If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Wepwawet]

26 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

If it will help I hate the point.  The post is fine and even shows the exact source of the problem;  Egyptology can only understand the Pyramid Texts and the "cultural context" of the great pyramid builders in terms of 18th dynasty religion and magic.  They even translate the words from the culture in terms of the "book of the dead".  How else can they be so certain the pyramids are tombs?  How else is it even possible that there exists a "culture that persisted for 3000 years"?  Strip the  the pyramid builders "culture"  of every religious and magical concept from a 1000 years later and we are left with virtually no evidence at all.  And STILL Egyptology can't admit that the pyramids might have served some other function than as tombs!!!   Rather than even consider where the bodies are buried they insist that the pyramids are the tombs and that the builders meant nothing they said literally.   They insist that words that appear in a strange order and look the same as the "book of the dead" must have the same meaning.   

It's not the evidence being pursued here as proven by the lack of systematic investigation of physical parameters; it's a culture that is trying to be understood in terms of the assumption that the culture led to the "book of the dead".  If this assumption is wrong it fully explains EXACTLY why they haven't found the bodies despite the literal meaning of the builders words which say they were cremated.  They haven't found bodies or any direct evidence that the pyramids are tombs because they literally ascended to heaven EXACTLY as the builders literally said they did and the words are being understood in terms of a magic and religion that didn't exist at that time.  .  

Oh dear, I now have a post liked two to one by the fringe, equilibrium is fine, so I need to utter a spell to retain balance. So, where to get a spell, ah, the "Book of the Dead", a book of magic spells that a person could have parts extracted and written on a papyrus and placed with their burial in order to guide them through judgement and their afterlife.

The "Book of the Dead" while originating in the Pyramid Texts, as do all the religious texts, is otherwise not connected to what we know as the Books of the Netherworld, which is what I have been referencing in the form of the Amduat and Solar-Osirian Unity aka The Enigmatic Books of the Netherworld, and there are a few more. There is nothing that I can see in the "Book of the Dead" that can be referenced as regards anything in the OK and it's pyramids, bar of course it's origins with Unas. The Netherworld Books, however, though as I said having their genesis in the PT, originate in the 18th Dynasty, a time when the Old KIngdom solar cult was making a revival, this revival culminating in the religious revolution initiated by Akhenaten, though continuing in reduced form after him. What the Theban kings knew of OK religious thought and practice we can never know, but Ra and pyramids and obelisks and sun temples never went away when Osiris emerged. It is possible, and being very cautious, and being speculative, to discern, if only dimly, what may be an echo of OK thought in some of the texts, and they do, it needs pointing, out, deal with the journey of Ra through the Duat and his, and the king in whose tomb a particular text exists, resurrection. Actually, the king can be seen as superfluous as they don't even get mentioned all the time, the main event being how the Sun/Ra, is created and then reborn after "death" at dusk. This conforms to the Old Kingdom even if not verbatim. To dismiss the "new solar theology" as a magical "Book of the Dead" with no relevance to the OK is as bad an error as saying that the Netherworld Books are exactly what they believed in the OK. Extremism, monomania even, just does not work with trying to understand the AE.

[Wepwawet]

41 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Decoration of Burial Chambers, Sarcophagi and Coffins in the Old Kingdom, Naguib Kanawati. (p57)

Egyptian Religion, Siegfied Morenz (p202) 

"In the tomb of Kaemankh at Giza all the scenes which elsewhere decorate the upper cult chambers-manned ships, tilling the fields, cattle-raising, work in the kitchen ect-are painted on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber". 

The burial chamber with sarcophagus (photo courtesy of Digital Giza-your very own link):

This one is funny:

"Kakherptah Fetekta G5560 has only a decorated chapel Kakherptah Fetekta"

Which when we read the text from your link it says: 

Which the painting pictured is the burial chamber: 

Photo description:  "Cemetery G 5000: G 5560, shaft S 714, burial chamber, E wall, wall painting (Kakherptah seated at offering table and compartment offering list), looking E"

Should I keep going...? Spectacular. 

 

 

Well, I'm not a vain git, or a person who likes to give the impression that they are perfect, but at least I got three out of five right, which means you got three out of five wrong, and I assume that to be the case as you have not mentioned any of the other three tombs.

