82 replies to this topic

[Hoa Phau]

Pashnehim!
are all of these are from agnostics? or even jews?
El-Shaddai and shangdi are diffrent, but in names, but one in a form.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Not really. Religious Daoism only came into existence as a native Chinese response to the arrival of Buddhism, and its institutional structure was closely modelled on that of the Buddhists. Before religious Daoism there was only philosophical Daoism, which was not really a religion but a philosophical system like Platonism in the ancient Greco-Roman world. At any rate the worship of Shangdi predates both by many centuries.

No, the Wu Mi Dou Dao has little to do with Buddhism, nor do we even have prove that Zhang Dao Lin herd about it. Buddhism might have entered China by 2 B.C. and officially built temples by 67 a.d., but it hasn't been influencial at all until the end of Han. We have no reason to belief that Wu Mi Dou Dao or the Huang Jing Jun is influenced by Buddhism.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

No, the Wu Mi Dou Dao has little to do with Buddhism, nor do we even have prove that Zhang Dao Lin herd about it. Buddhism might have entered China by 2 B.C. and officially built temples by 67 a.d., but it hasn't been influencial at all until the end of Han. We have no reason to belief that Wu Mi Dou Dao or the Huang Jing Jun is influenced by Buddhism.

And whats your point? You were trying to say that there were only Daoist philosophy previous to Buddhism, thats simply wrong, Daoism is much more than mere philosophy, it has aspects of spiritual practice and magical contents far more complex than Christianity. Even its creation story is more complex than a simple allmighty creating everyhthing(reminds me of Pan Gu).


Also I'm literally tired of people claiming religious Daoism as some second rate religion of no content. Granted I don't think any religion has much content, but religious Daoism is far from backwards, it is in fact one of the most scientific religion, if not the most scientific one. Instead of teaching people to follow blind faith, the Daoist cannons are written down from experience, it covers medication, chemistry, astronomy, health and spiritual practice and more. There are 1120 such books, and it forged Chinese history and Chinese science. In fact Needham's works on China largely CAME from the Dao Zang. To say its just a superstitious belief is just absurd, it has far more practical elements than the Monothiestic religions, in fact its the latter that lacks such.
You can read the Dao Zang and apply it to real life(sometimes), you can't do the same for most other superstitions.

Also what prove do people have that the religious Daoists have no connection to original Daoism(and even more absurd, to claim that the Christians do?), the Huang Lao traditon(of elixirs) is closer to Lao Dang's time than any other people(except Zhuang Zi)

Here are a few Daoist websites for common modern misconceptions,

http://www.daoistcen...onceptions.html
http://www.apophatic...neseDaoism.html
http://www.taoism.ne...origin/home.htm

Also read the book, TAOISM: THE ENDURING TRADITION. By Russell Kirkland. New York and London

Also, its funny how Christians think Confucian ancestor worship is actually different than Daoist rituals, they are the same thing applied to different beens. There is no such thing as true worship in China, because everyone can become immortals and Buddhas, gods in China does not come natural, they are earned. The best term is paying respect to the deities.
The temples of the various gods were sometimes called "daoist gods", when actually they are simply folk Chinese gods that are worshipped by all religious groups including Buddhists and Confucians.

[somechineseperson]

And whats your point? You were trying to say that there were only Daoist philosophy previous to Buddhism, thats simply wrong, Daoism is much more than mere philosophy, it has aspects of spiritual practice and magical contents far more complex than Christianity. Even its creation story is more complex than a simple allmighty creating everyhthing(reminds me of Pan Gu).
Also I'm literally tired of people claiming religious Daoism as some second rate religion of no content. Granted I don't think any religion has much content, but religious Daoism is far from backwards, it is in fact one of the most scientific religion, if not the most scientific one. Instead of teaching people to follow blind faith, the Daoist cannons are written down from experience, it covers medication, chemistry, astronomy, health and spiritual practice and more. There are 1120 such books, and it forged Chinese history and Chinese science. In fact Needham's works on China largely CAME from the Dao Zang. To say its just a superstitious belief is just absurd, it has far more practical elements than the Monothiestic religions, in fact its the latter that lacks such.
You can read the Dao Zang and apply it to real life(sometimes), you can't do the same for most other superstitions.

