• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

Pan-Abrahamism, An Ecumenical Theology (Substack)

MorganBlack

Disciple
Joined
Nov 18, 2024
Messages
865
Reaction score
2,189
Awards
11
Wow. Still mulling this over, but maybe David Armstrong is onto something I've overlooked in the evolution of our mythic thinking.

I was still seeing the Canaanite "El" as a "pagan" god - meaning the earlier and "stupid" version, becasue in my reading of history he precedes Hellenic Neoplatonism - the "smart" paganism monotheism (expressed henotheistically, sure, but splitting hairs)

I was still thinking in of three stages of monotheism

1 . the original Paleolithic Monotheism of the Sky God. Our first "religion," that preceded the variety of the natural world's spirits.
2. the much more sophisticated big-picture monotheism of the "One" of the Greek Neoplatonists.
3. From there, following Russell Gmirkin, only then is YHVH "elevated" as a name for for the One, the Ground of Being of NeoPlatonism, and we move into the third stage of both the Hebrew cosmic vision, Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity and Islam.

But maybe, as Armstrong suggests there, these "big" universe-visions were there in the shared mythic ideas of the peoples there before the Greeks. Like I said, still mulling it over, and pinning it for later exploration

Pan-Abrahamism An Ecumenical Theology (Substack)

From David Armstrong

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Ziran

Disciple
Benefactor
Joined
Oct 20, 2023
Messages
572
Reaction score
1,207
Awards
7
But maybe, as Armstrong suggests there, these "big" universe-visions were there in the shared mythic ideas of the peoples there before the Greeks. Like I said, still mulling it over, and pinning it for later exploration

In support of this, any extent archeological evidence is "TAQ", Terminus Ante Quem, "the latest beginning". See here ( in a code block for strict adherence to the forum's rules )

Code:
Please, Log in or Register to view codes content!



following Russell Gmirkin, only then is YHVH "elevated" ...

Whatever archeological evidence is being brought in support of this needs to be interpreted TAQ. If Grimkin didn't do that, the dates used to conclude "only then. is YHVH elevated...." will be significantly warped in favor of a late emergence of YHVH as Eternal-One.

For example, if the evidence is coming from a temple inscription. If the inscription is dated 500 BC, then, that's the latest beginning. Even though the inscription is dated 500 BC, the date of conception of the belief in YHVH as Eternal-One will be much earlier than that. Temple institutions take a long time to develop.
 

MorganBlack

Disciple
Joined
Nov 18, 2024
Messages
865
Reaction score
2,189
Awards
11
Thank you for that, Ziran, and Robert Ramsay. I needed to challenge my own working model's timeline a bit.

As a starting point for further research, and starting at the earliest point on my timeline with Paleolithic Monotheism, I asked AI (yes, always bit fraught) about our earliest conceptions. I had assumed it would come back describing a "dumb" paganism mythic worldview, but was it was rather seems to have been much more nuanced than I originally thought, according at least to one researcher.

MB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Sky Father" as the Original Ground of Being

Scholars like Wilhelm Schmidt (the Urmonotheismus theory) argued that the earliest human belief wasn't actually a "messy" polytheism, but a singular, distant, and ethical High God.

Unlike the "dumb" paganism of later periods - where gods are just humans with superpowers who fight and sleep around - the Paleolithic High God is often Aniconic (has no image). He is the Sky, the Wind, or the "Breath." This is a god that doesn't "do" things in the world; he is the context of the world. He is the "Witness."

----------------------------

The Memphite Theology (c. 2500 BCE or earlier)

If we look at the Memphite Theology (recorded on the Shabaka Stone), we find that the Egyptians had formulated a "Ground of Being" concept as early as the Old Kingdom—thousands of years before Plato or the Library of Alexandria. The Shabaka Stone (though a later copy) preserves a theology from the Old Kingdom of Egypt. This is arguably the first time in recorded history that "Mind" is placed before "Matter." It posits that the universe existed as a "thought" in the heart of Ptah before it was spoken into existence.

It is tempting to see the progression from "person-like" gods to "abstract" principles as a move from "dumb" to "smart," but the Egyptian theology of Ptah provides a massive wrench in that timeline.

Ptah: The Logos Before the Logos

In most ancient mythologies, gods create the world through physical acts: molding clay, killing a monster, or even masturbation (as in the case of the Heliopolitan god Atum).

Ptah is different. He creates through Mind and Word.

The Heart (Sia): The Egyptians viewed the heart as the seat of thought and intention. Ptah first "conceived" the universe in his heart.

The Tongue (Hu): He then gave form to those thoughts by speaking their names.

