Why Did Pharoah of the Period of Moses Claimed That He is the Only God of His Subjects

7/25/2019 Why Did Pharoah of the Period of Moses Claimed That He is the Only God of His Subjects

1/26

1

WHY DID PHARAOH SAY THAT HE WAS THE ONLY GOD TO HIS SUBJECTS.

WHY DID PHAROAH IN THEB PERIOD OF MOSES

CLAIMED THAT HE WAS THE ONLY GOD/G-D OF HIS

SUBJECTS [COURTIERS/NOBILITIES ETC].

WHY DID PHARAOH SAY THAT HE WAS THE ONLY GOD TO HIS SUBJECTS.

Concen!n" #$e %nc!en# E"&'#!%n e(!"!on )*!n" #$e #!+e o, #$e P$%%o$ #$e *0%n e'o#

#$ee !n#ee#!n" #%#e+en#. F!#(& 1$en Po'$e# Moe c%(( P$%%o$ #o 1o$!' one #*e Go)

#$e c%(( ! e2ec#e). In#e%) P$%%o$ co((ec# $! +en %n) 'oc(%!+ #$%# $e ! #$e! Lo) +o#

$!"$.

Hath the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, thy Lord did cal l to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa, "Go thou

to Pharaoh for he has indeed transgressed all bounds !nd say to him, #ouldst thou that thou shouldst be

$urified %from sin&? ' !nd that ( guide thee to thy Lord, so thou shouldst fear Him?)" Then did %Moses& show

him the Great *ign+ But %Pharaoh& reected it and disobeyed %guidance&- .urther, he turned his bac/, striving

hard %against God&+ Then he collected %his men& and made a $roclamation, *aying, "( am your Lord, Most

High"+ 01ur)an 2345'678

Secon)(& 1$en Moe "oe #o P$%%o$ 1!#$ c(e% !"n #$e& %e e2ec#e) % 3e!n" 4,%5e4.

P$%%o$ #$en %))ee $! c$!e, 3& %&!n" #$%# $e 5no1 o, no "o) ,o #$e+ e6ce'# $!+.

Pharaoh said "9 :hiefs; no god =8

T$e (%#[T$!)(&] #%#e+en# co+e !n connec#!on 1!#$ #$e 7!c#o& o, Po'$e# Moe o7e #$e

+%"!c!%n o, E"&'#. Hee #$e c$!e, o, P$%%o$ %& #o $!+ #$%# #$! 7!c#o& o, Moe o7e #$e

+%"!c!%n co*() e*(# !n %n %3%n)on+en# o, &o* 8!.e. P$%%o$9 %n)your"o) 8A%3!c: wa

yadaraka wa lihataka9 !n ,%7o* o, #$e Go) o, Moe.

!nd the chiefs of Pharaoh)s $eo$le said "o you leave Musa and his $eo$le to ma/e mischief in the land and

to forsa/e you and your gods


2/26

2

Co++en#!n" on #$e *0%n ;


3/26

'

1 "t (rst sight) $induism seem to be une*ui+ocally Pure Polytheistic, there are

certainly many gods. -ndra is the ing of the Gods and God of the rain /much lie his

Gree and !oman cousins 0eus and -upiter 3aruna the God of the hea+enly +ault

and the moral law /related to the Gree 4uranos "gni the God of (re /cf. the 5atin

ignis) and the #nglish 6ignite7 and so forth. #ach indi+idual worshiper would now)

and might use) se+eral di8erent poems to di8erent Gods. "lways there was anawareness of the multiplicity of the gods. "t time of war) or drought) one prayed to

-ndra in a sacri(ce) one in+oed "gni /the sacri(cial (re and so forth. 9e can

detect both what might be called P#!4:"5 polytheism /one person worshipping

se+eral gods and ;ommunal polytheism /se+eral people worshipping se+eral gods

and respecting) or at the +ery least acnowledging the e%istence of) one another


4/26

I

The idea of 6the [only] one7 as applied to se+eral di8erent members of a

polytheistic pantheon also appears in some of the later +erses of the !ig 3eda,

6They call it -ndra) Mitra) 3aruna) "gni) and it is the hea+enly bird that Jies. The

wise spea of what is 4ne in many ways they call it "gni) Eama) Matarish+an.7

[1.1I.I] 1 The idea that one could choose between members of a pantheon of

gods was integral to 3edic religion. >or e%ample) each stanDa of one 3edic poemends with the *uestioning refrain) 69ho is the god whom we should worship with

the oblationL7 ' Thus, 6$e by whom the awesome sy and the #arth were made

(rm) by whom the dome of the sy was propped up) and the sun) who measured out

the middle realm of space who is the god whom we should worship with the

oblationL7 [1C.121] The "thar+a 3eda) too) a fourth 3eda composed in around BCC

=;#) ased not only who the god was) but how many gods there might be, 69ho

and how many were those Gods who fastened together the chest and nec of the

Prime+al ManL $ow many (%ed his breastsL 9ho formed his elbowsL $ow many

&oined together ribs and shouldersL7 [1C.2.I] The te%ts that followed the 3edas)

called the =rahmanas /mythological) philosophical) and ritual glosses on the 3edas)

were composed at a time /c. @CC =;# when the =rahmin priests had taen on

greater control and inJuence troubled by the openAended refrain of the !ig 3edic

poem) they in+ented a god whose name was the interrogati+e pronoun 9ho /;aNKa)

cognate with the 5atin *uis) >rench *ui)-:T#!#T-:G5E there is a dogma of Ka in

"ncient #gypt as well.. !ead bac into the 3edic poem /as it was in later 3edic

commentaries 2 ) this resulted in an aOrmati+e statement, 6-ndeed) 9ho is the god

whom we should honor with the oblation)7 somewhat reminiscent of the famous

"bbott and ;ostello routine /9hoFs on (rstL. This sacerdotal arrogance closed

down some of those openings through which fresh theological air had Jowed in the

3eda. The *uestion became the answer.

