Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel


  • Please log in to reply
254 replies to this topic

#241    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:37 PM

Here is an alternative theory for the Vinca. Basically arguing they were connected with a proto-saharan cattle driving culture and also the Kurgans of the Steppes. I don't agree with it but I would like opinions as to it's credibility. remember that psychedelic mushrooms grow out of cattle dung and we have evidence of shamanism in north Africa and Europe. even I would be surprised if these connections were proved accurate.

http://www.oocities.....geo/MAGYAR.htm

Also, is it significant that Vinca and Ubaid shared green pottery making?

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#242    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,338 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 June 2010 - 06:30 PM

View Postcrystal sage, on 07 June 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

Interesting ...it appears that we are discussing whether Jesus and other biblical characters existed at all and here we have some scholars suggesting that Jesus was black.. that the Hebrew teachings originated from the ancient 'African Mystery System'...

WAS JESUS BLACK ?
the word Christ comes from the Indian, Krishna or Chrisna, which means "The Black One."

The source is clearly of an afrocentric bent, which makes it about as reliable as someone spouting eurocentric rubbish. You see a lot of afrocentric websites and almost every one I've encountered is very poorly researched, speculative, or just plain misleading to serve a modern socio-political agenda. I don't mean to be harsh but I find afrocentric and eurocentric arguments to be particularly pointless and unreliable. They stand on misinformation and the twisting of facts, but not on proper research.

The word Christ, for instance, does not come from any language of India. No one should take that seriously. It comes from a Latin word which itself came from a Greek word, both meaning "anointed," and the Greek word ultimately derived from the Hebrew word for "messiah." This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Even though this is but a basic fact and is very well understood historically, someone with an afrocentric agenda invented some rubbish and tired to pass off misinformation. Whether it was due to poor research or deliberate falsification can be argued, but it goes to serve a point: one simply must not trust afrocentric or eurocentric sources. Legitimate historical research should be everyone's goal. ;)

I wanted to edit to add, trying to paint Jesus as black is hardly anything new. The more extreme afrocentrists try to portray all of the ancient Near East as black: Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Persians, et al. It Might be pretty amusing if such deliberate distortions of facts were not so annoying.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 07 June 2010 - 06:33 PM.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#243    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 07 June 2010 - 08:59 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 07 June 2010 - 06:30 PM, said:

The source is clearly of an afrocentric bent, which makes it about as reliable as someone spouting eurocentric rubbish. You see a lot of afrocentric websites and almost every one I've encountered is very poorly researched, speculative, or just plain misleading to serve a modern socio-political agenda. I don't mean to be harsh but I find afrocentric and eurocentric arguments to be particularly pointless and unreliable. They stand on misinformation and the twisting of facts, but not on proper research.

The word Christ, for instance, does not come from any language of India. No one should take that seriously. It comes from a Latin word which itself came from a Greek word, both meaning "anointed," and the Greek word ultimately derived from the Hebrew word for "messiah." This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Even though this is but a basic fact and is very well understood historically, someone with an afrocentric agenda invented some rubbish and tired to pass off misinformation. Whether it was due to poor research or deliberate falsification can be argued, but it goes to serve a point: one simply must not trust afrocentric or eurocentric sources. Legitimate historical research should be everyone's goal. ;)

I wanted to edit to add, trying to paint Jesus as black is hardly anything new. The more extreme afrocentrists try to portray all of the ancient Near East as black: Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Persians, et al. It Might be pretty amusing if such deliberate distortions of facts were not so annoying.


I agree entirely Kmt, I may have been sucked in by one or two in the past such as realhistory but I am moving away from that. What I do like about some of the sites is the vast use of pictures and they definitely show an African presence but that does not mean they were in charge or anything. It's like you say, anything can be twisted to fit a message and one should be aware of this while researching on the net. I forget myself sometimes and the likes of yuorself bring me down to earth, for which I am grateful. Still I do think there was something going on but I doubt it was any race having superiority over another but that there was a mixing of races and skin colour did not necessarily denote an ally.

On the anoited subject, I have read and mentioned a few times that it come from the egyptian Meschesh or something is this true?

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#244    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,358 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 07 June 2010 - 10:42 PM

Quote

We have Vinca and Dispilio symbols dating mid 6th millenium and this is the same time of the flood of the area.

The same time as the Black Sea flood, maybe, but not of the flood event as related by the Mesopotamian cultures, i.e. Sumer, Assyria and Babylon. So nothing to suggest a connection here. Also, the Black Sea flood has been greatly reduced in scope from it's originally proposed level of devastation.

There is evidence to suggest that the Black Sea flood event was significantly earlier, c.7400 BC, than originally proposed as well as being significantly smaller in extent.

New evidence rebuts controversial theory of Black Sea deluge

Currently there is no evidence to connect anything from the Black Sea event with the Ubaidians, some 2000 years later.

It should also be noted that the Vinca site, from which the culture gets its name, dates to circa 4800 BC. The Ubaidian Culture in southern Iraq is already in full swing at this point, so again, no connection.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#245    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,338 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 08 June 2010 - 01:10 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 07 June 2010 - 08:59 PM, said:

I agree entirely Kmt, I may have been sucked in by one or two in the past such as realhistory but I am moving away from that. What I do like about some of the sites is the vast use of pictures and they definitely show an African presence but that does not mean they were in charge or anything. It's like you say, anything can be twisted to fit a message and one should be aware of this while researching on the net. I forget myself sometimes and the likes of yuorself bring me down to earth, for which I am grateful. Still I do think there was something going on but I doubt it was any race having superiority over another but that there was a mixing of races and skin colour did not necessarily denote an ally.