The Result: Reality is a physical manifestation of divine thought. This is almost identical to the Greek concept of the Logos (the Word/Reason) that appears in the Gospel of John and Neoplatonism.

----------------------------------------
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2025
Messages
379
Reaction score
305
Awards
3
The "Sky Father" as the Original Ground of Being

Scholars like Wilhelm Schmidt (the Urmonotheismus theory) argued that the earliest human belief wasn't actually a "messy" polytheism, but a singular, distant, and ethical High God.
If that were the case, there would be more monotheisms in existence. Studying 'primitive' peoples would rapidly disabuse this theory. Schmidt was working with very limited data.
 

MorganBlack

Disciple
Joined
Nov 18, 2024
Messages
865
Reaction score
2,189
Awards
11
Schmidt was working with very limited data.

I hear ya. Still working on challenging my Hellenic / Neoplatonic bias and getting all, or many, legos - and just lego-looking pieces - on the table before I try to organize them. There's not a lot of hard data for pre-history so natually much will still be speculative. Usually I just start paying atttention at Gobekli Tepe and then skip right to Alexandria.
 

Angelkesfarl

Acolyte
Joined
Nov 18, 2025
Messages
485
Reaction score
461
Awards
7
1-1009

Why do we always seek to redefine water? I will intervene not to fight anyone or to impose an opinion: In Islam, there are interpretations that I will convey to you directly, away from the chains of narration (An'anat). In a simplification of monotheistic concepts, the Lord says that if there were other gods besides the One God, some would have surely risen above others, because gods, by nature, cannot both rule. In another passage, He points out that if there were in them—the heavens or the earth—multiple gods, both would have fallen into ruin. Even the monotheistic thought is rich with challenges quoted from the Torah and the Quran: if we looked with a neutral eye, we would find that every law is a single law, whether physical or even metaphysical. The planets are the same; what differs is the definition of the entity attributed to them—Atum, Zeus, or any pagan system is a later human invention. Monotheism is the origin; even the science of numbers itself begins with 1. Planetary positions, astronomical systems, and cosmic movements all bear the same touch that screams intensely that they are the work of one Being.

Therefore, let us stop wasting our lives on axioms and self-evident truths. Is Hecate a goddess? No, of course she is not a goddess; she is merely a symbol indicating magical behaviors that you can replace or merge. She herself is subject to human whim. Zeus is like her, as are Hera, Vishnu, Ra, or even the local deities of every nation—they all claim to be the creators. If you look closely, you will find it is demonic filler from the Manipulator to distract you from a very simple truth: there is a God who created good, evil, and the universe. There is a devil, fiery in origin, who ascended to heaven, and when Adam was created, he refused to prostrate to him—for here it was not a prostration of worship, but a prostration of obedience. He refused to obey the God and descended to declare himself and his sons as gods, offering magic to those who worship them. You may accept it by his real name or by any other name; you are free. A simple truth, if we dealt with it neutrally—though I doubt that—we would find that all those characters did not move the earth or break the law that the One God is seen by no one. Has Zeus graciously appeared to us to end the state of controversy, as he frequently did in ancient Rome? Has Atum or Ra appeared? Thus, it is all a diversion.

Very well, we want the practical part. The practical part is that you do not possess any kind of coercion or restraint over a spirit or whatever you claim—except in a case that is nearly impossible to reach now: that you can control them through true magic, not those farcical texts, whether Western or Eastern. The truth is that currently, all who claim magical powers operate as follows: you draw closer to a powerful entity that possesses followers; you approach it, and it grants you some of its followers to assist you. The followers do not fear you; they fear the punishment of those higher than them. Can we bypass this philosophical dilemma and enter into the powers and the method of true communication with them? For myself, and personally speaking, I believe in the words of Agrippa: the most powerful magic is that which stems from dealing with God Himself. But as for the method of application, therein lies the gap. Thank you to everyone, and have a happy day.
 

MorganBlack

Disciple
Joined
Nov 18, 2024
Messages
865
Reaction score
2,189
Awards
11
I hear you, Angelkesfarl.

I was mostly here trying to break up my own thinking and identify anthropological topics and data blocks that contribute to a data-driven (as much as we can) timeline of the history of theology, just so I can look at the evolution of relgious ideas, and rexamine my own historical assumptions.

Please, if you can contribute the history of Islam, its roots, and operating assumptions, that would be helpful. Yes, treating one’s own beliefs as an academic, historical, anthropological, and sociological study can be uncomfortable.

In my appreach I tend to mostly work with cognate core concepts and less the 'wrapping paper' of names. (This is different from the animst / spirit level of conjuring where the names becomes an agreed upon expectation in an ritual act of human-spirit diplomacy. That temporary movie we are jumping into together.).

