Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
The Puzzler

Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel

255 posts in this topic

That's a bit anachronistic considering that the Chaldeans, as a dynastic influence, didn't happen for close to 1400 years after Abraham was alleged to have existed using the 2000 BC date.

To assume any truth in the story, again Noah would have been Sumerian, Assyrian or Babylonian and not Hebrew. As there is no archaeological evidence to suggest even the remotest indication of a developing monotheistic culture having originated anywhere in Mesopotamia, particularly in the 2nd millenium BC, speculation on the relationship between an alleged Noah or an alleged Abraham is just so much smoke-and-mirrors.

Again, the Chaldeans didn't exist by the time of the first mention of Israelites, per the Merneptah Stele, nor the formation of the Biblical state of Israel during the time of David and Solomon, but many centuries later.

cormac

Forget about hebrews, that is seemingly luring you away from the scent. The chaldeans come from the Khaldi who were descended from Arphaxad one of Noahs grandsons. They were based around Armenia, which fits with the story of Noah. Noah is just the name, what is the sumerian Ziusudra or something? Let's just call him Z for ease. So, we have a sumerian story about a flood. I think it is probable that following the Black sea flood circa 6,000bce-5,000bce Z and some surivors landed around Ararat or Uratru (see we have the Ar/Ur prefix again). Who do we find around that region at that time? Well the proto-sumerians were the Vinca of the Ubaid. One of their prime centres as they moved south became Eridu (another Er) a very advanced city complex with spohisticated irrigation (double 'r's don't count). This is from where the sumerian empire flourished but as usually happens they became corrupted as did the other colonies as they spread out. Pillage and human sacrifice were rife and the priests had become corrupt and fallacious, giving into greed over atOnement. This is how and why I think the idea of habiru or later hebrew emerged. They were followers of this philosophy and could have claimed distant descent back to Z's line to give authority to the tribe. You put this together with the idea of Set and his cult originally and how the tradition diffused with what was already happenning elsewhere. Of course I am sketchy on the major details but that is what I can gather so far and see it as pretty reasonable. No doubt you would disagree but I think there is some evidence to suggest I am not creating a complete fantasy. then again...

Khaldi is also said to mean Ram and so the story of Abram and the start of the age of the Ram is very significant.

What about them four roomed houses aka Israelite houses at Avaris? Temple of Set? Shepperd or foreign kings but I think they were outsiders returning froma long absence where they had retained a lot of the original mysteries. Hey, who knows but it's fun to try these things out on guys who can tell me why I am wrong and how I can refine my study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The chaldeans come from the Khaldi who were descended from Arphaxad one of Noahs grandsons.

Your evidence for this would be what?

...what is the sumerian Ziusudra or something?

Try, Utnapishtim.

I think it is probable that following the Black sea flood circa 6,000bce-5,000bce Z and some surivors landed around Ararat or Uratru (see we have the Ar/Ur prefix again).

The Mesopotamian flood story has nothing to do with the 5th or 6th millenium BC, but concerns the 3rd millenium BC.

Well the proto-sumerians were the Vinca of the Ubaid.

And your evidence that proto-Sumerians, Vinca and Ubaidians were one and the same would be what. Citation please.

Evidently it appears alright to you to mix disparate cultures, questionable linguistics, timelines and religious beliefs in the effort to make up a 'convincing' story to explain history. That's not how the science behind archaeology and paleontology, etc. work.

What about them four roomed houses aka Israelite houses at Avaris?

A four roomed house doesn't make it Israelite. Saying so doesn't make it so.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your evidence for this would be what?

Try, Utnapishtim.

The Mesopotamian flood story has nothing to do with the 5th or 6th millenium BC, but concerns the 3rd millenium BC.

And your evidence that proto-Sumerians, Vinca and Ubaidians were one and the same would be what. Citation please.

Evidently it appears alright to you to mix disparate cultures, questionable linguistics, timelines and religious beliefs in the effort to make up a 'convincing' story to explain history. That's not how the science behind archaeology and paleontology, etc. work.