I am usually annoyed when people try to force modern attitudes and sensibilities into an ancient culture. It's just sloppy practice. This attitude about race is one of the worst examples of our day, in my opinion. Thrusting our modern racial baggage into an ancient society is perhaps the worst sort of anachronistic thinking. You see it with addled eurocentrists who try to show that Nordics founded ancient Egypt (I mean, how absolutely stupid is that?), and you see it with afrocentrists who try to make us believe that all of the Near East was of black African descent and the original population was chased away by later Semitic or Greek invaders.

And so we have sad ignorance from both ends of the spectrum. I wish I could just ignore these people but they vex me in a substantial way. They practice sloppy research at best and have little to no understanding of modern science and how it is applied to the studies of these ancient cultures (forensic anthropology and genetics are just two modern scientific disciplines that negate these silly arguments in a heartbeat, but most of these "centrist" folks have no understanding of such things).

Well, now you've done it, Slim. You've got me going in a subject that really heats me up. :lol: To cut it short, this modern racial baggage of ours is completely irrelevant to the study of ancient civilizations. You're right that the ancients do not seem to evidence an attitude based on race, per se. Ethnicity is another matter. As I often say, the Egyptians couldn't have cared less about the color of your skin, they cared only that you were Egyptian; if you weren't Egyptian, well, there was just something very wrong with you. Part of Egypt's strength from the beginning was the mixture of its races and its usual acceptance of other people from other cultures moving into Egypt--so long as they became Egyptian. It's not race, it's xenophobia, and that was a common attitude among Near Eastern societies.

Quote

On the anoited subject, I have read and mentioned a few times that it come from the egyptian Meschesh or something is this true?

I am not aware of an Egyptian term like this, at least not with any similarity in meaning. As I said in my previous post, the Greek and Latin terms ultimately derive from the Hebrew word for "messiah." This word is pronounced something like mah-she-ah. There wouldn't have been a need for the Hebrews to co-opt an Egyptian word for such a basic term. The concept of messiah or savior was never really prevalent in ancient Egypt anyway, although one could look at the pharaoh in those terms, but that's a stretch.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#246    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:33 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 08 June 2010 - 01:10 AM, said:

I am usually annoyed when people try to force modern attitudes and sensibilities into an ancient culture. It's just sloppy practice. This attitude about race is one of the worst examples of our day, in my opinion. Thrusting our modern racial baggage into an ancient society is perhaps the worst sort of anachronistic thinking. You see it with addled eurocentrists who try to show that Nordics founded ancient Egypt (I mean, how absolutely stupid is that?), and you see it with afrocentrists who try to make us believe that all of the Near East was of black African descent and the original population was chased away by later Semitic or Greek invaders.

And so we have sad ignorance from both ends of the spectrum. I wish I could just ignore these people but they vex me in a substantial way. They practice sloppy research at best and have little to no understanding of modern science and how it is applied to the studies of these ancient cultures (forensic anthropology and genetics are just two modern scientific disciplines that negate these silly arguments in a heartbeat, but most of these "centrist" folks have no understanding of such things).

Well, now you've done it, Slim. You've got me going in a subject that really heats me up. :lol: To cut it short, this modern racial baggage of ours is completely irrelevant to the study of ancient civilizations. You're right that the ancients do not seem to evidence an attitude based on race, per se. Ethnicity is another matter. As I often say, the Egyptians couldn't have cared less about the color of your skin, they cared only that you were Egyptian; if you weren't Egyptian, well, there was just something very wrong with you. Part of Egypt's strength from the beginning was the mixture of its races and its usual acceptance of other people from other cultures moving into Egypt--so long as they became Egyptian. It's not race, it's xenophobia, and that was a common attitude among Near Eastern societies.

I am not aware of an Egyptian term like this, at least not with any similarity in meaning. As I said in my previous post, the Greek and Latin terms ultimately derive from the Hebrew word for "messiah." This word is pronounced something like mah-she-ah. There wouldn't have been a need for the Hebrews to co-opt an Egyptian word for such a basic term. The concept of messiah or savior was never really prevalent in ancient Egypt anyway, although one could look at the pharaoh in those terms, but that's a stretch.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. However, something I came across was a suggestion that the term Habiru came from Egypt and was used to identify outsiders. Is it possible that this is how we get the term hebrew? It was not one distinct people but a fusion of otherly groups that were not accepted as native egyptians.

I cannot find my source on the word Meschesh coming from Egypt but what I recall is that originally the practice was anointing with crocodile fat as a sign of kingsip or something. What were the hebrews anointing with or was it just a term to mean saviour as you say?

Thanks Cormac for the correction in dating. You are most probably right but as far as the flood of Utnapishtim goes, I ust though the Black sea flood fitted quite well. Also, there is the the idea of Enki as the god of the fresh waters and I wondered if this regarded Eridu as his capital. Interesting that the black sea was originally a fresh water later but was overcome with sea waters. I was dating Vinca to the earlier 5,500bce dateand was putting the Black sea flood to 6,000bce so perhaps you can see where I was coming from. As you guys say square pegs don't fit in round holes. I just can't help giving it a go to try and make some sense of Sitchin's nonsensense.  :)

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#247    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,367 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:00 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 07 June 2010 - 06:30 PM, said:

The source is clearly of an afrocentric bent, which makes it about as reliable as someone spouting eurocentric rubbish. You see a lot of afrocentric websites and almost every one I've encountered is very poorly researched, speculative, or just plain misleading to serve a modern socio-political agenda. I don't mean to be harsh but I find afrocentric and eurocentric arguments to be particularly pointless and unreliable. They stand on misinformation and the twisting of facts, but not on proper research.