I'll post this quote from Naguib Kanawati you linked to.

Quote

Until late in the Fifth Dynasty reign of Djedkare/Isesi, walls of burial chambers were bare of any decoration

We certainly have the burial chamber of Unas decorated at the end of the Fifth Dynasty, and Djedkare was his predecessor, so that puts a decorated burial chamber back by one reign, and a very long way short of the Fourth Dynasty. Your snippy post does not solve the issue of the undecorated burial chamber of G1, or any other Fourth Dynasty pyramid. I'll take it that you do not have any issues with the rest of my post you quoted, that is the bulk of that post.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Wepwawet
typo and re-write

[cladking]

11 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

There is nothing that I can see in the "Book of the Dead" that can be referenced as regards anything in the OK and it's pyramids...

Yet, the PT is understood only in terms of the "book of the dead"!!!  

 

13 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

This conforms to the Old Kingdom even if not verbatim.

How can anything not "conform to the OK" after the OK has been translated and interpreted in terms of later writing?  It's impossible!  Instead of trying to understand the ancient culture in its own terms they are trying to understand it in later terms and they do this because there really ISN'T ANY OK CULTURE EVIDENT.  This is circular reasoning on a Biblical scale.  We are left with "tombs" for which no direct evidence exists that they are tombs at all and builders who said they were not tombs and the "occupants" ascended on the smoke of incense".  

The more it's pointed out that there are no bodies the more strenuously the assumptions are defended.   

[Wepwawet]

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yet, the PT is understood only in terms of the "book of the dead"!!!  

 

How can anything not "conform to the OK" after the OK has been translated and interpreted in terms of later writing?  It's impossible!  Instead of trying to understand the ancient culture in its own terms they are trying to understand it in later terms and they do this because there really ISN'T ANY OK CULTURE EVIDENT.  This is circular reasoning on a Biblical scale.  We are left with "tombs" for which no direct evidence exists that they are tombs at all and builders who said they were not tombs and the "occupants" ascended on the smoke of incense".  

The more it's pointed out that there are no bodies the more strenuously the assumptions are defended.   

No, the PT is not "understood only in terms of the "book of the dead"" Please show your reasons for stating this, perhaps a quote from an Egyptologist stating that they need the "Book of the Dead" to understand the PT.

Even if I make the occasional error, I'm only human and not an Egyptologist, I can at least put together a reasonably detailed post with at least some evidence to back up my words. I opened the way for you to present tangible evidence, something beyond "I say it is so, therefore it is so". Please, stop running from your duty to back up what you say.

[Trelane]

7 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not "underneath Giza" but close.

For a number of reasons, I believe they were removed from their former tombs and placed here:

Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

So if there are bodies there, you're saying it's a tomb then right? I just want to make sure I'm getting you correctly.

[Scott Creighton]

8 minutes ago, Trelane said:

So if there are bodies there, you're saying it's a tomb then right? I just want to make sure I'm getting you correctly.

See my post here.

SC

[Festina]

On 4/26/2020 at 5:43 AM, Scott Creighton said:

That might be because we are constantly being told by Egyptapologists that the pyramid tomb evolved from the mastaba tomb. Well, if that is so, then it is not unreasonable to believe that the AEs might actually have treated them the same way.

Like the mastaba tomb, the so-called pyramid 'tomb' has several chambers. But unlike mastaba tombs none of these other chambers in the pyramid 'tombs' have any decoration. We are expected to believe that the AEs decided it would be better for the deceased king to now have his decorated apartments exterior to the tomb. (Why not just decorate those other apartments inside the pyramid 'tomb'?)

And unlike the sarcophagi in mastaba tombs, the so-called sarcophagi in so-called pyramid 'tombs' are not inscribed.

So sure. That makes a whole bunch of sense.

Indeed they are. And that may simply be because one is a tomb and the other is - something else.

SC

Creative thoughts outside the academic [BOX]. A rare thing in these parts.  

And there is the ‘Magic’ component to ponder upon in the Land of Magic.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[cladking]

13 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

No, the PT is not "understood only in terms of the "book of the dead"" Please show your reasons for stating this, perhaps a quote from an Egyptologist stating that they need the "Book of the Dead" to understand the PT.