A four roomed house doesn't make it Israelite. Saying so doesn't make it so.

cormac

Cheers Cormac I will look into Utnapishnim but you should chill with all due respect. I am in the middle of my research so how science operates is no concern of my. Ultimately, work is judged on the results not the method and everything I am posting is just my opinion as it stands. It will inneviatble change as I learn more from the likes of you.

I have already posted the link about Khald and Arphaxad but here it is again.

David Fasold, his book, The Ark of Noah, while detailing the archeological finds of a ship remains in Armenia and describing the path of the drogue stones, or stone anchors depicting the path of this ancient ship, gives his thoughts on the Armenian connection of Abram. The area of Armenia lies north of the Mesopotamian valley in the area of Lake Van. An ancient historian of the Armenian, Moses Khorenatsi, called by some the “Herodotus of the Armenians” noted that the local tribesmen called themselves Hai, pronounced by the people in the Lake Van region as Kh(o)ai, meaning Ram. They recognized themselves as the People of the Ram and their supreme deity was (K)Hal-di. Thus was derived the land of the original Khaldini, later corrupted by Greeks in the times of Achaemenian to Chaldea. (Fasold, David, The Ark of Noah, Wynwood Press, New York, NY, 1988. p 184)

According to Josephus, Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons who colonized the land from the Euphrates delta valley to the Indian Ocean. The Persians were in descent from Elam, and the Elamites. The Assyrians came from Asshur who dwelled in Nineveh. Arphaxad descendants were called the Arphaxadites, now known as the Chaldeans. The Syrians came from the Aramites, or the son Aram and the Lydians were in descent from the son, Laud, and his descendants, the Laudites. (Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works of Josephus, translated William Whiston A.M., Kregel Publication, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49501, 1981, p. 33)

David Fasold, believes that the thirteen B.C.E. Urartu was in reality the area of the Khaldini and consistent with the claims of descent from Arphaxad, born twelve years after the flood from an offshoot of Kesed, reputed son of Nahor (Fasold, Ibid. p. 185) In the Book of Jubilees, it confirms this idea with a long genealogy

http://www.biblesearchers.com/ancients/patriarch/abram1.shtml

Maybe it is my dating that is wrong and the flood would be closer to 3,000bce and just try and factor in the extrememly long ages of the patriarchs as they appear in scripture.

Serves me right for believing the words of Dr Finkelstein.

On the Vinca sumerian connection

http://tudos.virtus.hu/?id=detailed_article&aid=84208

http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html

And on the Vinca - sumerian script connection I would cite the Tartaria tablest but who am I to make such suggestions, I am just a fantasist.

The tablets are generally believed to have belonged to the Vinča-Turdaș culture, which at the time was believed by Serbian and Romanian archaeologists to have originated around 2700 BC. Vlassa interpreted the Tărtăria tablets as a hunting scene and the other two with signs as a kind of primitive writing similar to the early pictograms of the Sumerians. The discovery caused great interest in the archeological world as it predated the first Minoan writing, the oldest known writing in Europe.

However, subsequent radiocarbon dating on the Tărtăria finds pushed the date of the tablets (and therefore of the whole Vinča culture) much further back, to as long ago as 5500 BC, the time of the early Eridu phase of the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia.[3] Still, this is disputed in the light of apparently contradictory stratigraphic evidence.[4]

If the symbols are indeed a form of writing, then writing in the Danubian culture would far predate the earliest Sumerian cuneiform script or Egyptian hieroglyphs. They would thus be the world's earliest known form of writing. This claim remains controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought this was interesting.. .. the discovery of the biblical Manna..

The scientist, named August Franklin, not only says he can explain what Manna was, he produced the pearly white substance that possesses the characteristics ascribed to Manna. Many inferences are given in the Old Testament that associate Manna as Gold in a sacred and perfect white form. In the Bible the word “bdellium” is used to describe the appearance of Manna. Manna is described as, pearlescent and having the appearance of tiny grains - something like coriander seed. His explanation fits together with a logic that is compelling.