Why I went there was the magic angle... I found one of Budge's books on Egyptian Magic at an old second hand store. He translated a lot of the Egyptian works on magic.. What amused me was  reading that the well    known chant... " accadabra"... ( :unsure2:  for some reason it is impossible to find more on this on the internet.. keeps coming up "aquacadabra" )...

Tried to find it again in Budge's book... but found these interesting bits...


Saint Stephen boasts that the great legislater Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...was 'mighty in words and deeds'and there were numerous  features in the life of this remarkable man which shew that he was aquainted with many of the practices of Egyptian Magic"

they mention his parting of waters

“The command of the waters of the sea  or river was claimed by Egyptian magician long before the time of Moses,as 'Westcar Papyrus' This document was written in the  early part of the XVIIIth dynasty , about 1550 BC but is is clear that the stories in it date from Early Empire, and are in fact as old as the Great Pyramid.
There is a story of king Khufu (Cheops) by Baiu-f-Ra as an event which happened at the time of the king’s father...  where a similar parting water trick was done by the priest called ‘Tchatcha-em-ankh’ to retrieve a lost jewel at about the time..about BC 3800...



The historian  ‘ Masudi’  mentions and instance of the powers of  working magic possessed b y a certain Jew, which proves  that the magical practices of the Egyptians passed eastwards and had found a congenial home among the Jews who lived in and about Babylon. This man was a native of Zurarah in the district of Kufa, and he employed his time in working magic. In the Mosque of Kufa and in the presence of Walid ibu Ukbah, he raised up several apparitions, and made a king of huge stature, who was mounted upon a horse, gallop about in the courtyard of the Mosque. He then transformed himself into a camel and walked upon a rope: mad the phantom of an ass to pass through his body: and finally having slain a man, he cut off the head and removed it from the trunk, then by passing the sword over the two parts, they united  and the man became alive again....”


[i]E.A. Wallis Budge


#248    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,338 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:49 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 08 June 2010 - 07:33 AM, said:

Ah yes, I see what you mean. However, something I came across was a suggestion that the term Habiru came from Egypt and was used to identify outsiders. Is it possible that this is how we get the term hebrew? It was not one distinct people but a fusion of otherly groups that were not accepted as native egyptians.

Equating the Habiru with the Hebrews is an old theory and no longer considered tenable. The more scholars have studied the ancient Near East, the more obvious it became that no such connection existed. The original proposed connection was the similarity between the two words when spoken, but that was never a solid way to form a theory in the first place.

I am not certain what exactly the word Habiru meant but it's earliest attestation by that name is in Akkadian texts dating from before 2000 BCE. The Egyptians preserved this name in hieroglyphs as prw, presenting us the usual problem with Egyptian hieroglyphs: we really don't know what the vowels before, within, or behind the Egyptian word may have been. But it's from this bit of phonetic relic that the modern alternate term Apiru comes; the vowels, I stress again, are artificial on our part. We're just fleshing it out to give it a more "living" feel.

The Habiru appeared long before the Hebrews existed, ranged much farther geographically than the Hebrews ever did, and were never a unified cultural group. You got that last part right: the Habiru were cast-offs, renegades, fugitives, and the disenfranchised. They are particularly well attested during the Kassite period of Babylon, from the same time as Akhenaten in Egypt, and the Habiru were raising hell for everyone far and wide. There is no affiliation with the Hebrews, however. The Hebrews were a unified culture sharing a religion, language, political structure, and ideology. Some of them may have become Habiru, however.

Scholars have made a credible case showing very plausible connections between the Hebrews and the Shashu, who were wandering bandits in the southeastern region of the Levant. There is evidence to suggest these two groups worshiped a very early form of Yahweh at the end of the Bronze Age, and there are other cultural and linguistic connections.

Quote

I cannot find my source on the word Meschesh coming from Egypt but what I recall is that originally the practice was anointing with crocodile fat as a sign of kingsip or something. What were the hebrews anointing with or was it just a term to mean saviour as you say?

Hebrews typically anointed with oils but also with clean water. That's why ritual bathing was so important to them. I am not aware of the Egyptian practice of a king anointing himself with crocodile fat. That would make for one greasy, stinky king! The Egyptians preferred oils and clean water, too.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#249    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,338 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:56 AM

View Postcrystal sage, on 09 June 2010 - 02:00 AM, said:

Why I went there was the magic angle... I found one of Budge's books on Egyptian Magic at an old second hand store. He translated a lot of the Egyptian works on magic.. What amused me was  reading that the well    known chant... " accadabra"... ( :unsure2:  for some reason it is impossible to find more on this on the internet.. keeps coming up "aquacadabra" )...

I don't think I made it clear, CS, but please don't think that tirade of mine had anything to do with you. It did not. Afrocentrism and eurocentrism are just a very touchy pet peeve of mine, and once I get started, I get bent out of shape too fast. I was in no way implying that you are of the same mind, so I apologize if my post read that way. Personally, when I come across such a source, be it a book or a website, it is my practice to give none of it my attention. Yes, there may be some credible facts buried in the material, but the obvious socio-political agenda negates any merit the source might have.

