in what meaning pharaoh claimed to be only god/god

8/17/2019 In what meaning Pharaoh claimed to be only God/god

1/28

1

Concerning the ancient Egyptian religion during the time of the Pharaohs, the Qur'an reports

three interesting statements. Firstly, when Prophet Moses calls Pharaoh to worship one true God,

the call is rejected. nstead Pharaoh collects his men and proclaims that he is their !ord, most

high.

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

"econdly, when Moses goes to Pharaoh with clear signs, they are rejected as #eing $fa%e$.

Pharaoh then addresses his chiefs #y saying that he %nows of no god for them e&cept him.

Pharaoh said "9 :hiefs; no god =8

he last(hirdly) statement comes in connection with the *ictory of Prophet Moses o*er the

magicians of Egypt. +ere the chiefs of Pharaoh say to him that this *ictory of Moses o*er the

magicians could result in an a#andonment of you i.e., Pharaoh- and your gods ra#ic/ wa

yadaraka wa ālihataka- in fa*our of the God of Moses.

!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


2/28

2

n order to support their claim of $direct contradiction$, they 5uote Muhammad sad, a well6

%nown Qur'an translator, who considers that the Qur'an 01/21 should not #e $ta%en literally$ as

the Egyptians also worshipped many gods. (4) Gi*en the fact that sad is #etter %nown for his

translation of the Qur'an rather than his scholarship in the religion of ancient Egypt, the

missionaries then go on to e&plain the alleged $discrepancy$ without any recourse to relia#le,

*erifia#le historical sources. s one na*igates the jum#led ma7e of *er#iage one encounters

apparently innocuous 5uestions such as/

id the @gy$tians have many gods or only one god? *ince this may not have been the same at all times, we

would have to as/ more s$ecifically #hat was the religion of the @gy$tians at the time of the @Aodus?

0These we have borrowed from (slamic !wareness8

The Euestion is that why the missionaries have used such material to shew that there are internal

contradictions in Holy 1urCan+? This is because their enmity of 1urCan has reached to its maAimum+ (f such a

$roblem has been in their beloved boo/s they would have tried to solve the $roblem instead of claiming

obections as one may see in the case of several obections on their beloved boo/s+

#e have tried to discuss the $roblem in another way+

The Basic @rror in the 9bectionF

The missionaries have some how assumed that the Monotheism and Polytheism in !ncient @gy$tian eligion

0!@8 were as o$$osites as in *emitic eligions 0*8 nounly 0namely8 udaism,:hristianity and (slam which

are Pure Monotheistic eligions+ Thus all the cases of claims of :ontradictions are based on the basic

assum$tion that the !ncient @gy$tian eligion 0!@8 was a Pure Polytheism+ (fthis assum$tion is wrong and

incorrect then all the claims of contradiction are not only falsified but dis$roved+

!@ is some how a Henotheism or Kathenotheism instead of Pure Monotheism [PM] andPure Polytheism [PP].

Their idea about God and gods was not so simple and it is not a correct scholarshipthat they are attempted to be studied in light of !.

"ncient #gyptian !eligion ["#!] may be studied in the light of $indu Te%ts since itwas much close to $enotheism as Ma&or $indu ects [M$] are.

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 li-e his

Gree- and !oman cousins /eus and ,upiter0 aruna the God of the hea*enly *ault

and the moral law related to the Gree- 3uranos0 "gni the God of 're cf. the 4atin

ignis( and the #nglish 5ignite60 and so forth. #ach indi*idual worshiper would -now(

and might use( se*eral di7erent poems to di7erent Gods. "lways there was an

awareness of the multiplicity of the gods. "t time of war( or drought( one prayed to

,ndra in a sacri'ce( one in*o-ed "gni the sacri'cial 're0 and so forth. 8e can

detect both what might be called P#!39"4 polytheism one person worshipping


3/28

:

se*eral gods0 and ;ommunal polytheism se*eral people worshipping se*eral gods

and respecting( or at the *ery least ac-nowledging the e%istence of( one another


4/28

'rm( by whom the dome of the s-y was propped up( and the sun( who measured out

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

oblationL6 [1C.121] The "thar*a eda( too( a fourth eda composed in around BCC

=;#( as-ed not only who the god was( but how many gods there might be+ 58ho

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

Prime*al ManL $ow many '%ed his breastsL 8ho formed his elbowsL $ow many &oined together ribs and shouldersL6 [1C.2.] The te%ts that followed the edas(

called the =rahmanas mythological( philosophical( and ritual glosses on the edas0(