Also what prove do people have that the religious Daoists have no connection to original Daoism(and even more absurd, to claim that the Christians do?), the Huang Lao traditon(of elixirs) is closer to Lao Dang's time than any other people(except Zhuang Zi)

Here are a few Daoist websites for common modern misconceptions,

http://www.daoistcen...onceptions.html
http://www.apophatic...neseDaoism.html
http://www.taoism.ne...origin/home.htm

Also read the book, TAOISM: THE ENDURING TRADITION. By Russell Kirkland. New York and London

Also, its funny how Christians think Confucian ancestor worship is actually different than Daoist rituals, they are the same thing applied to different beens. There is no such thing as true worship in China, because everyone can become immortals and Buddhas, gods in China does not come natural, they are earned. The best term is paying respect to the deities.
The temples of the various gods were sometimes called "daoist gods", when actually they are simply folk Chinese gods that are worshipped by all religious groups including Buddhists and Confucians.

Your groundless accusation of monotheistic religions has no basis and furthermore simply has no point. As Shangdi says in the Shi Jing, "do not judge what you don't understand".

Note I have not attacked religious Daoism or any other religion.

The idea that humans can become gods is ridiculous in the strictest sense, because there is only one God, who is infinite and is the Ground of Being for everything. Like the Dao, the ultimate attributes of God are unknowable. Humans on the other hand are imperfect and finite creatures.

On the other hand, I believe "god" in the ancient Chinese sense is not the same as God in the Christian sense. It corresponds more to angels or saints. The Bible sometimes also describe God as the "God of the gods".

I'm not sure if this is heretical or not, so a disclaimer: I am not saying I agree with this statement completely. But an early Christian teacher said that the central truth of Christianity is that "God has become human [in Jesus Christ] so we can become like God."

[Wu Jiao Xin]

It is my intention to prove through comparitive research that the Jews and the Xias were one and the same people. That the capitol city Xi'an is also the Hebrew (Habiru) Zion, that the Hebrew Pharoah Yuya, who was Yusef to the hebrews, was also Emperor Yu, founder of the Xia dynasty, and that Sheshonq I (Shishak) was in fact, Shangdi, and that the hyksos rulers of Egypt were in fact Oriental warlords. I believe it is possible to trace monotheism along the old silk road with wandering caravan traders (aka Habiru/Wanderers) bringing the philosophy of Tao with them.

[DaMo]

Ah, good old "comparative research".

First of all, XiAn means Western Peace. Secondly, it is a more recent name, as it was earlier called ChangAn, meaning Prolonged Peace.

Secondly, legends about Joseph (who was not a pharaoh) and King Yu are vastly different.

Thirdly, ShangDi simply means Lord Above; it is not some meaningless transliteration.

Fourthly, Hyksos were definitely Oriental warlords in the classical sense of Oriental as a place to the east of the Occidental, meaning all the way from the Middle East to Japan. That does not mean they came from anywhere near China, as there were plenty of Semitic and Indo-European chariot cultures within the Middle East itself.

[naruwan]

Xia society was still tribal and there was no one capital not to mention Xi'an is so named after Qing dynasty.

I think Xia itself has little to do with migration from the west. Huang-Di is a much better example.

[Yang Zongbao]

It is my intention to prove through comparitive research that the Jews and the Xias were one and the same people. That the capitol city Xi'an is also the Hebrew (Habiru) Zion, that the Hebrew Pharoah Yuya, who was Yusef to the hebrews, was also Emperor Yu, founder of the Xia dynasty, and that Sheshonq I (Shishak) was in fact, Shangdi, and that the hyksos rulers of Egypt were in fact Oriental warlords. I believe it is possible to trace monotheism along the old silk road with wandering caravan traders (aka Habiru/Wanderers) bringing the philosophy of Tao with them.

Oh boy. I smell another Ziomek type member.

Yeah. Everything Damo said. The comparison of pronounciations, especially present pronounciations, is not valid proof of anything.

The Xi'an example was particularly flimsy, for Xi'An is in fact, a much much more recent name for the city.