If there's one thing about Sir Wallis Budge, you can find his books anywhere and everywhere and usually for dirt cheap. He churned them out by the truckload. A little-known fact about Budge is that, although he was a prolific writer, he rarely let anyone critique or proofread his material before it went to press. The man was very intelligent but also possessed a bit too much hubris for his own good. Enjoy his books but take care with the content. Budge made a great many mistakes along the way.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#250    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,367 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 June 2010 - 06:21 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 09 June 2010 - 02:56 AM, said:

I don't think I made it clear, CS, but please don't think that tirade of mine had anything to do with you. It did not. Afrocentrism and eurocentrism are just a very touchy pet peeve of mine, and once I get started, I get bent out of shape too fast. I was in no way implying that you are of the same mind, so I apologize if my post read that way. Personally, when I come across such a source, be it a book or a website, it is my practice to give none of it my attention. Yes, there may be some credible facts buried in the material, but the obvious socio-political agenda negates any merit the source might have.

If there's one thing about Sir Wallis Budge, you can find his books anywhere and everywhere and usually for dirt cheap. He churned them out by the truckload. A little-known fact about Budge is that, although he was a prolific writer, he rarely let anyone critique or proofread his material before it went to press. The man was very intelligent but also possessed a bit too much hubris for his own good. Enjoy his books but take care with the content. Budge made a great many mistakes along the way.


But it gives some really interesting insights... he did also quote lots of other works also..

What I was interested in was the magic as I said.. interesting to note that the often used "Abracadabra stems from ancient Egypt...

The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham
My link


Quote

Smith's example of a vagrant magician (other than Jesus) is Apollonius of Tyana, a traveling Greek sophist of the first century.251 His examples of a magician's spells are taken from third-century manuscripts of Egyptian religious texts (the PGM).252 Besides attributing Egyptian religious practices to a Greek, Smith assigns them a prominent place in influencing Jesus on the following grounds: (1) The documents mention Christ.253 (2) Similar techniques were used in the Jewish Sepher ha-Razim.254 (3) The Babylonian Talmud claims that Jesus went to Egypt and studied under the magicians there.255 Let us consider each of these in order.

The documents mention Christ. Yes, on two counts: First the documents of the Anastasi priestly archive mention Christ.256 Second, in places Egyptian practices were retained by later Christians and incorporated into their Christianity or folk practices.257 The rituals that mention Christ in the first set of documents are worth looking at because they tell us some things about the Christianity of second- or third-century Thebes. But does the adoption of Christian rituals and deities long after the death of Jesus by the Egyptians, who had no aversion to adopting any one of a number of foreign258

Quote

Nothing compels us to assume that the book of Abraham must necessarily have been written by Abraham in Egyptian and preserved in Egyptian hands the entire time; it may also have passed through the hands of Abraham's posterity and been taken to Egypt only much later, where it was translated.275 Hecateus of Abdera (ca. 300 B.C.)—a major source for Manetho,276 Diodorus Siculus,277 and possibly Tacitus278——"used . . . Egyptian sources to revise . . . Herodotus' account of Egyptian history."279 Hecateus had a positive assessment of Moses and Jews280 and knew of noncanonical traditions about Abraham, about which he wrote a book that is thought to have been "a major source behind Josephus' account of Abraham."281 Even if the traditions about Abraham are assigned to a Pseudo-Hecateus rather than Hecateus of Abdera, they must date to the first century A.D. at the very latest.
:innocent: Maybe it was...
There were many pages of waxen figures used for spells... (similar to Voodoo magic ? )

200 papyri exhibit traces of  influences of Greek, Hebrew and Syrian philosophers..

" I am Moses thy prophet, to whom thou didst commit thy mysteries, the ceremonies of Israel; "thou didst produce ther moist and dry and all manner of food. Listen to me: I am the angel of Phapro Osoronnophris; this is my true name, handed down to the prophets of Israel. Listen to me... "  In this passage the name Osoronnophris is clearly a corruption of the old Egyptian names of the great god of the deac "Ausar Unnefer," and Phapro seems to represent the Egyptian Per-aa (literally,"great house") or  "Pharaoh", with the article pa "the" prefixed. It is interesting tonote that Moses is mentioned, a fact which seems to indicate Jewish influence.  

And reference to Jesus.. It will be remembered that it is stated in the Apocyphal Gospels that when the Virgin Mary and her Son arrived in Egypt there " was movement and quaking throughout " all the land, and all the idols fell down from their "pedestals and were broken to pieces."
Then the priests and nobles went to a certain priest with whom " a devil used to speak from out of the idol," and they asked him the meaning of these things; and when he had explained to them that the footstep of the son of the " secret hidden god" had fallen upon the land of Egypt, they accepted his counsel and made a figure of this god. The Egyptians acknowledged that the new god was greater than all their gods together, and they were prepared to set up a statue of him because they believed that in doing so  they would compel at least a portion of the spirit of the "secret and hidden god" to come and dwell in it.

E. A. Wallis Budge

Edited by crystal sage, 09 June 2010 - 07:08 AM.


#251    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,367 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 June 2010 - 12:03 PM

Found the On Line book   My link
Egyptian Magic By E. A. Wallis Budge

Why Moses the headless one?

Wasn't it John the Baptist?

About losing faith.... I would too if the person you were supposed to venerate showed little patience as God was reputed to have done during Moses stressful time of trying to navigate his crowd for 40 odd years... Moses must have had the patience of a saint.. or in dire need of a GPS... Surely God could have helped here.. or was he just testing him..

Quote

During the 40-year journey of the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, Moses received the 10 Commandments from God at Mt. Sinai. While Moses communed with God for 40 days, his followers built a golden calf. Angry, God wanted to kill them, but Moses dissuaded him. However, when Moses saw the actual shenanigans he was so angry he hurled and shattered the 2 tablets holding the 10 Commandments

and then was it God who afflicted the 10 plagues on the people of Egypt.. or was it Moses' magic?
Or was it for destroying God's work ... the tablets... in a fit of anger...?