were composed at a time c. @CC =;#0 when the =rahmin priests had ta-en on

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

poem( they in*ented a god whose name was the interrogati*e pronoun 8ho ;aNKa(

cognate with the 4atin )uis( >rench )ui(,9T#!#T,9G4E there is a dogma of Ka in

"ncient #gypt as well.0. !ead bac- into the edic poem as it was in later edic

commentaries 2 0( this resulted in an aOrmati*e statement+ 5,ndeed( 8ho is the god

whom we should honor with the oblation(6 somewhat reminiscent of the famous

"bbott and ;ostello routine 8hoFs on 'rstL0. This sacerdotal arrogance closed

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

eda. The )uestion became the answer.

n this way it is clear that E8 was not a Polytheism #ut a +enotheism .n the ancient Egyptian8eligion the same idea was used . he Egyptian Monarchs were #elie*ed to #e Gods or Gods9

ncarnates (ncarnations-:f God). n this case when Pharaoh claimed "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+

5Eou( ishnu( are the only godHGod ,F*e e*er worshiped you are the only one.6 5Eou(

aruna( are the only godHGod ,F*e e*er worshiped you are the only one.6

*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


5/28

R

e*erything and e*erything is God0 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 edas was sharpened by the more systematiDed edantic

monism of the Qpanishads. ;oming bac- to #gypt from ,ndia it is some what clearthat #gyptian also belie*ed in 3ne 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 is

olythiesim e&en if they are all included in the ne, ingle, upreme $eing. Therefore, , this -ogma of

#anifestation is oly)#onotheistic. hese Egyptian ;Gods;gods eg +orus ,:siris, e*en 8a himself, were #elie*ed to #e

$manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God $, the in*isi#le"upreme


6/28

J

R+S "t 'rst glance it appears that Monotheism and Polytheism not only grew up

side by side in "ncient #gypt but the also learned to li*e together( to grant one

another


7/28

e%planation of Monism Polytheism amalgam is that There is only 3ne God

[=armhH=rahman] 8ho Manifested in "ngel or ;herub li-e characters ishnu ( hieu(

=arhama. This is the prime Manifestation PM0.

>/ +t is the Bhagavatam, in fact, that makes the most famous declarati&e statement about 9rishna7s

primary position +3 !E8AT+3 T T%E!#A3+2ETAT+3,AEA!E3=E,=>8#+3AT+3,+3=A!3AT+3 2 G-.4


8/28

@

8ord $rahma, 8ord 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 9rishna, escaping all other

manifestations of the upreme. The four ualities uniue to 9rishna are as follows4

Embedded in these scriptural explanations of 9rishna7s supreme position is something more fundamental4

9rishna7s 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 9rishna

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 formerH

rila rabhupada writes in =hapter Ten of Teachings o !ord "haitanya#


9/28

B

So if an incarnation calls himself as $he "armh or "rahman then thismeans that the Incarnation is predicatin 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 8ord 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 9rishna 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.

'-* Aruna said4 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 3Irada, Asita, -e&ala, and yIsa proclaim this of 0ou, and now

0ou 0ourself are declaring it to me.

':4:@):?

This is sufficient enough to pro&e that atleast some %indus interpret this &erse as the

predications stated abo&e.

'E**

+ndeed, 0ou alone know 0ourself by 0our own potencies, origin of all, 8ord of all

beings, God of gods, upreme erson, 8ord of the uni&erseJ':4@K*

'2* + am the elf, Gud LIkeMa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. + am the beginning,

the middle and the end 'A8%A A3- #EGA*of all beings.

=hapter :, erse @

http://asitis.com/10/20.htmlhttp://asitis.com/10/20.html


10/28

1C

'/( f the edas + am the Ima)&edaN of the demigods + am +ndraN of the senses + amthe mind, and in li&ing beings + am the li&ing force 'knowledge*.

=hapter :, erse @@

This &erse is &ery important henotheistic &erse since it shews that all other

manifestations and incarnations are less than the incarnation known as

9rishna.

'%* 1. , am the father of this world( the mother( the dispenser of the fruits ofactions( and the grandfather the one0 thing to be -nown( the puri'er( the sacred

monosyllable 3m0( and also the !igA( the amaA and Ea&ur edas.

[1

[,] 11. >ools disregard Me( clad in human form( not -nowing My higher =eing as the

great

!ord of all- #eings.

These are the complex cases of %enotheism ,#onolatrism and

Kathenotheism where a particularmanifestation or a particular incarnation ofSupreme Being [God/god] is predicated tothe Supreme Being or the Supreme Being ispredicated to the said Incarnation orManifestation or Culmination.