This is a magic forum, so I also try to leave much my personal theology aside. At my core I'm a Pantheist (rasied a mild secular Unitarian, with Latino Catholic and Anglo Jewish sides of the family. The Unitarian church is very pagan-friendly), I tend to agree - everything is God - and I tend to keep to a Neoplatonic view. . This is expressed in a Folk Catholic framework, after some experience (and still experiencing) extreme theophanic manifestations in that 'mythstream,' as I put it. But I am enough of a modern and chaos magician not to make ontological truth claims here, and feel there are many pathways to get to a similar spritual place.

In Catholicism, we are seen as the Imago De - Image of God - which suggests that humans possess an inherent likeness to the Creator, specifically in our intellect and free will. However, this image is often described as 'tarnished' by "the Fall" (a huge topic unto itself) acting like a dusty mirror that needs cleaning. While I disagree with the bureaucratic church's politics (aside from the left-wing Latino Marxist Catholic school of Liberation Theology), Catholic mysticism is a very complete Mystery School with a set of practices to clean the mirror of the soul and reflect God’s magnificence.

(To those where this spot is blank in their operatiove framework, fill in the cognate idea here in one own's myths and storis. All good. If missing this idea, finding one is a good idea for a well-rounded and balanced practice. )

I think many modern occultists miss this because they don't see the big picture nor work with cognate ideas for their practice. They think they alone, for the first time in human history, had these thoughts. I missed it for a long time myself. The modern magic 'egregore' is strong, very strong.

I am still a modern living in a secular society, and religious people are thought insane here. It does not matter if Hermeticism says the same thing. Imago Dei is pretty cleanly mirrored, with folk hot takes and distortions aside, by the concept of the Divine Spark. The Corpus Hermeticum suggests that because Man was created by the Nous (Divine Mind), and we share its creative nature. The goal is to recognize this inherent divinity, moving from the illusion of being a mere physical body to the realization of being a spiritual co-creator. Dr. Gregory Shaw was surprised to find the pagan theurgy of Iamblichus looks a lot like Catholicism, which is more suggetive than many may wish.
 

Ohana

Acolyte
Joined
Jan 2, 2026
Messages
324
Reaction score
295
Awards
4
I hear you, Angelkesfarl.

I was mostly here trying to break up my own thinking and identify anthropological topics and data blocks that contribute to a data-driven (as much as we can) timeline of the history of theology, just so I can look at the evolution of relgious ideas, and rexamine my own historical assumptions.

Please, if you can contribute the history of Islam, its roots, and operating assumptions, that would be helpful. Yes, treating one’s own beliefs as an academic, historical, anthropological, and sociological study can be uncomfortable.
I agree. I think Angelkesfarl should talk about the history of his religion and I want to preface this because this critique isn't an attack to that. But that I want to educate about the other history mentioned here.
Therefore, let us stop wasting our lives on axioms and self-evident truths. Is Hecate a goddess? No, of course she is not a goddess; she is merely a symbol indicating magical behaviors that you can replace or merge. She herself is subject to human whim. Zeus is like her, as are Hera, Vishnu, Ra, or even the local deities of every nation—they all claim to be the creators.
Zeus, Hera, and Ra I think don't exactly claim to be the creators. Thats not the main thing I have issue with since it might depend on the story and I'm unsure to give a definitive answer on what they claim or claim not to be.

The main thing I take issues with is including Vishnu in this list. Vishnu in Hinduism from what little I know about it does not claim to be a creator. He is actually put in an entirely sepereate category and thar is super important to his mythos. Vishnu is distinctly not the creator he is the protector. There's a trio of creator, destroyer, and protector in Hinduism and Vishnu is the protector in that trio.

It would be more accurate to say that Brahmin claims to be the creator. Vishnu is distinctly made to be not in the creator role but protector role. Thats really I want to say because Vishnu is unique in that way.

To give a comparable example it would be like saying archangel Micheal claims to be the creator. Archangel Micheal in Abrahamic religions does not and is not that instead mostly in a protector role in most contexts.
 