If it were God... all people on Earth are said to be 'God's children' so would a real kind God punish all the people for something the ruler did?
Unless of course... like I see the bible going.... he favoured the Jewish people?  Is that why for centuries many of the world have been victimizing those of the Jewish persuasion?  Was it like sibling rivalry.. jealousy?

After all his only reported son was born to the Jewish race.. and strangely enough they have not ever capitilized on it. It was the Romans who did that....made him the biggest money spinner of all time...



My link

Quote

In the next chamber to the King's Coffins they found a golden shrine.    In one cartouche the glyphs read 'RE HPRW NEB' which means GOD OF ALL HEBREWS.     RE is shown with the Sun Disk glyph, and NEB - a Bowl glyph - can mean either 'Lord' or 'All'.    If it precedes the noun then it means 'Lord', but when it follows the noun as it does in this case then it means 'All'.     The sign for the word HEPRW is a Scarab, or Beetle, and its meaning was 'Resurrection' or 'Coming Into Existence'.    The glyph is followed by three strokes indicating the plural.    Thus we can regard any Ancient Egyptian who believed in the Resurrection of the Living God, as a Hebrew.    In the main they were the Semite population of Lower Egypt.     In the late 4th Century CE, St.Ambrose referred many times to Jesus as 'THE GOOD SCARABAEUS'.     So here we have a direct link between Jesus and King Tutankhamen.    The Constellation of Cancer was seen by Egyptians not only as a Crab, but also as a Beetle, and so this was the Crib of the Holy Child.
Note: In Egyptian the 'H' of 'Heprw' is aspirated like the 'ch' in Scottish 'loch'.

     In the very next column on the golden shrine there are glyphs which read 'HRWN MSS YY'.     This means 'Born of the Day', but pronounced it sounds like AARON MOSES YAH YAH.

     YAH or IAH was another Lunar Deity. Iahmes, meaning 'Born of the Moon God Iah' was a very popular name in Egypt.     Since the young King David was also seen as the son of Iah, he would also have been known by this name.     As ever when transliterated into English the 'I' or 'Y' turns into the letter 'J', and so we get 'JAMES'.     Names were reversed when written to put the name of God first.      Turn Iahmes around and we get 'MESSIAH'.

     On one wall of King David's tomb there is a painting of the HOLY TRINITY.    David is shown as himself being introduced by his Ka or Holy Ghost who is also himself, to his father the mummified God Asar who also has the same features.    When the son became the father he resurrected the father.    Asar was renamed by the Greeks as Osiris.    When the Al prefix was added, the name became Al-Osiris and then LAZARUS.

     In another painting on the same wall, David is shown carrying a small CROSS to his funeral.      When his mummy was anointed he became CHRIST.    See Christ      It must have been a headache for the story tellers who tried to turn all of these facts about the spiritual side of the young King David into a real live person.     They could hardly say that he was King David, and so they wrote that he was descended from King David.    The only trouble was that they slipped up when repeating this story in a second gospel, by giving different names in the genealogy of Jesus, and many more generations.     The easisest way to explain James was to invent a brother.    Surprisingly they completely overlooked another name - MENELEK, but then that could well have given the game away and exposed the supposed true story as being false.          See Menelek to see how 'Menelek' was derived from 'Tutankhamen'.

COULD JESUS, IOSA, YMNTWTANKH, KING DAVID, AND THE MISSING PRINCE TWTMS ALL BE ONE AND THE SAME?




Edited by crystal sage, 09 June 2010 - 12:41 PM.


#252    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,338 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:19 AM

I just wanted to comment on some quotes CS provided in the previous post, from this web page. Mind you, this is aimed not at crystal sage but at the material in the web page. It serves as an example of the stunningly poor and misleading information one comes across on the internet. I shudder to think of some earnest and sincere young person coming across this stuff and thinking it to be the slightest legitimate. With stuff like this out there, it's no wonder so many young people are so poorly informed. Let's break it down.

Quote

In the next chamber to the King's Coffins they found a golden shrine. In one cartouche the glyphs read 'RE HPRW NEB' which means GOD OF ALL HEBREWS. RE is shown with the Sun Disk glyph, and NEB - a Bowl glyph - can mean either 'Lord' or 'All'. If it precedes the noun then it means 'Lord', but when it follows the noun as it does in this case then it means 'All'. The sign for the word HEPRW is a Scarab, or Beetle, and its meaning was 'Resurrection' or 'Coming Into Existence'. The glyph is followed by three strokes indicating the plural. Thus we can regard any Ancient Egyptian who believed in the Resurrection of the Living God, as a Hebrew. In the main they were the Semite population of Lower Egypt. In the late 4th Century CE, St.Ambrose referred many times to Jesus as 'THE GOOD SCARABAEUS'. So here we have a direct link between Jesus and King Tutankhamen. The Constellation of Cancer was seen by Egyptians not only as a Crab, but also as a Beetle, and so this was the Crib of the Holy Child.

I could be mistaken but I believe the shrine in questions is this one. This shrine is principally in honor of the titulary goddess Heret-Kau, but some of the inscriptions mentioned on the web page remind me of certain inscriptions that appear on the shrine (I have seen this shrine in person and have translated its inscriptions, but can't find my notes right now). There were several beautiful shrines found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62), so it probably doesn't matter which one the web page is referencing. The more important thing is, this web page bungles historical facts every which way imaginable.