In #$! 1%& !# ! c(e% #$%# AER 1% no# % Po($e!+ 3*# % Heno#$e!+ .In #$e %nc!en# E"&'#!%n

Re(!"!on #$e %+e !)e% 1% *e) . T$e E"&'#!%n Mon%c$ 1ee 3e(!e7e) #o 3e Go) o Go)

Inc%n%#e [Inc%n%#!on89O, Go)]. In #$! c%e 1$en P$%%o$ c(%!+e) "9 :hiefs; no god do ( /now

for you but myself+++ 01ur)an 6=>=8, he did say it in the very same sense as in Henothiesm religions+

6Eou) 3ishnu) are the only godHGod -F+e e+er worshiped you are the only one.7 6Eou)

3aruna) are the only godHGod -F+e e+er worshiped you are the only one.7

*o it is some how evident that there are some common elements in all Henotheistic religions, eAam$les of

which has been $rovided+

*o if Pharaoh said that he was the only God


5/26

Q

-n a dialogue I in which) in response to the pupilFs repeated *uestion) =ut how

many gods are there) reallyL the increasingly impatient teacher replies) (rst)

Three hundred and three) and three thousand and three) then ThirtyAthree) then)

i%) then) Three) then) Two) then) 4ne and a half) and) (nally) 64ne. ' This

64ne7 is the emblem not of monotheism but of Rpanishadic monism) which

assumes that all li+ing things are elements of a single) uni+ersal being /often calledbrahman) reached by indi+idual meditation) a philosophy often contrasted with the

polytheistic world of group sacri(ce to multiple gods. The doctrine of the

Rpanishads is also sometimes characteriDed as pantheism /in which God is

e+erything and e+erything is God or) at times) panentheism /in which God

encompasses and interpenetrates the uni+erse) but at the same time this God is

Greater then the -ni+erse and other than it.

The +ague monism of the 3edas was sharpened by the more systematiDed 3edantic

monism of the Rpanishads. ;oming bac to #gypt from -ndia it is some what clear

that #gyptian also belie+ed in 4ne God along with multitudes of GodsHgods.

Ancient Egyptians often did chose to worship some or one of the many Egyptian gods/Gods, but

at the same time they continue to acknowledge the existence of the other Egyptian gods whom

they did not worship. This type of worship of one god/God (! some gods/Gods" among many

gods/Gods is not #onotheism $ut %enotheism ,rather a form of %enothiesm, since there are

se&eral forms of it. %enotheism is the belief in and the worship of one god while accepting the

existence of other gods.'or worshipping some gods while accepting other gods which are not

worshipped . This may be termed as oly)%enotheism or olyhenotheism*.

+t is pointed out that the many gods /Godsof Ancient Egyptians were simply &arious forms, appearences,

culminations,menifestations,incarnations and emanations" of a ingle upreme $eing (God". This is where the idea

of monotheism comes in. A belief in a ingle upreme $eing is #onotheism. $ut the belief that the many gods isolythiesim e&en if they are all included in the ne, ingle, upreme $eing. Therefore, , this -ogma of

#anifestation is oly)#onotheistic. T$ee E"&'#!%n "o) e" Ho* O!! e7en R% $!+e(, 1ee 3e(!e7e) #o 3e

4manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God4 #$e !n7!!3(e Go). T$ee 1ee no# 3e(!e7e) #o 3e e'%%#e

"o) 3*# !nc%n%#!on o +%n!,e#%#!on o, one %n) %+e Go) #$e one %n) on(& Go) !ne'%%3(e ,o+ $!+. A!+!(%

con,*!on ! ,o*n) !n o+e H!n)* Te6# %n) Sec# %& %!$n%7!+.

The confusion partly arises because, unlike most religious traditions, aishna&ism acknowledges a form

of olymorphic #onotheism 'which is actually not a type of #onotheism but %enotheism*.. That is to say,

it holds that there is one God who appears in numerous manifestations, each distinct and uniue. These

manifestations, moreo&er, are considered eual and yet hierarchical as well. They are one, and yet

different. 0et it may be said that all forms of God are one, as in the following uote from rila rabhupada1%ow e&er in Ancient Egypt it may be differentiated that the #anifestations were not necessary Eual.

ome traces of trichotomy are e&en found in %induism .ne such example is as follow12


6/26

3ayade&a Goswami4s Gita Govinda (circa twelth century" also proclaims 5ord 6rishna4s primary position

among incarnations 'of God*, reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam.After listing ten prominent

incarnations of ishnu in the book4s first chapter, 3ayade&a concludes by stating that 6rishna is their

source. +n fact, 3ayade&a implies 6rishna4s preeminence throughout the Gita Govindaand states it

explicitly in Act 7, erse 78 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah"1 9 6rishna, + offer my obeisances

unto 0ou, who assume these ten spiritual forms.9

The same concept appears in ancient Egypt at particular times.