Is it any real coincidence that a Pharaoh's son would take them to the gold smelting operations at the Temple of Hathor where a cloud of gold vapor would recondense into a life giving Manna as it rained from heaven at night and dried in the sun in the morning? No, Moses had a job to do, given to him by God, and he accomplished it.”

The question of the Manna has therefore been answered. What “it” is, is gold…..The gold of gods… the gold as found in the sun. This is the heart of the knowledge of the Essene, Temple of Ammon and the Elohim. Seeing and tasting is believing.

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in the middle of my research so how science operates is no concern of my.

Then you're not looking for the facts, but just anything that could be made up to support your fantasy. OK, now I understand.

Using Biblical chronology or genealogies as if they were historically factual doesn't help either.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're not looking for the facts, but just anything that could be made up to support your fantasy. OK, now I understand.

Using Biblical chronology or genealogies as if they were historically factual doesn't help either.

cormac

Don't get me wrong I am trying to make my research more rounded because I'd like it to be based on true facts and history as much as possible. I can understand the importance of suitable timelines and this is quite a challenge as there are so many contradicting views. You may not appreciate the effort I am making to remain partially objective, admittedly only a small part but everyone has their preferences. It is pretty plain what mine are but I don't think that means they are without merit entirely. You may see it otherwise but as it stands there are a lot of facts about this extensive period in history that remain debatable and that is all we are doing. I have backed up my sources as well as I can. I do not wish to pursue a career in academia but I hold a strong interest. Are you of the opinion that only the opinion of academics carries any weight? If you are I respect that but tbh reading journals is not economical to my needs. By all means tell me why I am wrong on these points.

As for biblical geneologies and chronologies, the geneologyies may hold more sway when analyzed using Hg dna. i struggle to retain this information because I don't undertsand it entirely but I note that scientists occasionally use biblical names as refernce points. If to eliminate from enquiries as much as anything.

It's also valuable because it has been a well established mindset since the 7th century bce. Now I don't think the biblical narrative is actually how these things happenned because innevitably all religious texts become a kind of propaganda against whom the enemies of the writers were. Don't take it at face value is my view but we would be foolish to throw it out altogether don't you think. They may not be factual but I and many scientists and historians see them as good starting points and ways to make generalizations. Perhaps this is how they actually were. I am not familiar enough with the sumerian flood myth to comment entirely but do you have an opinion on the Parthenon code?

Hey CS, is that the temple allegedly situated at Mt Hermon? I was only thinking today whether there is any significance between periodic symbol of gold and the logos. The sacred sound is AUM so is it possible that adding something represented by an M, you create mana from gold. The other term I associate with this is Orme or Ormus. Sounds the same as AUM doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know. Humour me, just a little if you please. Sorry for being a bit sketchy on the details.

What, did you think you could slip one by me? Me? I am the ever-present, pain-in-the-ass, nosey nelly of this forum! :devil:

I don't think there is a need to get hung up on semantics like when the hebrews originated. Abraham was allegedly a Chaldean, that means he was a lover of knowledge and a wanderer. He turned his back on human sacrifice and tried to promote animal sacrifice as a substitute. I forget his exact line of descent but if we assume there is some truth in the story of Noah then it is safe to say that Abraham was off this bloodline.

The origin of the Hebrews isn't semantics, it's history. And it's critical to observe their origin properly. I've seen it countless times at UM: people try to make all kinds of connections with the Hebrews even when the archaeology shows there can be no connection. We cannot ignore when a society of note emerged in the Near East because their place of origin, time of origin, and reasons for their origin are essential for a proper understanding of their place within the greater history of the Near East. So it is with the Hebrews.

What you seem to have with the Hurrians is a northern people coming in and competing with the Hittites for dominance over Anatolia and Canaan. I think it's reasonable to think of Abraham as one of these travellers from the north even if he was born in Canaan, his tribe could have come from the Caucasus.

