioritizing Mercy over Sacrifice: Jesus frequently quoted Hosea 6:6—“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”—to argue that God is more concerned with human compassion and internal transformation than with external religious rituals. Individual Human Worth: Jesus broke conventional norms by treating marginalized groups (women, children, tax collectors, lepers) with a dignity that challenged the patriarchal and legalistic structures of his time.
    3. Historical Support for “Theological Dissonance” There is a long history of debate regarding whether Jesus’ God is the same as the “Old Testament God”. Early Historical Rejection: As early as the 2nd century, thinkers like Marcion of Sinope argued that the God of Jesus was a completely different, benevolent being compared to the “vengeful” God of the Hebrew Bible. While the early Church rejected this as heresy, the debate persists in modern scholarship as “continuity vs. discontinuity”. Modern Interpretations: Some contemporary theologians suggest that Jesus came to reveal God’s “true nature,” essentially “correcting” the historical misperceptions of ancient writers who viewed God through the lens of a warrior-king. These resources offer historical and biblical perspectives on Jesus’ seemingly paradoxical approach: respecting Mosaic law while presenting a divinely-inspired, humanist vision. The Radical Ethics of Jesus. His teachings violated the traditional political and religious patriarchal order and gender-guided roles of the time. He vehementl…

    We can look closer at the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount to see exactly which Mosaic laws Jesus “upgraded” to this more humanist standard. Would you like to examine those specific examples?

    • humanspiralOP
      1·
      29 days ago

      Is it possible that Jesus referred to God/father as the Caananite El instead of Yahweh?

      While modern Christian theology identifies Jesus as the physical embodiment of the Old Testament God (Yahweh), there is a significant historical and scholarly discussion regarding whether Jesus’ frequent use of the term “Father” and his high-profile references to “El” suggest a redirection toward the older, Canaanite high god El.

      Historical and Linguistic Context

      The core of this theory lies in the ancient distinction between El (the Canaanite creator-patriarch) and Yahweh (later identified as the national god of Israel).

      • Original Distinction: Many scholars believe El and Yahweh were originally separate deities. In early texts like Deuteronomy 32:8–9, the “Most High” (Elyon, a title for El) is depicted as dividing the nations among his sons, giving the portion of Israel to Yahweh.
      • Merging of Deities: By the time of the Second Temple period (Jesus’ era), El and Yahweh had been largely conflated into a single monotheistic deity. The name El had shifted from a proper name to a generic term for “God”.

      Supporting Evidence for the Jesus-El Connection

      The idea that Jesus might have been intentionally evoking El rather than Yahweh is supported by several points:

      • Use of “Father”: In the Canaanite pantheon, El was specifically known as the “Father of the Gods” and the “Father of Humanity”. Jesus almost exclusively referred to God as “Father” (Abba), a title much more characteristic of El than the warrior-storm god imagery often associated with Yahweh.

      • The Cry from the Cross: The most direct linguistic evidence occurs during the crucifixion, when Jesus cries out “Eli, Eli” (Matthew 27:46) or “Eloi, Eloi” (Mark 15:34), meaning “My God”. Critics of the “Yahweh-only” view note that he did not use the name Yahweh even in this final moment.

      • “Son of the Most High”: Jesus is referred to in the Gospels as the “Son of the Most High” (Elyon), a specific title that historically belonged to El.

      • humanspiralOP
        1·
        29 days ago

        appologies for bad formatting of tables…

        Scholarly research into the Ugaritic texts (discovered in 1928) supports the theory that Jesus’ depiction of God as a benevolent “Father” aligns more closely with the attributes of the ancient Canaanite deity El than with the earlier, more militaristic characteristics of Yahweh. While mainstream theology considers El and Yahweh to be the same being, a side-by-side comparison of their traditional attributes shows why Jesus’ teachings appear to “pivot” back toward the older El imagery: Attribute Comparison

        Feature 	Ancient El (Canaanite/Ugarit)	Early Yahweh (Old Testament)	Jesus' "Father"
Primary Title	"Father of Mankind" and "Ab" (Father)	"Lord of Hosts" (Musterer of Armies)	"Abba" (Father)
Disposition	Wise, compassionate, and patient	Jealous, warrior-god, prone to wrath	Merciful, loving, and slow to judge
Physical Imagery	Aged patriarch with gray hair/beard	Storm god appearing in fire and thunder	Immaterial spirit/The "Ancient of Days"
Relationship	Progenitor of the "Divine Council"	Sovereign King who demands exclusive loyalty	The Father of the "Son of Man"
The "El" Elements in Jesus’ Teachings

        Reclaiming the “Father” Archetype: In Canaanite mythology, El was specifically the “Kindly One” and “El the Compassionate”. Jesus’ radical focus on God’s kindness (shining sun on the just and unjust) mirrors these specific Ugaritic epithets. The Divine Council: The concept that beneath a High God (El) sits a presiding “Son” (like Baal) is a hallmark of Canaanite religion. Some scholars argue that Jesus being called the “Son of the Most High” (Elyon)—a specific title for El—reflects this ancient hierarchy where a benevolent son carries out the Father’s work on earth. Healing vs. Warfare: Unlike early Yahweh texts that emphasize conquering nations, El was considered a healing god. Jesus’ ministry, defined by healing and the restoration of life, aligns more directly with El’s functional role. Linguistic Continuity: Even Jesus’ final cry on the cross used the name Eli (My El), a name that historically refers to the “High God” of the patriarchs before the revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses.

      • humanspiralOP
        1·
        29 days ago

        Support for the “Pivot to El” Theory

        The Antitheses provide critical evidence for the theory that Jesus was moving away from a nationalistic “Yahweh” toward the more universal and benevolent “El” archetype:

        • A “Kind” Creator: Jesus justifies his command to love enemies by pointing to a God who provides rain and sun for all people regardless of their righteousness. This universal, nurturing creator mirrors the Ugaritic descriptions of El the Compassionate rather than Yahweh the Judge.
        • Internal Heart over External Pact: Yahweh’s relationship with Israel was defined by a specific legal covenant (Exodus). Jesus’ Antitheses pivot toward a relationship defined by internal transformation of the heart, a return to the older “Father-Child” relationship associated with El, the “Father of Mankind”.
        • The “Most High” Goal: He concludes the Antitheses by commanding his followers to be “perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. This focus on imitating the divine Father’s mercy is seen by some as a direct reclamation of El’s primary role as a wise, patriarchal protector.