Q,S "t (rst glance it appears that Monotheism and Polytheism not only grew upside by side in "ncient #gypt but the also learned to li+e together) to grant one

another


7/26

and philosophies of sectarian $induism. $ere we encounter the se+eral a+atars

/incarnations of 3ishnu) which mae 3ishnu a ind of waling oneAgod polytheism

at times he appears as a (sh) as a boar) as +arious human beings /!ama) Krishna)

e+en the =uddha) all of which were originally indi+idual deities who later became

absorbed into the o+erarching (gure of 3ishnu. $is incarnations are often said to be

6partial7, while 3ishnu appears as Krishna) for instance) the god 3ishnu also remainsin his hea+en) entirely complete. -n contrast with the complete li+es that 3ishnu

taes on in his a+atars) the god hi+a becomes multiple by manifesting himself in

+arious forms) usually during relati+ely brief mas*uerades. "n other rather simple

e%planation of Monism Polytheism amalgam is that There is only 4ne God

[=armhH=rahman] 9ho Manifested in "ngel or ;herub lie characters 3ishnu ) hieu)

=arhama. This is the prime Manifestation /PM.

:+t is the Bhagavatam,in fact, that makes the most famous declarati&e statement about 6rishna4s

primary position +: !E5AT+: T T%E!

#A:+;ETAT+:,AEA!E:", ri 3i&a elaborates, writing that the many &erses of theBhagavatammight be

compared to an army, with this &erse the monarch who commands that army. %e further shows that,

according to this &erse and many others, 6rishna is the original form of God and the ideal obFect of pure

de&otional ser&ice.

3ayade&a Goswami4s Gita Govinda (circa twelth century" also proclaims 5ord 6rishna4s primary position

among incarnations, reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam.After listing ten prominent incarnations


8/26

@

of ishnu in the book4s first chapter, 3ayade&a concludes by stating that 6rishna is their source. +n fact,

3ayade&a implies 6rishna4s preeminence throughout the Gita Govindaand states it explicitly in Act 7,

erse 78 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah"1 9 6rishna, + offer my obeisances unto 0ou, who

assume these ten spiritual forms.9

+n the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu,!upa Goswami lists sixty)four characteristics or ualities exhibited by

li&ing beings. ;ifty of these, he writes, can be found in an ordinary soul (jiva" in minute proportion, while

5ord $rahma, 5ord hi&a, and other demigods may possess as many as fifty)fi&e. ishnu, he continues,

displays up to sixty of these ualities. $ut the remaining four are found only in 6rishna, escaping all other

manifestations of the upreme. The four ualities uniue to 6rishna are as follows1

Embedded in these scriptural explanations of 6rishna4s supreme position is something more fundamental1

6rishna4s supremacy underscores the superiority of lo&e o&er power, sweetness o&er opulence.

#ost concepts of God, e&en in the aishna&a tradition, naturally e&oke awe and re&erence, but 6rishna

e&okes intimacy and personal lo&ing relationship. +t is this, beyond all else, that distinguishes %im among

manifestations of the upreme. And lo&e, as we all know, is the highest phenomenon in all of existence.

After all, when confronted with a choice between power and lo&e, who would choose the former

rila rabhupada writes in


9/26

B

A number of Indian Scholars of Sanskrit Scriptures believe that Krisnais the human Incarnation of Vishnu who is inturn is the angelic or

bodil incarnation of !armh or !rahman"

So if an incarnation calls himself as #he !armh or !rahman then thismeans that the Incarnation is predicating its own self to the $ne thatis Incarnated or %anifested of both"

&!'%e who knows #e as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the upreme 5ord of allthe worlds)he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

&():*+,'

&C'+ am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. E&erything emanates from #e.The wise who know this perfectly engage in #y de&otional ser&ice and worship #e with

all their hearts.

&():-'

These words cannot be said e&en by ishu or heu . ince only $armh or $rahman %ath the right to say

it. $ut +f 6rishna who is a human +ncarnation of uperhuman/angelic +ncarnation then the only possible

way to understand these words is be supposing the prereuisite that +ncarnations whether prime or

secondary or tertiary can be predicated to the $armh or $arhaman.

'-*ArFuna said1 0ou are the upreme $rahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and

purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal di&ine person. 0ou are the primal God,

transcendental and original, and 0ou are the unborn and all)per&ading beauty. All the

great sages such as :Irada, Asita, -e&ala, and yIsa proclaim this of 0ou, and now

0ou 0ourself are declaring it to me.

'7D17?)7>

This is sufficient enough to pro&e that atleast some %indus interpret this &erse as thepredications stated abo&e.

'E**

+ndeed, 0ou alone know 0ourself by 0our own potencies, origin of all, 5ord of all

beings, God of gods, upreme erson, 5ord of the uni&erseJ'7D1?K*


10/26

1C

';* + am the elf, GudLIkeMa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. + am the beginning,

the middle and the end 'A5%A A:- #EGA*of all beings.


11/26

11

of Mahah&harat(a) and its part Bhag*at Gitais that Krishna was a ruler and a human&eing [at least in appearance] who claimed to

&e the Supreme Being. The humanIncarnation i.e the &od% of Krishna as seen&e the *iewers in Gita and Bharata ispredicated &% Krishna to Supreme Being.+ow if the human person Krishna is notden%ing ,edic Gods/ gods the onl% possi&leconclusions are as follows-

] e is predicating is own Self to SupremeBeing.