Angelkesfarl

Acolyte
Joined
Nov 18, 2025
Messages
485
Reaction score
461
Awards
7
Here is the silent and precise English translation of the text you provided:

Now let me explain the concept of the vision, which is not merely Islamic but monotheistic; however, here I will speak about Islam specifically: Islam contains a simple, central, and fundamental concept without which Islam itself cannot exist: that there is a Creator, the Deity Himself, who is He? He is eternal in existence with no beginning and perpetual in existence with no end. Indeed, in one of the definitions, it is said that "Al-Dahr" (Time/Eternity) is one of His attributes, meaning that He is above all times. Just as there are different times in every place as time differences, the Deity is Time itself, above all times and their creator. He is also absolute in power, ability, knowledge, and wisdom; nothing disables Him, and nothing is difficult for Him. Rather, everything is very easy for Him, even the observable universe, dark matter, what lies beyond them, heaven, and hell (the place of torment)—all are different universes that are simple and easy for Him, and He can destroy them and rebuild them with absolute ease. He is the One who decreed provisions on Earth until the end of the Day of Judgment; everything has a specific provision. The Deity—and here is the most important part—created everything as a servant to Him, not in the sense of servitude being merely a ruling by a deity over worshipers out of domination, but rather because He knows the secrets and because He is the Holy One who does not accept injustice or vice. From here, we proceed to negate any relationship between the Deity and any other god; there are absolutely no other deities, and no creature possesses the attribute of divinity, nor will any creature ever be able to reach the rank of divinity, simply because the Deity is only One, having no father, mother, wife, or children. There is nothing like Him, neither in His abilities nor even in His existence; the greatest of angels are His loyal, faithful servants. Is Jesus here the son of the Deity? No, Jesus is merely a messenger whom God created without a father from Mary, through the direct blowing of the spirit into her womb. The one who performed that blowing was Gabriel himself, who carried the spirit of Jesus in his mouth and blew it directly into Mary's womb (a matter not far-fetched today, given the superb capabilities of human science in genetics, so what of the One who created all creatures?). The One who created Adam from the dust of the earth created Jesus without a father, which is an act that I believe everyone will agree is lesser in power than creating Adam from dust without a father or a mother. Is what the church, temples, or idols say pure fabrication? Behind it is that hidden name in GV or the Keys of Solomon, or whatever it may be—namely "Iblis", called the Lord of Demons. He is not merely their lord, he is their actual father. Iblis has a story, the useful summary of which is that before the creation of humans, there were creatures created from the essence of fire called the Jinn. Of course, they are not fire as we think, but their origin is fire just as our origin is clay; they are ethereal creatures of supreme power, whom none can withstand except the angels, and they are by composition very, very much stronger than humans, highly intelligent, of superior intellect and knowledge, and possess the abilities of shapeshifting and transformation. What happened, so as not to prolong this? These entities exalted themselves over one another, the strongest among them presumed themselves to be deities to be worshipped, and they subjugated the lesser capable among them to their rule. When they slaughtered and killed animals and one another, God sent Gabriel and Michael against them; they descended to Earth and shattered the great kingdom of the Jinn, tearing it apart and leaving not one stone upon another. In the midst of that battle, there was a child whom the angels took with them to heaven, where he was raised among them; he is the "Peacock" (a Jinni who learned, was raised, and prayed among the angels, continuing to worship the Deity for eighty thousand years, prostrating in every place you can imagine, until he rose high). Then came the time of Adam (Adam was created, and he entered the body of Adam while it was under the throne of the Deity in a place in front of the gate of Heaven near a river there called the River of Kauthar. Adam was hollow, meaning the veins and internal organs were outlined from sounding clay). The point is that he entered the body of the first human while it was still clay and exited from it, so he learned the origin and saw everything with his own eyes. Then he grew arrogant towards humans, became conceited over us, and despised us; this was his first sin within himself—arrogance and contempt. Then came the time for the first breath of life, and God brought Adam to life, but He bestowed upon us something very precious and high to honor humanity: He Himself blew the first spirit into the first human, Adam, by Himself, as an honor to us. When Adam stood, the angels spoke and said: Will You create another creature that will shed blood and do as the first did? Here, the Creator's answer was that even the highest angels do not know the unseen, and He challenged them to answer: Name for Me the names of the things on Earth, if you possess complete knowledge as you claimed. They said in one voice: We have no knowledge, O Deity, except what You have taught us. Here, He commanded Adam to speak and inform them of the true name of everything, and at this point, the angels sought forgiveness for merely questioning, which was not a sin. Then came the final test: the Deity commanded all the angels present to prostrate to Adam. This was not a prostration of worship, but a prostration of obedience to the command of the Deity. All the angels prostrated except for one individual who was not an angel but the Peacock Jinni. He refused to prostrate to Adam, refused to obey Him, and his ugly face appeared; he said to the Deity: I am better than him; I was created from fire, and this one You created from clay mixed with water, which is mud. Here was the refusal for the first time. After a dialogue, the Peacock was expelled and named Iblis, meaning the one who despairs of the mercy of the Deity. Did Iblis wage war against the Deity? No, because no one has any power to wage war against the Deity. He was expelled from Heaven and stood at its gates. And here, when Eve was created from Adam's rib—the crooked rib as is known to most religions—notice with me that all accounts, even if they differ, share points of correlation among them all.
 
Top