I try to keep a strict observance between factual history and biblical history, as it were, so I've been struggling with that in this discussion. Abraham is part of that struggle for me. I fully understand how important the figure of Abraham is to three of the world's greatest religions, but I struggle with the fact that there is no proof such a man ever existed. I can bend my own rules a bit by approaching the issue from the possibility that Abraham was a fictional, composite character representing the founders of the Hebraic religion. I suppose that's neither here nor there, but the bottom line is the figure of Abraham cannot be tied in any way to the Hittites in real, factual, historical terms.

So, the Hyskos move into Egypt as foreign rulers and set up a tempe to set and build four room or Israelite houses. Of course Israelites did not exist but I suggest that it is from the Hyskos that the hebrews were enabelled to emerge. The were expelled and forced back into Canaan where they could have joined with other disparate tribes like the Shona Bedouin and anyone else they came into contact with. Anyone who opposed the egyptians would have been a prime candidate to sign up to the expelled Hyskos or emerging hebrews. I think this could explain the nature of early judaism as being distinct from the egyptians but really a composite of other cultures. To consdier that it was a group of Chaldeans behind the formation of the God Yahweh I think is very reasonable but without evidence it is only an idea and not a particularly good one I am sure.

Some of this I find to be plausible, but some of it speculative. The main reason I cannot buy into it is the simple fact that after Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos, he chased them up and into southern Palestine, where the Hyksos took refuge in the city of Sharuhen. There Ahmose I laid siege to them, and eventually was successful in taking the city. He then massacred the population. This took place around 1500 BCE, which was around 300 years before the earliest historical attestation for the Hebrews. It's possible some Hyksos survived or escaped Sharuhen, but as a Hyksos population, they more or less ceased to exist around 1500 BCE and played no more direct part in the history of the Near East. There can be no direct historical or cultural connection with the Hebrews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like it to be based on true facts and history as much as possible.

That's not the way it's coming across. More like throwing enough stuff against the wall and hoping for some of it to stick.

Are you of the opinion that only the opinion of academics carries any weight?

No, as there have been many non-professionals who've shown a talent for providing insights into the various sciences. They however can show where and how, based upon the available evidence, their theory carries adequate weight. That, so far, has not happened here. Nor is it likely to from what I've seen.

As for biblical geneologies and chronologies, the geneologyies may hold more sway when analyzed using Hg dna.

So far this hasn't happened, as the Y Chromosomal and mtDNA haplogroup studies have run counter to those biblical genealogies and chronologies.

They may not be factual but I and many scientists and historians see them as good starting points and ways to make generalizations.

Perhaps those with a Creationist leaning, but mainstream doesn't use them for a starting point for much of anything.

...but do you have an opinion on the Parthenon code?

Another case of trying to make unevidenced connections between two completely unrelated cultures, IMO.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the proto-sumerians were the Vinca of the Ubaid. One of their prime centres as they moved south became Eridu (another Er) a very advanced city complex with spohisticated irrigation (double 'r's don't count).

Correct me if I am wrong but the only Vinca culture with which I'm familiar is a Neolothic culture that existed within what's now southeast Europe. I don't really know anything substantive about the Vinca culture because I do not have an interest in ancient Europe and have never looked at it beyond a summary nature, but they certainly have nothing to do with the Sumerians. It should be understood that our term "Sumerians" is basically a generic term to describe the founders of civilization in southern Iraq. It of course derives from the ancient city of Sumer but this is not how the Sumerians viewed themselves. I use the term as much as anyone but the reality is, Sumeria was simply a collection of city states that never coalesced beyond an assemblage of small, regional polities.

This confused the hell out of me when I first started as a docent at the Oriental Institute in Chicago. I couldn't understand why none of the label copy in the galleries contained the word "Sumer" or "Sumeria" or "Sumerians." I went on to learn why. The curators were trying to paint a more realistic background for the history of southern Iraq. What we call the Sumerians were actually just the outgrowth of the people of the Ubaid and Uruk periods. This Wiki page explains it pretty well.