0] e is 1redicating Supreme Being to isownSself.

2] e is declairing him self as most highincarnation among all

Incarnations!Menifestations!andCulminations.

ne may read entire $hag&at Gita with this approach and it is most likely to second this

&iew that in %enotheis,#onolatry and 6athenotheism an +ncarnation or a #anifestation

or a


12/26

12

3e##e #$e e(!"!on [1!#$ %(( #$e! c*(# %n) ec#] #$%# 1e ,!n) !n %nc!en#In)!% %n)

Anc!en# E"&'# #$en #$e !+'(e P*e Po($e!+.T$! #&'e ! #e+e) % S*++o)e!+.

Summodeism/ ma be defined as the worship of a Supreme !eing

who sits at the head of a pantheon of other .ods0gods who are 1ust smanifestations / incarnations/culminations etcof this 2igh god0.od or

Supreme !eing " #hus/ in a summodeistic sstem/ the existence of

multiple gods onl occurs because a single/ high god0.od is able to

incarnate/ to manifest and to culminate into man different

.ods0gods"

A form of Summodeism is common with 3redicatheism"

#his is the belief that is found in !hagvat .ita" 4hich is the irrefutableevidence that such believes did exist in the ancient world"

12 5eason1

E&en +f 6rishna is either a uniue #anifestation/;orm/%ypostase of upreme $eing yet at se&eral times

6rishna peaks as if %e is the ery upreme $eing %imself and not Fust as a #anifestation/%ypostasis in

the Essence,:ature,;orm,ubstanceExistence ($eingness" and Godhead of the upreme $eing. The

only reason which may be gi&en is that each one of the Essence,:ature etc f upreme $eing is highly

communicable to each one of the ;orms, #anifestations, %ypostases,


13/26

1'

redicating himself as a #anifestation to the upreme $eing,

@12 #onism is some time considered as a kind of #onotheism. $ut #onism may be olytheistic or

#onotheistic or %enotheistic or 6athenotheistic. imilarly #onotheism may be #onistic or :on #onistic,

olytheism may be #onistic or :on #onistic etc. The same is true for antheism and pinoCaism.

O12P$%%o$ $%7e o,#en 3een c$%%c#e!e) % "o)/Go) on e%#$. W$!(e #$e 5!n"$!' % %n

!n#!#*#!on +%& $%7e con#!n*e) ,%!(& con#%n#(& #$o*"$o*# +oe #$%n = &e% o, $!#o& o,

%nc!en# E"&'# 2*# 1$%# #$e o,,!ce !"n!,!e) $o1 #$e 5!n" *n)e#oo) #$e! o(e %n) $o1 #$e

"ene%( 'o'*(%ce 'ece!7e) #$e 5!n" )o no# con#!#*#e % *n!,o+ conce'# #$%# '%n #$e cen#*!e

1!#$o*# c$%n"e. In o#$e 1o) #$e %nc!en# E"&'#!%n0 7!e1 o, #$e 5!n" !+'(!e) 3& 7%!o*

$!#o!c%( e,eence 1% no# #%#!c. I# *n)e1en# c$%n"e )*!n" #$e +oe #$%n = &e% o,

E"&'#!%n $!#o&.[;]Fo+ #$e e%(& #!+e #$e e'!#$e# ntre,ee) )!ec#(& #o #$e 5!n" % % "o).So+e#!+e #$e #e+ occ*e) %(one %n) %# o#$e #!+e !# %''e%e) 1!#$ % +o)!,&!n" o

)ec!'#!7e 1o).[=]

In %nc!en# E"&'# 'o7!)e % 7e& !+'o#%n# '!ece o, In,o+%#!on [#$e Ge%# Te+'(e %# A3*

S!+3e( SeeF!"*e ;]. I# )oe $e1 #$e 4Lo) o, T1o L%n) Ue+%e-e#'ene4 8 R%+ee

II9 o,,e!n" #o 4R%+ee-+e&%+*n4 8 R%+ee II9. O37!o*(& R%+ee II ! 1o$!''!n"

R%+ee II $ee. Ho1e7e 1e %(o no#e #$%# #$e 1o$!''e %n) #$e one 1$o ! 1o$!''e)

$%7e #1o )!,,een# n%+e %n) #$%# #$ee n%+e %epronomen%n) nomeno, R%+ee II

e'ec#!7e(&. A c(oe (oo5 %# #$e !cono"%'$& e7e%( #$%# #$e 1o$!''e %n) $e 1$o !

1o$!''e) %e no# !)en#!c%(. He #o 1$o+ #$e o,,e!n" ! +%)e ! %)one) 1!#$ % *n-)!5 %n)

$% % c*7e) $on %o*n) $! e% )e'!c#!n" $! )!7!n!#&. T$ee,oe R%+ee II ! no# !+'(&

1o$!''!n" $!+e(, 3*# $! )!7!ne/D!7!ne Se(,/e(,.[?


14/26

1I

A 1e ee So+e !$n% 1o$!''e #$%# !$n% ! no# on(& 'e)!c%#e) #o !$n* 3*# %(o #o #$e

B%+$ o B%$+%:n #$e S*'e+e Be!n" o, H!n)*!+.The same it is the case that the

+ery same was true for #gyptian Gods in "#!.