Even if I make the occasional error, I'm only human and not an Egyptologist, I can at least put together a reasonably detailed post with at least some evidence to back up my words. I opened the way for you to present tangible evidence, something beyond "I say it is so, therefore it is so". Please, stop running from your duty to back up what you say.

Listen for the wailing and gnashing of teeth since people don't like facts...

These words were carved in stone;

1361b. the double doors of the tomb are open for thee; the double doors of Nut are unfastened for thee.

The king's tomb is in the sky.

 

616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";

616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave";

616f. thou art brought to her, in her name of Maṣṭaba."

These lines COULD NOT be more explicit.  The grave of the king is in the sky and he ascends to it on the smoke of incense.

2053b. They take N. to heaven, to heaven-on the smoke of incense.

365b. he ascends on the smoke (incense) of the great censing.

They said he was cremated in the "iskn";

 

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;

376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.

377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.

377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.

They said these things over and over and over without ever contradicting themselves;

496b. (N.) knows the hall of the royal throne, which is in the midst of the platform of ’iskn, whence thou goest forth,

 

Meanwhile terms used a single time in the PT are translated according to the book of the dead.  This is improper methodology but it applies to EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THE PT.   It is ONLY understood in terms of the "book of the dead". 

Why did they keep saying the same thing over and over but we understand it to mean something else?   

As long as we're talking about where the kings REALLY are it should be mentioned that no evidence exists these were used as tombs.  They weren't called "tombs" and no ever said they were tombs or that there was someone inside of them.  Khufu's brother was buried right next to G1 and on his tomb were inscribed the words that he wanted to be buried next to "Khufu's Horizon".  Not next to Khufu but next to "his" pyramid".  ALL the real evidence says they were not tombs so looking for bodies in them is barking up the wrong tree.   There is extensive and consistent DIRECT evidence they weren't tombs but instead we see the circumstantial evidence and build it into a conviction that there were tombs.   That it is such a conviction is prima facie evidence that it is founded in beliefs and assumption rather than physical evidence.  They won't even do microscopic forensics because they are already convinced it's a tomb.  Despite the lack of physical or direct evidence any great pyramid is a tomb they simply interpret the lack of bodies to the fact they were looted.  Damage becomes "robbers' tunnels" and stone boxes become "sarcophagi".  

They were not tombs.  The builders said the king WAS the pyramid ("he is the pyramid").  Our job may be to figure out what they meant.  

 

 

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

See my post here.

SC

Ok. A simple yes or no would've been easier though. It seems there is a lot of chatter in here that distracts from what was posited by the OP. I humbly recommend for the sake of us less learned individuals in the subject of AE that we stick to the main topic. These varying rabbit holes while interesting and informative, distract from the main topic of discussion for this thread..

[Festina]

Osarseph — Magic — Yahweh — Moses — War, Avarice, Hatred, Pharmeko, Pharmakoi.

From the Matriarchy [Serpent]  to the patriarchy [Eagle] 

Osarseph according to “Wikipedia”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osarseph

Osarseph /ˈoʊzərˌsɛf/ or Osarsiph /ˈoʊzərˌsɪf/ (Koinē Greek: Ὀσαρσίφ) is a legendary figure of Ancient Egypt who has been equated with Moses. His story was recounted by the Ptolemaic Egyptian historian Manetho in his Aigyptiaca (first half of the 3rd century BC); Manetho's work is lost, but the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus quotes extensively from it.

The story depicts Osarseph as a renegade Egyptian priest who leads an army of lepers and other unclean people against a pharaoh named Amenophis; the pharaoh is driven out of the country and the leper-army, in alliance with the Hyksos (whose story is also told by Manetho) ravage Egypt, committing many sacrileges against the gods, before Amenophis returns and expels them. Towards the end of the story Osarseph changes his name to Moses.^[1]

