The only polytheism that one could say had spread in a manner like the Abrahamics was Hellenism, but then only for as long as the Hellenic empires lasted as their language may have become prominent, but not the faith.
I don't think the geography stuff is quite correct. YHWH is consistently depicted as the god of the Israelite people (not land) and/or all creation, not as limited to a specific region. The one time (I Kings 20, AFAIK) there is a sentiment like that expressed in the bible, it's presented as something only a moronic polytheist would think of, and YHWH promptly BTFOs them for thinking that:
Specifically regarding the origin of Israel's god, it depends who you ask. From what I'm given to understand, there's no entirely satisfactory explanation for an indigenous origin to YHWH in Canaan (although he was certainly later identified with El). Some scholars have proposed that he was Midianite in origin, although there isn't a lot to back that theory up other than academics wanting to say the traditional narrative is wrong. (That's more or less the only thing they can come to a consensus on).
judaism always was the ethnic religion of the jews/israelites. it never spread beyond them, it only spread across the world as the jews themselves went into diaspora and spread across the world. jews do not actively try to convert outsiders to their faith, they do not send out missionaries or wage wars to force conversion on neighboring countries.
Yeah... Because all Christians get along, as well as the Muslims.
That's not how that works, and they're not prayed to as "minor deities".
There's no value in modifying "monotheistic" with "strictly". A religion is either monotheistic or it's not, and Christianity insists that it's monotheistic because the triune God they worship is to be understood as "one God". Examining the struggles that led to the ecumenical councils further demonstrates that this wasn't a matter of trying to cling to the concept of monotheism for no particular reason, either-- Trinitarianism, especially in the Arian controversy, was the extreme position compared to the various, sometimes deliberate compromises under the semi-Arian umbrella. There was the opportunity to just consider the Son asymptotically close to the Creator-creation line without crossing over into "Creator" territory, and it was rejected in the long term.
There is if you're trying to troll a Christian that believes in the communion of saints, but not in reality. You may as well say that Jesus was a lift from Egyptian myth.
Such as?
This is not a bad argument at all. But in terms of optics, so long as you walk around with a statue of Mary on a palanquin and have stuff like adoration of the host going on, people will call it like they see it. If it looks like a duck...
Forget about missionaries in Africa, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are built on that principle vis-a-vis ANE origin stories.
What they "see" is due to their ignorance of ANE religion as a whole and an inherent distrust in Christianity as to distrust even their internal claims, without even bothering to use said religion's internal logic.
Actually, the creation myth to start was-- at bare minimum-- a deliberate subversion of those provided by the surrounding religions of the time.
It seems I used a mix of poor wording and speak as an outsider, who was raised in a christian country but with my parents being more on the atheist way and only nominal members of the faith.
As a believer I would agree that retroactively that seems to have been the plan. But objectively, it's difficult to put yourself in the mind of Moses (or E or J or whatever) and figure out exactly what was going through their mind when they wrote down the story - did they really think that everything they were writing was factually wrong and were deliberately (((subverting))) the surrounding religions anyway? I think it's more likely that on the one hand they accepted those myths (or proto-histories) as generally true; but on the other hand, they also believed in the universal God of Israel and were recording what they thought was the story as it must have happened (although of course the ancients' concept of literary license was much broader than ours) if ethical monotheism was correct.
In every non-English language, Easter is called "Pascha", which is the Greek transliteration for "Pesach", which is "Passover". In no way was Easter "once a fertility feast". It doesn't have a fixed date because Christians have sought to celebrate it after the Jewish passover (which doesn't have a fixed date) in order to maintain the order of events since-- traditionally-- the liturgical year is supposed to be a roundtrip of the history of man's salvation.
The Torah mentions angels, the Scriptures as a whole mention angels and demons, and these references provably exist without any Hellenic influence.
That's a product of capitalism. Christmas is called "Christmas" because it's the day where you have a mass in celebration of the birth of Christ (thus "Christ-mass"). That's all there is to it.
Yeah, it's worth noting that the concept of "myth", traditionally, boiled down to "expressing truth through symbols". The Church Fathers, centuries removed from them, still understood as much.