[lifezard]

Question 1:

who was the Yuya mentioned here? was it the Yuya of the 18th century? was he ever a pharoah? the king-list read ---- Amunhotep III, Amunhotep IV, Ay and Hoaremheb, i dun see him inside..


Question 2:

anyone wondered how '上' was pronounced 3000 years ago? it was actually much more closer to '顶', with a initial consonant of 'd'

[Wu Jiao Xin]

What if I also said that I believe the Djinn of arabic mythology were the Chin? And who the heck is Ziomek? Come on, at the very least I could make a good Dan Brown style fiction novel based on these theories.

Edited by Wu Jiao Xin, 27 March 2007 - 08:17 PM.

[JesusOneCreator]

I, myself, have come across the same question. It was when I discovered that the chinese character for the word "righteousness" consists of the word "lamb" + "me" (or "self") with "lamb" placed on top of "me". How the character for "me" is formed itself is amazing, if you remember Adam's two sons Cain and Abel. God only accepted Abel's offering, and not Cain's. So, Cain was jealous of Abel, so he stabbed Abel with a spear, hence killing him. The character "me" or "self" consists of the character for "hand" + "Spear". Now, think why would the Chinese ancestors have created the word "me" with these characters? It's no mere coincidence. According to Bible, God calls those "righteous" who acknowledge that they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their lord and savior. Jesus is frequently referred to as the lamb, which is a holy sacrifice offering to God. So, the character for "righteousness" applies to those who believes in Jesus, and puts themselves under the lamb, Jesus Christ.

There are more Chinese characters like these created based on the history of Christianity or Bible. And, this is well presented by this flash-based presentation

As far as your question is concerned....

Now according to the pronunciation of Old Chinese, which was used during the Zhou Dynasty (1122/1121 - 256 BC), Shang Di is pronunced as "Zhandai" or probably "Shandai", similar to the pronunciation of the word in today's Catonese dialect. (Catonese speakers here verify this for me, how do you pronunce 上帝?)

But in the Hebrew Old Testament, God is sometimes referred to by the Hebrew name "El Shaddai" (literally this means Almighty, in Hebrew, the term LORD Almighty would be Yahweh El Shaddai). Notice the similarity in the prounication between "El Shaddai" and "Shandai". In addition, we know the meanings of these two names are very similar as well, for the Chinese God and the Hebrew God share many attributes. So is this a mere coincedence of history? What do you think?

After seeing how many Chinese characters are consisted of what they are, I am strongly convinced that it's no mere coincidence that those two names sound so similar.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Your groundless accusation of monotheistic religions has no basis and furthermore simply has no point. As Shangdi says in the Shi Jing, "do not judge what you don't understand".

I haven't attacked, I merely ridiculed your claims. Also I find it fascinating that people always quote from well known classics from the past as if it makes them wiser or more authentic, if you just tell me "do not judge what you don't understand" without the Shi jing spiel your quote would just be another plain quote. And I don't believe the ancients are any wiser than moderner, if anything, they are vastly inferior in knowledge.

Note I have not attacked religious Daoism or any other religion.

The idea that humans can become gods is ridiculous in the strictest sense, because there is only one God, who is infinite and is the Ground of Being for everything. Like the Dao, the ultimate attributes of God are unknowable. Humans on the other hand are imperfect and finite creatures.

On the other hand, I believe "god" in the ancient Chinese sense is not the same as God in the Christian sense. It corresponds more to angels or saints. The Bible sometimes also describe God as the "God of the gods".

I'm not sure if this is heretical or not, so a disclaimer: I am not saying I agree with this statement completely. But an early Christian teacher said that the central truth of Christianity is that "God has become human [in Jesus Christ] so we can become like God."

Just because you claimed you didn't doesn't mean you haven't hinted it indirectly. By stating that "the idea that humans can become gods is ridiculous in the strictest sense, because there is only one God, who is infinite and is the Ground of Being for everything" is denouncing another religion because they do not fit your pre-determined religious conclusion is an magnificent example of an attack. To a neutral observer, one personal god, is just as ridiculous as numerous gods. And why is attaining god individually any less ridiculous than someone who self proclaims himself to be the son of god? In fact, I recall that we made a comparison between the evidence we have for Jesus and the evidence we have for the Daoist immortal Wei Bo Yang, and found that the truth of the later is supported by greater textual evidence.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 05 September 2008 - 12:40 AM.