!n

D*!n" #$e #!+e o, R%+ee II #$e )e!,!c%#!on/De!,!c%#!on o, P$%%o$ e%c$e) !# 'e%5 %

e7!)ence) !n n*+eo* c*(# #%#*e % 1e(( % *''o#!n" $!eo"(&'$ %n) '%'&!. []ee'!n" #$!

!n +!n) (e# * no1 (oo5 %# #$e #1o #%#e+en# +%)e !n #$e *0%n !.e. P$%%o$ - #$e "o) o,

E"&'# - %n) his"o)/Go)..

I# +%& 3e e+!n)e) %n) ec%((e) #$%#:

KT$ee ! % D!,,eence 3e#1een Mono#$e!#!c Mon!+ %n) Heno#$e!#!c Mono#$e!+. Mon!+

+%& 3e Po($e!#!c o Mono#$e!#!c o Heno#$e!+ e# ce#e%. A Po($e!#!c Mon!+ +%& 3ee%!(& con,*e) 1!#$ Heno#$e!+. Ye# !# ! 7e& c(oe #o !#.

?:On +!coco'!c #*)& o, DIFFERENT TYPES o, conce'# %3o*# Go)/"o) %n) Go)/"o)

+%& con,*!on o, M!!on%!e %e 'o7e) #o 3e )*e #o 1on" !ncoec# %n) ,%(e %*+'#!on.

I, #$e& %e no# )e(!3e%#e(& con,*!n" E"&'#!%n Heno#$e!+ %#$ene!+ %n) E"&'#!%n Mon!#!c

Heno#$e!+ 1!#$ Po($e!+ #$e& %e *n!n#en#!on%((& )o!n" #$e %+e. A #$e& $%7e no &+'%#$&

1!#$ %+e 1%& #$e& *e #o #*)& #$e& 7ee o, N*7*+ Te#%+en#*+ %n) B!3(!c% He3%!c%.

T$ee %e e7e%( e%on ,o #$e! *#$(e %##!#*)e #o1%) *%:n %n) A$:%)!: 3*# !, #$e&

$%) %)o'#e) % (o"!c%( %''o%c$ #$e& 1o*() $%7e no# +%)e *c$ o32ec#!on.

??: In +%n& (%n"*%"e o, #$e 1o() % !n"(e 1o) ! *e) ,o #1o c%e en!#!7e 1o) Go) %n)

"o) [ '(*%( : Go) %n) "o)] . T$! c%*e % $!))en con,*!on 1$!c$ %n) $!,# !n +e%n!n" 1!#$

o*# 3e!n" )e)*c#e). T$e 3e# 1%& #o o7eco+e #$e 'o3(e+ ! #o 1!#e K Go) "o) o

K"o)/Go)Fo !n"*(% AND KGo)/"o) o "o)/ Go) ,o '(*%(.

46F

Question: How alike are Indian Heneotheism and Egyptian Henotheism? And is

there any way in which the Egyptians could realistically have had significant

contact with Indians, enough to borrow elements from it or versa?, r they have

been influenced by Indians or vice versa?


15/26

1Q

!o answer the first, Indian Henotheism differs in several significant ways from

Egyptian religion" #$ !here were and there still are multitudes of Indian %ults

and &ects which did and still do differ in the e'planations of their version of

Henetheism" !here may be a number of sects in Egyptian (eligons but not only

less in number but their differences may be less significant" )$ EgyptianHenotheism did not evoluted since it died latter with the end of *harroahs" +ut

Indian Henotheism is still evoluting"

$ -atures of %ulminations,Incarnations,.anifestations may be different in

between the ma/orities ofAncient Egypt and Ancient India"

Both countries of two di'erent continents do share the

central notions of enotheism! if not the details! of

enotheism.

It ma be noted that the examples from Sankrit Scriptures are provided

as evidences that such believes did exist and are not imaginar

products proposed to response some ob1ections"

G34 5M3+67KS 38 #G91T

Pharaohs were belie+ed to be Ui+ine from the +ery beginning.$ow e+er the

emphasis on their Godhood was di8erent in di8erent times.

. Gene%((& #$e E"&'#!%n 5!n" 1ee no# con!)ee) % e@*%( #o $%7e%n(&

%Go)/"o) (!5e O!! Re A+*nA#en e#c.

T$e D!7!n!#& o, #$e )e%) 5!n" ! +oe o37!o* #$%n #$e D!7!n!#& o, #$e % (!7!n" 5!n"

W$!(e ,*(( )e!,!c%#!on occ*e) ,o o+e E"&'#!%n +on%c$ 1!#$!n #$e! (!,e#!+e !#

1% **%((& !n )e%#$ #$%# #$! #%#e $o1e7e 1% e%c$e) . A n*+3e o, e7!)ence )o

$o1 #$%# % )ece%e) E"&'#!%n 5!n" 1% 7ene%#e) % % ,*(( "o)/Go).


16/26

1

B*# ,o+ e%(& #!+e #$e e'!#$e# netjer8ntr9 e,ee) )!ec#(& #o #$e 5!n" % % "o)/Go).

So+e#!+e #$e #e+ occ*e) %(one %# o#$e #!+e !# %''e%e) 1!#$ +o)!,&!n" o

)ec!'#!7e 1o). Ano#$e e'!#$e# ,o+ e%(& #!+e e,ee) #o #$e 5!n" % %

)ecen)%n# o, % "o) s R on o, Re.T$ee 7%!%#!on )oe no# $e1 #$e ne"%#!on o,

#$e! D!7!n!#&/)!7!n!#&. Go)$oo) %n) Go)$e%) o, E"&'#!%n Mon%c$ e+%!ne)*n)!#*3e) 3& *c$ 7%!%#!on.

