While in Babylon they renamed their calendar months after demons
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Were they, as a people, corrupted at some point? The human sacrifice was practically at a zenith in Carthage, which was their most historically recent still-inhabited colony. But there's also no evidence of Phoenician human sacrifice in Iberia or Britain, which they left earlier than Carthage. And the evidence for it in the lands of Canaan itself are more sparse than they are in Carthage.
I have seen it posited before that the israelites *were* the Phoenicians, and that the YHWH cult splintered from the paganistic cult, and that at some point between this split, the Phoenicians became corrupted in their belief. This is particularly the case with Christian identitarians. It stacks up, to an extent, considering that the biblical accounts of human sacrifice as well as the hard evidence for it come a significant amount of time after the beginning or even the height of their civilization. And also considering that the israelites used the exact same alphabet as the Phoenicians, despite apparently being in a biblical war with people that they hated, so I believe that they *were*, in fact, the same people. And both of these peoples were Aryan.
We may also consider that there's no record of the Greeks being repulsed by the Phoenicians *at all* until much later in history, in fact they were incredibly intertwined. The human sacrifice definitely would have disgusted Greek sensibilities long before it actually did, had it been taking place beforehand, but for a very long period of history the Greeks and Phoenicians were visiting each other and trading like it was nothing. They were barely even thought of as a foreign people. Our alphabet comes from theirs.
So what happened to them? Mongrelization? Demons disguising themselves as God? What caused what could be described as a superior, perhaps even Aryan, considering that the indo Europeans they interacted with never even made note of them looking a certain way, race to descend into madness and barbarism?
The phenocian question is one that has been racking my brain for a while, and the question is simply at what point did they begin human sacrifice? Because theres not any evidence of it taking place for the majority of their civilization until nearly the end. With only Carthage as a mere holdout, and also being the place with the most of it. And also, why did it happen? What caused them to start doing this? Does it relate to the jewish question in any way? What does this mean for us?
Their ancestors worshipped 'Moloch' which demanded animal or human sacrifices.
Phonetic alphabet used in modern western language derives from the Phonecians through the Greeks. I also posted a video link in another response about the real reason Rome came to rise as a hegemon.
The Israelites (the northern ten tribes, including the tribes of Joseph) were likely dispersed with the Phoenicians and also the Germanic Tribes. They melded into other tribes and all but disappeared as a separate political entity. That said, the remnants of their traditions and laws are found all over ancient Europe. For instance, English Common Law has no historical basis. It has always existed, much like London. And English Common Law is clearly similar to the Law of Moses in the Bible, suggesting that the ancient inhabitants of the British Isles were practicing some form of legal code based on it.
The Phoenicians began with the Canaanites. By the time Moses leads Israel into the wilderness sometime around 1300 BC, they were already deep into human sacrifice, abortion, homosexuality, etc... When Abraham was wandering around Canaan in his time (2000 BC) there were the first signs that those people were going astray, and that's about the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities in the area.
One of the problems you are running into is that archaeology is not a reliable science. It cannot tell us what did NOT happen, only show us artifacts that suggest something DID happen. This is important. For instance, for the longest time, we knew from history that the Huns were expert horse riders, but we could not find any evidence of horses in Hun settlements we dug up. Another example: King David was thought to be a myth until an artifact was discovered mentioning his name.
History is a much more reliable source than archaeology, despite the fact that ancient historians included unbelievable accounts of supernatural phenomena. For instance, the Sumerian records indicate that their first kinds would live for 10,000 years or more, which is hardly believable.
Ultimately, "I saw it in a dream" is the only real authoritative source. Either you can try to be an impeccable scholar, in which case you spend all your time telling people what you don't know, or you use history and religion as a guide to build yourself up and rely on revelation as a reliable source of information about the distant past.