But to cut it short, there remains no consensus as to where the Sumerians came from. It seems as though people had migrated into the region in late prehistory from the east and northeast. There is some tentative linguistic evidence that the language of Sumer derived from peoples of India, but we cannot connect the Sumerians to any European culture.

This is from where the sumerian empire flourished but as usually happens they became corrupted as did the other colonies as they spread out. Pillage and human sacrifice were rife and the priests had become corrupt and fallacious...

To echo cormac's charge, I'd like to see legitimate citation for this statement. For one thing, there was never a Sumerian empire. As I mentioned above, the polities that comprised southern Iraq at this time never emerged as a unified state. Actually it was somewhat similar to the situation in ancient Greece: a collection of city states constantly fighting one another, forming alliances one day and fighting former allies the next. The Sumerians never really spread out or dispersed. They were merely absorbed into the Akkadian empire and, as far as we can tell, stayed put.

Human sacrifice is not solidly evidenced on any notable scale in Mesopotamia except in the Royal Cemetery of Ur, dating to about 2500 BCE (equating to the Early Dynastic III period of Sumer). Human sacrifice in general was not a common practice in the Near East, and where it occurs, the reasons for it are obscure. Most historians feel it was a response to climatic conditions that were devastating agricultural efforts and leading to famine ("Hey, all you gods, if you save our crops we'll offer a few people to you!"). Pillaging was certainly taking place among the squabbling cities of the Sumerians, but human sacrifice was an exception, not the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are you of the opinion that only the opinion of academics carries any weight?

I have a similar view as cormac. My own background brings to mind non-professionals studying ancient Egypt who have made important contributions (e.g., Bob Brier, Craig Smith) and have gone on to become respected figures in the world of Egyptology. However, even these non-professionals must use the same base of material from which to build their work. Their contributions must be based on professional research and properly governed scientific inquiry. It cannot be based solely on assumption, opinion, speculation, or gut feeling--ever. Their work must be vetted and verifiable. This is why the fringe camp has always fallen on its own face. It does not adhere to the strict guidelines of research that help us to achieve a growing and realistic understanding of ancient history.

I'm editing to make an important point. I just noticed that I now have 3,000 posts at UM. This might suggest that I ought to apply myself better to achieving a life, but more importantly, do I win a prize? :D

Edited by kmt_sesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Correct me if I am wrong but the only Vinca culture with which I'm familiar is a Neolothic culture that existed within what's now southeast Europe.

And you would be right.

...but they certainly have nothing to do with the Sumerians.

But that's one of the many 'connections' that are being implied here.

But to cut it short, there remains no consensus as to where the Sumerians came from.

I have to wonder if there might be a grain of truth behind the speculative Dilmun origins for the Sumerians. Particularly as there is some evidence that the Persian Gulf was pretty much dry between circa 14,000 BC and 5500 BC.

Source

BTW kmt_sesh, your prize is a heartfelt "Thank You" and "Congratulations" for sticking with it for so long and not committing mental Hari Kari over the things you've read here. :lol:

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a similar view as cormac. My own background brings to mind non-professionals studying ancient Egypt who have made important contributions (e.g., Bob Brier, Craig Smith)

I stumbled across Bob Brier's audio book from the Learning Company, and added the lessons to my music player, been listening to him while working and exercising, and am thoroughly enjoying it, except he seems to fixate on the Old Testament a good deal, and draws connections between the Hyksos and Israelites.

A good deal of speculation in his presentation of his supposition, similar to SlimJim22's suggestions.

Can't say I agree with him completely, though he does make a decent argument, at least from what I understand of Egyptian history as he's presented it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a similar view as cormac. My own background brings to mind non-professionals studying ancient Egypt who have made important contributions (e.g., Bob Brier, Craig Smith) and have gone on to become respected figures in the world of Egyptology. However, even these non-professionals must use the same base of material from which to build their work. Their contributions must be based on professional research and properly governed scientific inquiry. It cannot be based solely on assumption, opinion, speculation, or gut feeling--ever. Their work must be vetted and verifiable. This is why the fringe camp has always fallen on its own face. It does not adhere to the strict guidelines of research that help us to achieve a growing and realistic understanding of ancient history.