T$o*"$o*# #$e O() !n")o+ #$e 5!n" 1ee %!) #o $%7e #$e 'o1e o, #$e

Go)/"o): H* 8)!7!ne *##e%nce9 S!% 8)!7!ne 5no1(e)"e9 %n) He5% 8)!7!ne ene"&

%n) 5no1(e)"e o, +%"!c9. W!#$ #$ee Po1e %n) *%(!#!e !# ! #on"(& !+'o3%3(e

#o *""e# #$%# #$e& 1ee no# 3e(!e7e) #o 3e Go)/"o) e7en !, #$ee 1ee no e7!)ence

o, De!,!c%#!on/)e!,!c%#!on.

T$e Go)/"o) 1$o 1% "ene%((& 3e(!e7e) !n #$e !nc%n%#!on o, #$e 5!n" 1% Re #$ece%#o %n) 'ee7e o, #$e 1o(). A(#$o*#$ $e 1% $!+e(, % Menifestationo,

#$e S*'e+e Be!n" [!# +*# 3e 5e'# !n +!n)].

So+e Te6# ,o*n) !n P&%+!) !n,o+ #$%# He%7en(& Go)/"o) co*() 3e 1o!e)

1%ne) #$e%#ene) o $*# e1%)e) o '*n!$e) %cco)!n" #o #$e! %c# %n) )o!n"

!n e"%) #o P$%%o$ o, E"&'#. Fo e6%+'(e ee U##e%nce


17/26

1

#$e He%7en(& Go)/"o) !n "ene%( %n) o+e $e%7en(& Go)/"o) 1ee con!)ee)

(e #$%n #$e o#$e $e%7en(& Go)/"o).

B*# #$e $e%7en(& Go)/"o) 1ee no# 3e(!e7e) #o 3e !++o#%(. De%#$ %n) Mo#%(!#&

1ee 'o!3(e ,o #$e+. I! #$e%#ene) Se#$ #o e%# $! one o, #$e #1o (!+3. T$!'o7e #$%# !n2*!e 1ee 'o!3(e ,o #$e+. A % 3!" ,!$ e%# #$e +%(( ,!$ % "e%#e

Go)/Go))e/"o)/"o))e co*() e%# #$e +%(( one 8%# (e%# !n '%#9.

T$e P$%%o$ Go)/"o) Un% 1% %!) #o e%# o+e Go)/"o) !n %,#e (!,e.

T$ee $e1 #$%# [o+e ]P$%%o$ 1ee 3e(!e7e) #o 3e (ee #$%n o+e ce(e#!%(

Go)/"o) '%#!c*(%(& #$oe 1$oe !nc%n%#!on #$e& 1ee 3e(!e7e) #o 3e 3*# #$e&

1ee con!)ee) "e%#e %n) +oe Po1e,*( #$%n %# (e%# o+e o, #$e+. T$! %(o )oe

$e1 3e&on) %n& $%)o1 o, )o*3# #$%# e7en #$e $e%7en(& Go)/"o) 1ee 3e(!e7e) #o3e 'e!$%3(e +o#%( %n) %nn!$!(%#%3(e.

T$ee 1ee !n#%nce 1$en % (!7!n" 5!n" )!) )ec(%e) $!+e(, ,*((& D!7!ne/)!7!ne

Go)/"o) 1!#$!n #$e! (!,e#!+e. . . . T$e (!7!n" De!,!c%#!on o, A+eno'$! III %n)

R%+ee II )*!n" #$e! e!"n %e ce#%!n(& %##e#e).

In #$e c%e o, A+eno'$! III 1e ,!n) #$%# #$e 5!n" 3e"%n #$e !nce%!n" o(%!%#!on o,

E"&'# +%2o c*(# %n) o, $! o1n 5!n"$!'. Acco)!n" #o R%&+on) Jo$non K#$e

5!n" )ec(%e) $!+e(, )e!,!e) %n) +e"e) 1!#$ #$e o(% )!c #$e A#en. Acco)!n" #o

S$%1 +on*+en# )%#!n" ,o+ $! e!"n Kn%+e R%+ee $!+e(, % #$e "o).

1e ,!n) #$e 5!n" #%5!n" )!7!ne 'eo"%#!7e !n $! e'een#%#!on *c$ % #$oe

$o1!n" $!+ 1!#$ #$e c*7e) 3e%) o, #$e "o) 1!#$ #$e $on o, A+*n %n) 1e%!n"

#$e (*n% cecen# %n) *n )!c o 'een#!n" %n o,,e!n" 3e,oe % #%#*e o, $!+e(,. In

#$e !nne $!ne o, #$e "e%# oc5 c*# #e+'(e o, A3* S!+3e( R%+ee III 1% #o )o

(!5e1!e. R%+ee II )!) $%7e ,o* #%#*e c*# #o e'een# P#%$ Re-Ho%5$#e O!!8$!+e(,9 %n) A+*n-Re e%#e) !)e 3& !)e. T$%# #$e 5!n" ! no# !+'(& )e'!c#e) !n

#$e co+'%n& o, #$e "o) ! c(e% !nce #$e ,!"*e %e $o1n % !ncon#o7e#!3(e

e@*%(%#$e "e%#e #$en #$e+.