This aspect of enotheism! Monolatrism!Kathenotheism etc. are still a "eld ofresearch. #$amples from Gita ma% &e

interpreted di'erentl% &% di'erent induSects and Cults! &ut the general impressionof 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

http://asitis.com/10/22.htmlhttp://asitis.com/10/22.html


11/28

11

&e the Supreme Being. The humanIncarnation i.e the &od% of Krishna as seen&e the *iewers in Gita and Bharata is

predicated &% 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 allIncarnations!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 9athenotheism an +ncarnation or a #anifestation

or a =ulmination of the upreme $eing 'God/god* is predicated to the upreme $eing

and &ise &ersa. The redication may be termed as redicatheism .

As the upreme $eing is considered as the only upreme $eing, the #anifestation or

+ncarnation or =ulmination whether as a human being or an angelic or super human

being in the predication is the %enotheistic only God/god and not the #onotheistic only

God/god.

type of +enotheism implies that the principal god;God e&ists in a conte&t of

other gods;Gods.


12/28

12

Summodeism0 ma! be defined as the worship of a Supreme "ein

who sits at the head of a pantheon of other /ods1ods who are 2ust s

manifestations 0 incarnations0culminations etcof this 3ih od1/od or

Supreme "ein # $hus0 in a summodeistic s!stem0 the existence of

multiple ods onl! occurs because a sinle0 hih od1/od is able toincarnate0 to manifest and to culminate into man! different

/ods1ods#

A form of Summodeism is common with 4redicatheism#

$his is the belief that is found in "havat /ita# 5hich is the irrefutable

evidence that such believes did exist in the ancient world#

F45 6eason4

E&en +f 9rishna is either a uniue #anifestation/2orm/%ypostase of upreme $eing yet at se&eral times

9rishna peaks as if %e is the ery upreme $eing %imself and not ust as a #anifestation/%ypostasis in

the Essence,3ature,2orm,ubstanceExistence ($eingness" and Godhead of the upreme $eing. The

only reason which may be gi&en is that each one of the Essence,3ature etc f upreme $eing is highly

communicable to each one of the 2orms, #anifestations, %ypostases, =ulminations, Appearances etcetera of the upreme $eing. A manifestation or an +ncarnation or a =ulmination was predicated to the

$eing which 1as #anifested or =ulminated or +nacarnated, and &ice &ersa. This was the reason that

when an +ncarnation like 9rishna con&ersed with his de&otees say Arun(a", he spoke as if %e is the ery

upreme $eing +tself not ust an +ncarnation of the upreme $eing.

=oming back to Egypt it may be said that haraoh was not a hilosopher yet he did know his

%enotheistic belie&es and his courtiers must also know their %enotheistic belie&es. haraoh must ha&e

known his belie&es and he must ha&e known the %enotheistic !eligion of Egypt. +t need not to be a

hilosopher to belie&e in a religion whether it is olytheistic or #onotheistic or %enotheistic or

=athenotheistic etc. Ancient Egyptian and Ancient +ndians both did not belie&e in the plurality of upreme

$eings.

1hat haraoh did say was that he was the greatest #anifestation f upreme $eing. haraoh at that

was speaking as if he was not a #anifestation of upreme $eing but the &ery upreme $eing %imself.

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


13/28

1:

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

#onotheistic or %enotheistic or 9athenotheistic. imilarly #onotheism may be #onistic or 3on #onistic,

olytheism may be #onistic or 3on #onistic etc. The same is true for antheism and pinoDaism.

O45 Pharaohs ha*e often #een characteri7ed as gods;Gods on earth. ?hile the %ingship as an

institution may ha*e continued fairly constantly throughout more than 2,@@@ years of history of

ancient Egypt, just what the office signified, how the %ings understood their role, and how the

general populace percei*ed the %ing do not constitute a uniform concept that span the centuries

without change. n other words, the ancient Egyptians' *iew of the %ing, implied #y *arious

historical references, was not static. t underwent changes during the more than 2,@@@ years of

Egyptian history.(0) From the early times the epithet nt ṭr referred directly to the %ing as a god.