I'm editing to make an important point. I just noticed that I now have 3,000 posts at UM. This might suggest that I ought to apply myself better to achieving a life, but more importantly, do I win a prize? :D

I second that and the same goes for Cormac. Without guys like you there would be no UM for me. I am sorry if I cross the line from time to time, all I can say is that I will try and use better sources and keep my suggestions within more of an accepted historical framework but remmeber that I am an amateur researcher doing this for my own enjoyment above all else. Sure I may make some erroneous connections but at the very least I hope I am bringing some decent reading to the table.

I will have to address all the pointts later when I have more time but just wanted to say you guys are legends and you can call me whatever you like as I have no formal qualifications in the area and am nothing but a 'fringey'. We'll see if I can happen upon anything you see as useful but I won't be counting my chickens. :tu:

I have contemplated Dilmun before myself because of the many burial mounds found there. I also read recently that Yemen and much of Arabia had a much more habitable climate in pre history so it is a definite possibility but I shall try and read some more on Sumer and Akkad and see if it ties in with Vinca. I appreciate your time all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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."

MAAT: Are you suggesting, then, that Jesus was an Essene?

Geoghagan: There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was an Essene. Essene doctrine is directly traceable to its African-Egyptian roots. In short, Jesus was one of the world's 16 crucified saviors whose beliefs and teachings were founded on the doctrines and principles of the ancient African Mystery System, and the events of his life directly parallel those of Horus (the first crucified savior), who lived at least 4100 years before Christ. For example, Horus was born of a virgin (immaculate conception), he disappeared at age 12 and reappeared at 30; he died at age 33 and descended into Hell. On the third day, he arose again and ascended into Heaven to sit on the right hand of his father, etc. Horus was cut into 14 pieces; Jesus was stabbed fourteen times. Horus' mother could find only one piece of him, his penis, and so she built obelisks in his memory. Jesus had the same phallic symbol associated with him, i.e., he had no sexual relations (at least after the conference of Nicene in 325 A.D.). So as you can see, Jesus and the other world saviors are copies of Horus. Their biographical facts are the same; only the names have changed.

My link

The fact that Jesus was an initiate in the African Mystery System; that Jesus was taught and did study at various subsidiary lodges of the Grand Lodge of Luxor in Africa and elsewhere (i.e. Tibet, India, etc.) The fact that it was in Africa that Jesus became acquainted with the Essenes, who were largely responsible for much of the teachings credited to Jesus.

MAAT: You keep mentioning the ancient African Mystery System.Can you briefly tell us what this was?

Geoghagen: Basically, the African Mystery System was the educational system of Africa. It was called a 'mystery' by E. Budge, the Famous Egyptologist, and other Egyptian scholars; but it was not a mystery to Africans. It encompassed many branches of knowledge, including all of the sciences, philosophy, physics, all of the liberal arts and, of course, religion and metaphysics

]

But the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that by the time of Jesus, the "teacher of righteousness" had already come and gone. Compounding this is the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a source of further embarrassment to scholars of Biblicism because many of the sayings attributed to Jesus as original are found in the Essene records. Among the expressions and sayings generally claimed by Christians as original with Jesus, but yet contained in the pre-Christian Essene records are:

"Peace on Earth and good will to men," "You are the salt of the earth; you are the light of the world." "The thirst for righteousness." "The kingdom of God." "The Sons of light and the Children of darkness."

Ashra Kwesi, The Craft of Amen Ra & African Mystery System #1

My link

lots of interesting questions answered on the linking films.

including another take on the Noah story....

Ashra Kwesi Explains the African Origin of Noah's Ark and Other Biblical Stories - Kemet (Egypt)

:rolleyes: I am not sure I agree with him there ... I bet there were lots of boats... ... they do mention Astral travel here ...