S!nce I# $% e7en 3een *""e#e) 3& o+e #$%# !n #$! "o*' #$e 5!n" +!"$# 3e

e'een#e) % %n e+3o)!+en# o, %(( #$ee n%#!on%( "o).A $*+%n Inc%n%#!on o, no#


18/26

1@

2*# one Go)/"o) 3*# % n*+3e o, Go)/"o). I+'(&!n" +oe Po1e,*( Go)/"o) #$en

%(( o,Go)/"o) 'een# #$ee.

B*# !# ! % +oe 'o1e,*( e6'(%n%#!on #$%# $e con!)ee) $!+e(, % %n !nc%n%#!on o,

S*'e+e Be!n" 1$oe +%n!,e#%#!on 1ee #$e e# o, Go)/"o) !n #$e e'een#%#!on#%#e) %3o7e.

mparisi n:=

It is pointed out that the man% gods/Gods of 6ncient #g%ptians weresimpl% *arious forms! appearences! culminations and emanations) of a

single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea of monotheism comes

in. 6 &elief in a single Supreme Being is Monotheism. The &elief that

there man% gods/Gods is 1ol%thiesim [from the point of *iew of 1M]e*en if

the% are all included in the 3ne Single and 3nl% Supreme Being. [ But

from the point of *iew of di*isions of di'erent t%pes of concepts of Gods it

is enotheism ].Therefore! ! this 4ogma of Manifestation is 1ol%:

Monotheistic. 3r more correctl% enothiesm or Kathenotheism. #g%ptian

gods/Gods li;e orus !3siris! e*en 7a himself! were &elie*ed to &e

God. These were not &elie*ed to &e separate gods/Gods! &ut incarnations

or manifestations of one and same God the one and onl% God! insepara&le

from him.

6ncient #g%ptian 7eligion is not 1ure 1ol%theism-

6ncient #g%ptian 7eligion was not 1ure Monotheism-

6s it is shewn that #g%ptian 7eligion was not onl% 4i'erent from 1ure

Monotheism &ut also from 1ure 1ol%theism! it is also a mista;e to consider it as

Monistic Monthiesm. It was in its form oneof the forms of Kathenotheistic1ol%theism or Kathenotheism .6 ;ind of enotheism.

1haraoh himself e$alted from an Incarnation of God to the Greatest among

all incarnations and mani"stations of God. The most high Incarnation !

which is higher than all other Culminations ! Manifestations!Incarnations

et cetera.


19/26

1B

Interesting parallels are found in some Indian Cults.Some e$amples from

Sans;rit ol% Scriptures [SS] ha*e &een cited a&o*e.

6lthough it ma% &e incorrect to consider that Indian 7eligions and 6ncient

#g%ptian 7eligions were one and the same with the onl% di'erence of

+ouns of Gods/gods ! the% do ha*e similarities in them .Missionaries ha*eincorrectl% assumed that there is a contradiction in two *erses of =ur>an

in regard to the &elie*es of 1haraoh and his Courtiers and +o&ilities.

There is

no such alleged contradiction. 6ctuall% the% ha*e incorrectl% assumed

somehow that 6ncient #g%ptian 7eligion was 1ure 1ol%theism. But it is not

the case. 6ncient #g%ptian 7eligion was a form of enotheism!

1ol%thiestic Monism and Kathenotheistic 1ol%thiesm.

This comple$ nature of their religion is similar to the comple$ nature of

6ncient Indian 7eligion . So at least the% are certainl% not uni?ue.

It is *irtuall% impossi&le to suggest that two di'erent countries of two

di'erent continents &orrowed from one another !it is the almost certainl%

the conclusion that parallel thoughts and ideas de*eloped with some *er%

strong similarities &etween the religion s%stems of the two.

=uranic Statements and 6ncient #g%ptian 7eligion.

6s =uranic statements must &e *iewed as according to the general

#g%ptian Belie*es!it is clear that there is no Contradiction in the Te$t 3fol% =ur>a-n. 7ather =ur>a-n is @ust narrating their &elie*es ! and two

narrate some thing is one thing and to contradict it self is another thing. I

there is a contradiction from the 1olemical point of *iew in enotheism!it

is &e%ond the scope of narration of their &elie*es.To criticiAe a 4ogma is

one thing and to ?uote a 4ogma is another thing.

6t these points =ur>an is not criticiAing the &elie*es of 1haraoh and his

Courtiers and +o&alities. =ur>a-n is @ust narrating their dialogues which

did occur in the past ! and their respecti*e spea;ers spo;e according to

their 7eligion !Theological Bac;grounds and 4ogmas.

#16+6TI3+ 38 =D7>6+IC ,#7S#S 6S 6CC374I+G T3 T# #+3T#ISM.

6s Missionaries ha*e repeatedl% attempted to e$plain these *erses of ol%

=uran as according to 1ure 1ol%theism ! thus claiming that there is a

contradiction is =ur>an! the proper e$planation of these *ersesEsentences

of =uran must &e studied 6S according to enothiesm and Kathentheism.


20/26

2C

The sentence of 1haroah to theChiefs, No god/Goddo I know for you but myself... [Qur'an !"#!$only means

F K( am your only God


21/26

21

o he was not contradicting the #%istence of other GodsHgods but speaing

$enotheistly) either as a special case of $enotheism or as a general case of

$enotheism.