"ometimes the term occurred alone and at other times it appeared with a modifying or

descripti*e word.(2)

n ancient Egypt pro*ides a *ery important piece of nformation (the Great emple at #u

"im#el, "eeFigure 0). t does shew the $!ord of wo !ands ABsermare6setpenre9$ 8amesses

- offering to $8amesses6meryamun$ 8amesses -. :#*iously, 8amesses is worshipping

8amesses here. +owe*er, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped

ha*e two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of 8amesses ,

respecti*ely. closer loo% at the iconography re*eals that the worshipper and he who is

worshipped are not identical. +e, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sun6dis% and

has a cur*ed horn around his ear, depicting his di*inity. herefore, 8amesses is not simplyworshipping himself, #ut his di*ine;Di*ine "elf;self.(41)

nother words the "elf of incarnation of God and "elf of ncarnated God are in close relation

with one another. his is just an attempt to represent this concept in form of picture.

s one can see from the e&amples just discussed, the Pharaoh e&alted himself as !ord. From an

ncarnation of God to the ncarnated God +imself .hat is he used to predicate his self to the

"upreme


14/28

1

s wesee "ome rishna worshippers that rishna is not only predicated to =ishnu #ut also to the

P$"!"3$

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

emphasis on their Godhood was di7erent in di7erent times.

. Generally the Egyptian %ings were not considered as e5ual to ha*eanly

asGods;gods li%e :siris, 8e mun,ten etc.

he Di*inity of the dead %ings is more o#*ious than the Di*inity of the a li*ing %ing,

?hile what we might call full deification occurred for some monarchs within their

lifetimes,

it was usually in death that this state, howe*er, was reached and a good deal of

e*idence seems to show that the deceased Egyptian %ing was *enerated as a Afull9

god;God.9.


15/28

1R

descripti*e words. nother epithet from early times referred to the %ing as a

descendant of a god J s’ R’ , Ason of 8e.

hroughout the :ld ingdom the %ings were said to ha*e the powers of the

Gods;gods/ +u di*ine utterance-, "ia di*ine %nowledge- and +e%a di*ine energyand %nowledge of magic-.

he God;god who was generally #elie*ed in the incarnation of the %ings was 8e, the

creator and preser*er of the world.lthouth he was himself a Menifestation of the

"upreme


16/28

1J

he Pharaoh God;god Bnas was said to eat some Gods;gods in after life.

hese shew that Pharaohs were #elie*ed to #e lesser than some celestial Gods;gods

particularly those whose incarnations they were #elie*ed to #e #ut they were

considered greater and more Powerful than at least some of them. his also does shew #eyond any shadow of dou#t that e*en the hea*enly Gods;gods were #elie*ed to #e

perisha#le ,mortal and annihilata#le.

here were instances when a li*ing %ing did declared himself fully Di*ine;di*ine

within their lifetimes. . . . he li*ing Deification of menophis and 8ameses

during their reigns are certainly attested.

n the case of menophis we find that the %ing #egan the increasing solari7ation of

Egypt9s major cults and of his own %ingship. ccording to 8aymond Nohnson Othe

%ing declared himself deified and merged with the solar disc, the ten.L ccording to

"haw, monuments dating from his reign Oname 8ameses himself as the god.L

?e find the %ing ta%ing di*ine prerogati*es in his representations, such as those

showing him with the cur*ed #eard of the gods, with the horns of mun and wearing

the lunar crescent and sun disc or presenting an offering #efore a statue of himself. n

the inner shrine of the great roc% cut temples of #u "im#el, 8ameses was to doli%ewise. 8ameses did ha*e four statues cut to represent Ptah, 8e6+ora%hte, :riris

himself- and mun68e, seated side #y side. hat the %ing is not simply depicted in

the company of the gods is clear, since the figures are shown as incontro*erti#le

e5uals,rather greater then them.

"ince t has e*en #een suggested #y some that in this group the %ing might #e

represented as an em#odiment of all these national gods. human ncarnation of not

just one God;god #ut a num#er of Gods;gods. mplying more Powerful God;god then

all ofGods;gods present there.


17/28

1

During the time of 8amesses , the deification;Deification of Pharaoh reached its MMBM

as e*idenced in some cult statues as well as supporting hieroglyphs and papyri. (>) eeping this in

mind, let us now loo% at the two statements made in the Qur'an, i.e., Pharaoh 6 the god of Egypt 6

and his gods;Gods.."o "ome Pharaohs did e&alted their positions from an a*erage God;god to

more glorified rather the incarnation of the "upreme


18/28

1@

the form of a germ% or egg% from $hich sprang Ra% the 4ungod% $ithin $hose shining form $asembodied the almight( po$er of the diine spirit.