[madalibi]

I, myself, have come across the same question. It was when I discovered that the chinese character for the word "righteousness" consists of the word "lamb" + "me" (or "self") with "lamb" placed on top of "me". How the character for "me" is formed itself is amazing, if you remember Adam's two sons Cain and Abel. God only accepted Abel's offering, and not Cain's. So, Cain was jealous of Abel, so he stabbed Abel with a spear, hence killing him. The character "me" or "self" consists of the character for "hand" + "Spear". Now, think why would the Chinese ancestors have created the word "me" with these characters? It's no mere coincidence. According to Bible, God calls those "righteous" who acknowledge that they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their lord and savior. Jesus is frequently referred to as the lamb, which is a holy sacrifice offering to God. So, the character for "righteousness" applies to those who believes in Jesus, and puts themselves under the lamb, Jesus Christ.

In its earliest form (in the Shang oracle bones), the character 義 was actually a place name. It meant nothing like "righteousness." And sure 羊 (which means "sheep" or "goat," not "lamb") was the top part of the character, but the bottom part (我) originally did not mean "me": it was a type of weapon. Only later did 我 come to mean "me," and it was not because of its apparent etymology ("hand" 扌+ "blade" 戈), but probably because it sounded like the word people used to say "me" at the time: it was a phonetic loan. The process was also not simple. 我 in the first person first meant "we" (as in "we the Shang," or maybe "we the Zhou"), and only progressively did it come to mean "me" in the first person singular. When it eventually came to mean "me," 我 was used only in the object position in a sentence. In other words it was not used to say "I" until more than a thousand years after the character first appeared. In light of this, the connection with the Abel and Cain story appears particularly flimsy...

The kind of reasoning presented by JesusOneCreator is driven by the fantasy that Judeo-Christian principles can be found at the root of most civilizations. But to prove that, wouldn't we need a bit more than hopeful speculations based on false etymologies?

Cheers,
Madalibi

[Freddy1]

The idea that humans can become gods is ridiculous in the strictest sense, because there is only one God,...

The Bible sometimes also describe God as the "God of the gods".

If the bible makes the statement "gods of gods" it implies there are more than one god. He may just "supposibly" been just the first thats all.

[DaMo]

I, myself, have come across the same question. It was when I discovered that the chinese character for the word "righteousness" consists of the word "lamb" + "me" (or "self") with "lamb" placed on top of "me". How the character for "me" is formed itself is amazing, if you remember Adam's two sons Cain and Abel. God only accepted Abel's offering, and not Cain's. So, Cain was jealous of Abel, so he stabbed Abel with a spear, hence killing him. The character "me" or "self" consists of the character for "hand" + "Spear". Now, think why would the Chinese ancestors have created the word "me" with these characters? It's no mere coincidence. According to Bible, God calls those "righteous" who acknowledge that they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their lord and savior. Jesus is frequently referred to as the lamb, which is a holy sacrifice offering to God. So, the character for "righteousness" applies to those who believes in Jesus, and puts themselves under the lamb, Jesus Christ.

There are more Chinese characters like these created based on the history of Christianity or Bible. And, this is well presented by this flash-based presentation

As far as your question is concerned....



After seeing how many Chinese characters are consisted of what they are, I am strongly convinced that it's no mere coincidence that those two names sound so similar.

Aaaargh, did you not read the rebuttals in this thread? The Hebrews had several epithets for their god, so one of them could be somehow fitted to a foreign word. And again, Shang Di is not a transliteration, it is a bi-morpheme title, each morpheme with a different independent meaning. Shaddai is a single descriptor with a completely different meaning, and has no divine association by itself. As for those character etymologies, the folk etymologists who claim on them wrongly assume tht the radicals that form Chinese script have not changed in shape or meaning over time, and sometimes do not even identify whole radicals but pick out parts that look like what they want to see. Some of them are positively comical.