  • In the above quote the author of the web page is talking about Tut's throne name or prenomen. This is the name by which most people would've known him, actually. Properly read it is not "RE HPRW NEB" but NEB-KHEPRW-RE (transliterated as nb-xprw-ra). In the following image Tut's birth name or nomen is at left and the throne name or prenomen is at right:
  • Posted Image

  • The name most definitely does not mean "God of all Hebrews." That is nonsense. Tutankhamun reigned in the late 14th century BCE, well before the earliest identifiable emergence of the Hebrews. Even after all of this time, after all of the archaeology that has taken place in the Holy Land, all of the philology and other historical studies applied to the question, the answer remains the same. There were no Hebrews in the time of Egypt's Dynasty 18. All of the Levant was solidly Canaanite, worshipers of Baal, not Yahweh.

  • The web page does pretty well explaining the arrangement of the three glyphs (sun disk, scarab with three slashes, and basket), up until the explanation for the placement of the basket. In the ancient Egyptian language modifiers follow nouns, which the web page infers, but the author evidently doesn't really understand the language too well. In this cartouche the basket is a modifier for the scarab. It can be identified as either adverbial or adjectival and means "lordly" in this name.

  • The ancient Egyptian word for the scarab is "kheper" (xpr), and the web page's translation of "Resurrection" or "Coming Into Existence" is not too bad. More typical translations are "to manifest" or "to create" or "to transform." This is exactly what the scarab represented to the Egyptians, and why it was so prevalent in their ideology. But the three strokes indicating plurality tell us the scarab in this case is a noun, properly translated as "manifestations." Together with the modifier (the basket) we have "lordly manifestations."

  • And together with the sun disk, Tutankhamun's throne name, when properly translated, means "Lordly Manifestations of Re." This makes perfect sense from the Egyptian perspective, given Re's representation of daily life and rebirth, and the pharaoh's very close associations with that god. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hebrews.

Quote

Note: In Egyptian the 'H' of 'Heprw' is aspirated like the 'ch' in Scottish 'loch'.

This is an overly simplistic explanation and is in error. Most Semitic languages, to which ancient Egyptian was related, contain several different and distinct H sounds. In ancient Egyptian alone there were four, and each sound is well represented in hieroglyphs and the other scripts employed throughout pharaonic history. The well-aspirated H is different from the Scottish "loch." It's about the same as saying the name "Heather" and pronouncing the H with a bit of exaggeration. In Tutankhamun's throne name, the H sound in the scarab symbol is more guttural; it's a completely different sound. It's transliterated with a small "x" or is otherwise spelled with a "kh," in our attempts to represent this sound. The same sound appears in Tut's birth name (Tutankhamun). This has nothing whatsoever with the word Hebrew.

Quote

In the very next column on the golden shrine there are glyphs which read 'HRWN MSS YY'. This means 'Born of the Day', but pronounced it sounds like AARON MOSES YAH YAH.

:w00t: This is just patently ridiculous. I mean, does anyone take this seriously?

Quote

YAH or IAH was another Lunar Deity. Iahmes, meaning 'Born of the Moon God Iah' was a very popular name in Egypt. Since the young King David was also seen as the son of Iah, he would also have been known by this name. As ever when transliterated into English the 'I' or 'Y' turns into the letter 'J', and so we get 'JAMES'. Names were reversed when written to put the name of God first. Turn Iahmes around and we get 'MESSIAH'.

Here again the author of the web page shows his unfamiliarity with working with the language. Glyphs representing the I or Y are what we call weak consonants, which were common in ancient Egyptian. I should stress that the Y is never represented as a J, so forget that. In the United States linguists tend to prefer using a small "i" when representing a certain sound in ancient Egyptian, but in Europe linguists tend to favor a small "j" (there is some crossover, of course, but that's it in a nutshell). That's all it is: a preference in transliteration for representing a particular sound from ancient Egyptian. The "j" as in James is something entirely different and is represented in transliteration as a capital "D." It's often written informally as "dj," as in the name of the Dynasty 3 king Djoser.

And the part about Iahmes and Messiah is, well, just patently ridiculous. In hieroglyphs the glyphs representing deities were written first, a process we call honorific transposition. However, when spoken, they were not pronounced first unless that was specifically how the name was meant to be spoken. So if we were to follow the web page's logic, Tut's birth name would not be Tutankhamun but Amuntutankh. That wouldn't even make sense.

That's more than enough, I suppose. It's just more motivation to close the web browser and search out books written by professional historians. This kind of stuff will do nothing greater than contribute even more to human stupidity. :w00t:

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#253    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,367 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:07 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 June 2010 - 02:19 AM, said:

I just wanted to comment on some quotes CS provided in the previous post, from this web page. Mind you, this is aimed not at crystal sage but at the material in the web page. It serves as an example of the stunningly poor and misleading information one comes across on the internet. I shudder to think of some earnest and sincere young person coming across this stuff and thinking it to be the slightest legitimate. With stuff like this out there, it's no wonder so many young people are so poorly informed. Let's break it down.



I could be mistaken but I believe the shrine in questions is this one. This shrine is principally in honor of the titulary goddess Heret-Kau, but some of the inscriptions mentioned on the web page remind me of certain inscriptions that appear on the shrine (I have seen this shrine in person and have translated its inscriptions, but can't find my notes right now). There were several beautiful shrines found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62), so it probably doesn't matter which one the web page is referencing. The more important thing is, this web page bungles historical facts every which way imaginable.