%nd the &hiefs [&ourtiers/nobalities$ of haraoh's (eo(le said"

)*o you lea+e usa" [oshe/oses$ and his (eo(le to make

mis&hief in the land and to forsake you and your gods/Gods-)..[Qur'an 0"10$

!t this time the :ourtiers, :hiefs and nobilities were also s$ea/ing not as Pure Polytheists 0PP8as incorrectly

assumed by missionaries and those who have missed the $oint, but as Henotheists and Jathenothiests+*ince

these two also allow to state a number of Gods


22/26

22

*o if it can be su$$osed with out any evidence that !ncient @gy$tian eligion was PP then it can be eEually

su$$osed even if there was no evidence that (t was a form of Henotheism+ *o the $robability of each one

would have been eAactly eEual+

But in $resence of evidences it is not the case+

*o the obection based on a false su$$osition is it self a $roof that Missionaries have committed a great error+

!/hen!ten was a monotheistic Pharaoh+ @ven the @gy$tian Monotheistic PharaohCs God is s$o/en by !/hen

!ten as if God


23/26

2'

and his courtiers contradicted each other and =uran onl% reports their

statements.

W.

S3M# 4#8I+6TI3+S-

1]Kathenotheismis a belief that multiple deities exist, and different

deities are supreme among them at different times.

0]Monolatrism

Monolatrism or Monolar% is &elief in multiple deities/4eties

&ut worship of onl% one of T#M at a time as if the

worshipped 3ne is the 3nl% 4eit% at the time.

-t is time dependent oneness.

3]Henotheism:=

6ccording to the 6merican eritage 4ictionar%!

enotheism is the &elief in one god without den%ing the

e$istence of others. induism is a classic e$ample of this

&elief in practice. indus generall% worship one god! %et

ac;nowledge that there are man% other gods that can &e

worshiped as well. The religion of the ancient Gree;s and

their worship of the 3l%mpians is another well:;nown

e$ample! with eus &eing the supreme ruler of ele*en

other gods. 6ll twel*e were worshiped! each indi*iduall%

&% a di'erent sect or temple.

H- The word Monolatr%/Monolatrism is &ased upon the

Gree; roots monos! which means one and latreia! which

means ser*ice or religious worship. It seems to ha*e &een

"rst used &% ulius Jellhausen to descri&ed a t%pe of


24/26

2I

pol%theism in which onl% one god is worshipped e*en

though the e$istence of other gods is accepted. The

reason for the di'erence in treatment is the premise that

onl% one of the man% gods actuall% deser*es to &e

worshipped 5 often this ma% &e due to a specialrelationship the god has with the people in ?uestion.

Q,SSummodeism! ma% &e de"ned as the worship of a

Supreme Being who is &elie*ed to &e at the centre of a

pantheon of other Gods/gods who are @ust is

manifestations ! incarnations!culminations etcof this igh

god/God or Supreme Being . Thus! in a summodeistic

s%stem! the e$istence of multiple gods onl% occurs&ecause a single! igh god/God is a&le to incarnate! to

manifest and to culminate into man% di'erent

Gods/gods.

%anifestation:=(6To 3eco+e o+e #$!n" 1$!c$ #$e Be!n" ! !n!#!%((& no# 1$e#$e

!# (%##e #$!n" ! %n %n"e( o % $*+%n 3e!n" o %n %n!+%( 3e!n" o % *'e$*+%n 3e!n"

1!#$ o 1!#$ o*# con7e!on#%!#!on +*#%#!on e#c.

In o#$e 1o) I, % Be!n" 3eco+e o+e #$!n" #$%# I# ! !n!#!%((& no# 1!#$ o 1!#$ o*# %con7e!on +*#%#!on e#c. !# ! M%n!,e#%#!on.

;] A +%n!,e#%#!on o, o+e#$!n" 8o+e#$!n" #$%# 1% made known BY AO!"#R

!"$G9.In o#$e 1o) !, % Be!n" ! +%)e 5no1n 3& %n o#$e 3e!n"/#$!n" #$e ,!#

one ! c%((e) M%n!,e#e) [ o+e #!+e M%n!,e#o ] #$e econ) one ! c%((e)

M%n!,e#%#!on [ o+e #$!n" one !n #$%# o+e #$!n" +%n!,e#]. T$e %c# o, 3e!n" 5no1n

3& o+e o#$e #$!n" ! %(o c%((e) M%n!,e#%#!on.

Incarnation:

An !nc%n%#!on o, o+e#$!n" o+e#$!n" 8o % Be!n" i%e% an entity, a deity, a spirit, an

an&el, a &od'God 9#$%# ! %3(e %# 1!(( #o c$%n"e !# !n!#!%( state o, e6!#ence %n)

Kappear as o+e#$!n" e(e 8i%e% appearin& as a human bein&, a burnin& bush, a


25/26

2Q

donkey, et(%9 1!#$ o 1!#$ o*# con7e#!n"/#%n,o+!n" !n#o #$e (%##e. I# ! % 'ec!%(

c%e o, M%n!,e#%#!on !n #$e ,!# +e%n!n".

to mista;ing Kathenotheistic 1ol%theism for

Monistic Monotheism.


26/26

2

:

Why Did Pharoah of the Period of Moses Claimed That He is the Only God of His Subjects

Documents