My link

My link

Created or promoted initial concepts of major religions of the world, including the virgin birth, Divine Savior or hero (Heru-Krishna-Jesus, etc), the judgment and "the word of God," i.e., GOD or Creative Divine Speech (the Maa Kheru, Voice of Truth or Logos) and other sacred writings or Scriptures before any other spiritual writings, including the Holy Bible, were written. For generally, the same basic spiritual principles reflected in sacred writings of the major religions of the world, including the Holy Bible and Koran, ,may be found in ancient Kushite/Kemetic sacred literature or oral traditions. And the Bible, essentially, is an African book; for the origin of the ancient Black Hebrew-Israelites has been traced to ancient Kush-Kemet. Therefore, even the modern-day Christian "Jesus," either historically or mythologically perceived, was-is a Kushite brother. Indeed, the historical Jesus, to the degree that he may be authenticated or "found" by generic man, was a social revolutionary hero who was stoned to death and hanged on a tree. Moreover, the mythological Jesus of the gospels, who was physicaly abused and hanged on a cross, also promoted a revolutionary message of LOVE in a too often corrupt mundane world. Bottom line: A Divine hero promote revolution.

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

My link

Ashra Kwesi, The Craft of Amen Ra & African Mystery System #1

My link

lots of interesting questions answered on the linking films.

including another take on the Noah story....

Ashra Kwesi Explains the African Origin of Noah's Ark and Other Biblical Stories - Kemet (Egypt)

:rolleyes: I am not sure I agree with him there ... I bet there were lots of boats... ... they do mention Astral travel here ...

My link

My link

I wonder if you have come across this before:

Herodotus (ca. 450 B.C.E.) regarded Colchis, a land located along the western slope of the Caucasus mountains near the Black Sea and considered the home of the Golden Fleece in Greek mythology, as an actual Kemetic colony. He not only pointed to the Colchians' black skin and woolly hair, but also to their oral traditions, language, methods of weaving, and practice of circumcision. He notes that:

"It is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone else mention it, and when it occurred to me I asked some questions both in Colchis and in Egypt, and found that the Colchians remembered the Egyptians more distinctly than the Egyptians remembered them. The Egyptians did, however, say that they thought the original Colchians were men from Sesostris' army. My own idea on the subject was based first on the fact that they have black skins and woolly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same), and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practised circumcision.... There is a further point of resemblance between the Colchians and the Egyptians: they share a method of weaving linen different from that of any other people."

Saint Jerome, writing during the fourth century, called Colchis the "Second Ethiopia." Two hundred years later, Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, described an "Ethiopian" presence in the same region. Even today, in the same district about which Herodotus wrote, exists a minute black-skinned and woolly-haired community

Cormaac, I am still mid rsearch on some of the points. However, having looked into the Black sea flood and the history of writing a little I am puzzled. We have Vinca and Dispilio symbols dating mid 6th millenium and this is the same time of the flood of the area. Now we know there were other settlements in the surrounding region. There was Catal Huyk in Anatolia and the Tell Halaf culture of northern Syria. I think that the native Sumerians could have been Dravidian but an influx from the north brought influence inclusing this early script. I know the Tartaria Tablets have been discussed before and I don't want to go over old ground but they are equivalent to pictograms or hieroglyphs albeit in primitive form but things like incense burners, chevrons and animals can be seen. It seems reasonable to suggest that this influx added to the tell Halaf culture to form the peoples of the Ubaid period.

Another fact that makes me think of the sumerians as having relations with the north is the story of Enmerkar and the lord of Arata. Oh, and from reading a bit more about sumerian society I don't think I was too far away. They lived in fear of the gods but over time there was a lot of corruption and political infighting. Considering all the biblical narrative I think it could easily fit into this context but I will hopefull be ale to find more on this area later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/ekwesi.geo/MAGYAR.htm

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....”

E.A. Wallis Budge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.