  • In the above quote the author of the web page is talking about Tut's throne name or prenomen. This is the name by which most people would've known him, actually. Properly read it is not "RE HPRW NEB" but NEB-KHEPRW-RE (transliterated as nb-xprw-ra). In the following image Tut's birth name or nomen is at left and the throne name or prenomen is at right:
  • Posted Image

  • The name most definitely does not mean "God of all Hebrews." That is nonsense. Tutankhamun reigned in the late 14th century BCE, well before the earliest identifiable emergence of the Hebrews. Even after all of this time, after all of the archaeology that has taken place in the Holy Land, all of the philology and other historical studies applied to the question, the answer remains the same. There were no Hebrews in the time of Egypt's Dynasty 18. All of the Levant was solidly Canaanite, worshipers of Baal, not Yahweh.


This is an overly simplistic explanation and is in error. Most Semitic languages, to which ancient Egyptian was related, contain several different and distinct H sounds. In ancient Egyptian alone there were four, and each sound is well represented in hieroglyphs and the other scripts employed throughout pharaonic history. The well-aspirated H is different from the Scottish "loch." It's about the same as saying the name "Heather" and pronouncing the H with a bit of exaggeration. In Tutankhamun's throne name, the H sound in the scarab symbol is more guttural; it's a completely different sound. It's transliterated with a small "x" or is otherwise spelled with a "kh," in our attempts to represent this sound. The same sound appears in Tut's birth name (Tutankhamun). This has nothing whatsoever with the word Hebrew.



:w00t: This is just patently ridiculous. I mean, does anyone take this seriously?





And the part about Iahmes and Messiah is, well, just patently ridiculous. In hieroglyphs the glyphs representing deities were written first, a process we call honorific transposition. However, when spoken, they were not pronounced first unless that was specifically how the name was meant to be spoken. So if we were to follow the web page's logic, Tut's birth name would not be Tutankhamun but Amuntutankh. That wouldn't even make sense.

That's more than enough, I suppose. It's just more motivation to close the web browser and search out books written by professional historians. This kind of stuff will do nothing greater than contribute even more to human stupidity. :w00t:



^_^  :tu:  B)  ;)  :D ... I gather all these students slept through class...


My link


^_^
  LOL.. or do you like the idea of Christianity.. and the Essenes.. Hebrew originating from the Crishna's...
My link


Quote

FROM CHRISHNA TO CHRIST

By Raymond Bernard, Ph. D. (Contains Many Photographs from the rare book, Monumental Christianity By Lundy.)

This unique volume gives the true history of the Original Gospel of the Lord of Love and Master of Compassion, from which the Four Christian Gospels were Derived - A New Light on the Origin of Christianity.

It is the purpose of this book to show that the origin of the Christian religion consists in the teachings of Chrishna, savior of Ancient India, which he enunciated to his Hindu followers on the banks of the Ganges 5,000 years ago, and that these doctrines were introduced to the West during the first half of the first century by Apollonius of Tyana, who received them from his Himalayan teacher, Iarchus, during his studies in the Far East.

Apollonius introduced these doctrines among the Essenes; and those who accepted and followed the teachings of Chrishna which he brought from India became known as Chrishnaists or Christians. The doctrines of Chrishna, which were the foundation of Brahmanism, which religion Chrishna originated, were expressed in the sacred book of the Hindus, the "Bhagavad Gita" or the Song Celestial. They included belief in an immanent deity who dwells within all living creatures, plant, animal and human, and who suffers when they suffer and has joy when they are joyful. This pantheistic conception of God led to the doctrine of reverence for all life or universal compassion, which led to the practice of harmlessness and non-violence to any living creature, which meant vegetarianism and pacifism.

This philosophical and humane conception of God and the humanitarian practices that follow from this conception stands in sharp contrast with the later anthropopmorphic personal gods of the Jews and Christians, who were conceived as having a human form and, in the form of Jehovah, to have human passions, including baser ones of revengefulness, jealousy, etc. Also, being conceived as a being apart from his creations - animals and human beings - whom he fashioned from the "dust of the earth," he is not the indwelling deity of Brahmanism. The man-god of Judaism and Christianity gave man mastery over the lower animals and not only did not forbid him to kill and eat them, but encouraged and insisted on such killing in sacrifice to him in the form of burnt offerings. And, in the Old Testament, he also encouraged warfare and murder of those who refused to accept him and who worshipped other gods.

It is therefore clear that the later Western conceptions of deity are quite barbarous in comparison with the pure and humane doctrine taught by Chrishna. In his work, "Buddhism and Christianity," Arthur Lillie claims that the Essenes, who were the first Christians, derived their doctrines and practices from Buddhist missionaries who came westward during the third century B. C. during the reign of King Asoka, finding converts among them; and this explains the similarity of the life of the Essenes with that of Buddhist monks. Lillie's conclusion, based on long and careful research, is that the earliest and only authentic original gospel, or Diegesis, came from the Essenes and that all that is anti-Essene in the four best known gospels is accretion.




#254    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,367 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:17 PM

This too is interesting...


Quote

In a paper delivered to an ecclesiastical society entitled “Church life in the time of St. Blane” by J. Hutchison Cockburn, a former Minister of Dunblane Cathedral, Scotland, the author observes: “The Celtic Church in Ireland and in Scotland owed its origin not to Rome, but to Egypt and the East; its customs, traditions, methods, government came from Egypt through Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary, Martin of Tours, Ninian, and through that religious channel, more than a little independent of Rome. The religious ideas of Egypt came to Scotland and Ireland and were absorbed easily into the tribal life of these countries….There is no doubt that the Celtic Church owed its ritual, its architecture, its worship and its law to Syria, Egypt and Palestine, and that its allegiance to Rome was slight.”