6ATT)R the spirit of the primeal $ater felt the desire for creatie actiit(% and haing uttered the$ord% the $orld sprang straight$a( into being in the form $hich had alread( been depicted in themind of the spirit before he spa1e the $ord $hich resulted in its creation. The ne&t act of creation$as the form of a germ% or egg% from $hich sprang Ra% the 4ungod% $ithin $hose shining form$as embodied the almight( po$er of the diine spirit.

his does shew that 8e is the first of Hot6"upreme


19/28

1B

Hot e5ual to the "upreme


20/28

2C

!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 *haroahs" +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 imainar!

products proposed to response some ob2ections#

mparisi n:=

It is pointed out that the man% gods/Gods of 6ncient #g%ptians were

simpl% *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 8ne Single and 8nl% 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 7ogma of Manifestation is 1ol%9

Monotheistic. 8r more correctl% enothiesm or Kathenotheism. #g%ptian

gods/Gods li:e orus !8siris! e*en ;a himself! were &elie*ed to &e

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


21/28

21

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

from him.

Ancient Egyptian !eligion is not ure olytheism45

Ancient Egyptian !eligion was not ure #onotheism45

6s it is shewn that #g%ptian ;eligion was not onl% 7i'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 one of the forms of Kathenotheistic

1ol%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.

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 ;eligions and 6ncient

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

+ouns of Gods/gods ! the% do ha*e similarities in them .Missionaries ha*e

incorrectl% 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% assumedsomehow that 6ncient #g%ptian ;eligion was 1ure 1ol%theism. But it is not

the case. 6ncient #g%ptian ;eligion 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 ;eligion . 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 ;eligion.

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 8f

ol% =ur>a-n. ;ather =ur>a-n is @ust narrating their &elie*es ! and two


22/28

22

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 7ogma is

one thing and to ?uote a 7ogma is another thing.

6t these points =ur>an is not criticiAing the &elie*es of 1haraoh and hisCourtiers 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 ;eligion !Theological Bac:grounds and 7ogmas.

#16+6TI8+ 85 =D;>6+IC ,#;S#S 6S 6CC8;7I+G T8 T# #+8T#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.

The sentence of 1haroah to the:hiefs, K Do god=8only means

F K( am your only God


23/28

2:

9ow as the Pharaoh regarded himself as a godHGod he was saying the *ery same

thing for himself( and his nobilities( chiefs (and courtiers who were also $enotheists

and Kathennotheists did under stand the words of the Pharaoh in the *ery same

sense as in the mind of Pharaoh.

,f the Pharaoh of Moses [ >ir6aun u Musa] was a Pure Monotheist and if his ;ourtierswere Pure Polytheists then there would ha*e a contradiction ( =ut both of them were

$enotheits or Kathenotheists or both. o there is no contradiction according to

"ncient #gyptian !eligion.

K!nd the chiefs of Pharaoh)s $eo$le said "o you leave Musa0Moshe


24/28

2

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


25/28

2R

S8M# 7#5I+6TI8+S-

1]Kathenotheism is 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/7eties

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

worshipped 8ne is the 8nl% 7eit% at the time.

,t is time dependent oneness.

3]Henotheism:=

6ccording to the 6merican eritage 7ictionar%!

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 8l%mpians is another well9:nown

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

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

&% a di'erent sect or temple.

- 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 &% Hulius ellhausen to descri&ed a t%pe ofpol%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


26/28

2J

worshipped J often this ma% &e due to a special

relationship the god has with the people in ?uestion.

R+S Summodeism! ma% &e de"ned as the worship of a

Supreme Being who sits at the head of a pantheon ofother Gods/gods who are @ust s 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!

high god/God is a&le to incarnate! to manifest and to

culminate into man% di'erent Gods/gods.

&anifestation:= here are two different meanings of Manifestation

4) f a thing #ecomes some thing that it is initially not with or with out con*ersion,

mutation etc it is called Manifestation.

0) o #ecome %nown through some thing other that itself

here is a #ig difference #etween #eing a manifestation of something something that

was made known- in the first meaning and the second meaning. n this article we ha*e

used the word in the first meaning.

Incarnation:= Special case of &anifestation 'in the first meanin(#

$o &anifest in a corporeal thin#

&anifestation is a eneral word in reard to its firt meanin than

incarnation and incarnation is its special case#

7or example if a thin manifest in spirit or in a spiritual bein or a

human bein the word manifest is correct for all these cases# "ut thelast one is called incarnati


27/28

2

to mista:ing Kathenotheism or enotheism

for 1ure Monotheism or 1ure 1ol%theism.

9


28/28

2@

in what meaning pharaoh claimed to be only god/god

Documents