This is confirmed in a treatise entitled The Celtic Church and the Influence of the East (1923) by Rev. John Stirton, B.D., F.S.A. (Scot.), who notes: “S. Ninian, carrying from S. Martin at Tours the enthusiasm for monasticism and culture of the East, and, later, S. Patrick, likewise imbued with monastic zeal which he had acquired both at Lerins and at Tours—returned to their respective countries, Scotland and Ireland, and founded religious settlements which, before many years should elapse, were calculated to wield an influence universally felt not only in the British Isles but on the Continent of Europe….We thus see that the influence of Asia Minor and of Egypt came to the early Celtic Church in Britain from Gaul in two streams which eventually met and merged into one; the first came from S. Martin through S. Ninian to Whithorn, in Galloway, whence, through S. Finnian it passed to Moville in Ireland and from Moville through S. Columba to Iona and the Celts of Scotland in 563 A.D. The second originated at Lerins and through S. Martin at Tours and S. Patrick it passed to Ireland, where it joined the other….There seemed to be a peculiar affinity between the tribal or clan system of the Celts and the monasticism of Egypt. The monasterium or collegium both in Egypt and in Celtic Ireland and Scotland consisted of a number of huts which were the dwellings of the clerical and lay monks and their families, for many of the latter were married….The clergy of the Celtic Church were missionaries rather than theologians….In this respect they were like the early apostles and disciples in the Churches of Asia Minor.”

The link between the British Celtic Church and the monastic tradition of the Middle East is further supported in the following extract taken from a scholarly essay entitled The Coptic Church and Egyptian Monasticism by De Lacy O’Leary: “The formation and development of monasticism did not take place in Alexandria which was Greek-speaking and participated in Greek culture, but amongst the native Coptic-speaking Christians of Egypt, which strictly denotes the Delta, and Thebais or Upper Egypt, the whole area watered by the Nile between Aswân and the Mediterranean coast. The formation of monasticism took place in two stages: first came the solitaries, some, but by no means all, of whom were hermits or ‘desert men’; then came the formation of coenobia or monastic communities, at first simply groups of disciples gathered round some well-known and revered teacher.…The monastic life of Egypt became famous throughout the whole Christian Church, and for a long time Egypt was regarded as the ‘Holy Land’ in preference to Palestine, because there could be seen the multitudes of saintly ascetes, and Christians came as pilgrims from all parts to see and hear them. Amongst these were St. Basil the Great, the founder of Greek monasticism, Hilarion, who introduced monasticism into Palestine, Rufinus and a Roman lady named Melania who spent six months in Egypt in 373. Then in 386 St. Jerome and a wealthy widow named Paula visited the monasteries of Egypt, and of this visit St. Jerome has left us an account (Epistle 108). Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, spent the years 388-99 and 406-12 amongst the monks of Egypt, the former period in Thebais, the latter in Nitria.”



My link


Also...

Quote

"the original institution of Masonry consisted in the foundation of the liberal arts and sciences, but more especially in Geometry, for at the building of the tower of Babel, the art and mystery of Masonry was first introduced, and from thence handed down by Euclid, a worthy and excellent mathematician of the Egyptians; and he communicated it to Hiram, the Master Mason concerned in building Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem."


My link


Quote

I have by me, a record of a French Lodge, at the time the late Duke of Orleans, then Duke de Chartres, was Grand Master of Masonry in France. It begins as follows: "Le trentieme jour du sixieme mois de l'an de la V.L. cinq mille sept cent soixante treize;" that is, the thirteenth day of the sixth month of the year of the Venerable Lodge, five thousand seven hundred and seventy-three. By what I observe in English books of Masonry, the English Masons use the initials A.L. and not V.L. By A.L. they mean in the year of Light, as the Christians by A.D. mean in the year of our Lord. But A.L. like V.L. refers to the same chronological era, that is, to the supposed time of the creation.

religion, I have shown that the Cosmogony, that is, the account of the creation with which the book of Genesis opens, has been taken and mutilated from the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, and was fixed as a preface to the Bible after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, and that the Robbins of the Jews do not hold their account in Genesis to be a fact, but mere allegory. The six thousand years in the Zend-Avesta, is changed or interpolated into six days in the account of Genesis. The Masons appear to have chosen the same period, and perhaps to avoid the suspicion and persecution of the Church, have adopted the era of the world, as the era of Masonry. The V.L. of the French, and A.L. of the English Mason, answer to the A.M. Anno Mundi, or year of the world.

Though the Masons have taken many of their ceremonies and hieroglyphics from  the ancient Egyptians, it is certain they have not taken their chronology from thence. If they had, the church would soon have sent them to the stake; as the chronology of the Egyptians, like that of the Chinese, goes many thousand years beyond the Bible chronology.The religion of the Druids, as before said, was the same as the religion of the ancient Egyptians.


from the remains of the religion of the Druids, thus preserved, arose the institution which, to avoid the name of Druid, took that of Mason, and practiced under this new name the rites and ceremonies of Druids.



Edited by crystal sage, 10 June 2010 - 03:40 PM.


#255    Proclus

Proclus

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Frankfurt, Germany

  • Academic approaches towards Atlantis as a real place!

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

Dung beetle navigates by the stars: Both are typical Egyptian symbols: The dung beetle (Scarabaeus) and the way to the stars. Now a connection was found:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-21150721

Could it be that ancient Egyptians already knew this and therefore chose the dung beetle as such an important symbol?
And if so, what does it mean in respect to pyramids?

_

Academic approaches towards Atlantis as a real place: www.Atlantis-Scout.de!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users