Will The Real Moses Please Stand Up

https://www.haaretz.com/1.5047829

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pharmacy

Yahweh — according to Wikipedia — use discernment. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Yahweh^{[Notes 1]} was the national god of the kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah.^[3] His origins reach at least to the early Iron Age and apparently to the Late Bronze,^[4] and in the oldest biblical literature he is a storm-and-warrior deity^[5] who leads the heavenly armyagainst Israel's enemies.^[6] At that time the Israelites worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal,^[7] but in time El and Yahweh became conflated,^[8] El-linked epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to *Yahweh alone,^[9] and other gods and goddesses such as Baal and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion.^[10]

^{[*Yahweh = ISis— RA— ELohim = Yisrael ]}

From the 9th into the 6th centuries BCE the Yahwistic religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage as Yahweh became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,^[11] and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.^[12][13] By the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.^[13]

pharmacy (n.)

late 14c., "a medicine," from Old French farmacie "a purgative" (13c.), from Medieval Latin pharmacia, from Greek pharmakeia "use of drugs, medicines, potions, or spells; poisoning, witchcraft; remedy, cure," from pharmakeus (fem. pharmakis) "preparer of drugs, poisoner, sorcerer" from pharmakon "drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment." Beekes writes that the original meaning cannot be clearly established, and “The word is clearly Pre-Greek.” 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakos

“A pharmakós (Greek: φαρμακός, plural pharmakoi) in Ancient Greek religion was the ritualistic sacrifice or exile of a human scapegoat or victim.

A slave [think on this word] , a cripple or a criminal [who decides? The Law of Moses] was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis. It was believed that this would bring about purification. On the first day of the Thargelia, a festival of Apollo at Athens, two men, the Pharmakoi, were led out as if to be sacrificed as an expiation.“ [COVID19] 

Hellenistic? Blood atonement? See Leviticus 1 and the bloodthirsty LORD of BBQ.

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/LEV.1.kjv

The Stellar Man, Chapter Two.  I recommend reading chapter on One as well on the subject of Egypt — Message From Isis.  

https://unicusmagazine.com/PDF/John-Baines--The-Stellar-Man-Hermetic-Philosophy-book-2.pdf

Put on your Creative Thinking Hats and understand.  

Good luck on your journey. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Deleted

 

 

 

Same old repeated nonsense. Cladking I know it would be painful for you but can you explain to us how your special made up version of  the AE who you insist have no religion - have a religion?

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Ok. A simple yes or no would've been easier though. It seems there is a lot of chatter in here that distracts from what was posited by the OP. I humbly recommend for the sake of us less learned individuals in the subject of AE that we stick to the main topic. These varying rabbit holes while interesting and informative, distract from the main topic of discussion for this thread..

The OP asks, "If the pyramids are not tombs where are the pharaohs [buried]?"

I gave an answer to that direct question so I hardly think my post was a distraction from the main topic.

SC

[Trelane]

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

The OP asks, "If the pyramids are not tombs where are the pharaohs [buried]?"

I gave an answer to that direct question so I hardly think my post was a distraction from the main topic.

SC

The follow on sentences clearly were not intended for you. My apology for not separating it from my initial response.

[Festina]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Same old repeated nonsense. Cladking I know it would be painful for you but can you explain to us how your special made up version of  the AE who you insist have no religion - have a religion?

 

 

Curious it is that the history of  ancient Egypt is so compelling for some and not so for others  — both the learned and unlearned.  My mother, unlearned, was somewhat obsessed with Egyptian history as am I. 

There is a connection.  The mystery of it all.....from whence did we come? 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[Piney]

3 hours ago, Festina said:

The Stellar Man, Chapter Two.  I recommend reading chapter on One as well on the subject of Egypt — Message From Isis.  

Dario Salas Sommer is neither a historian nor a Egyptologist. He borrowed the name of the eminent Egyptologist John Baines for his fake "institute".

The real Prof. John Baines, formerly of Oxford has absolutely nothing to do with him. 

[Hanslune]

48 minutes ago, Festina said:

Curious it is that the history of  ancient Egypt is so compelling for some and not so for others  — both the learned and unlearned.  My mother, unlearned, was somewhat obsessed with Egyptian history as am I. 

There is a connection.  The mystery of it all.....from whence did we come? 

 

Many do and just as many don't. It is a compelling civilization especially to westerners as it is so 'odd' and different to their own. I came to look into Egypt only at the end of my study of ancient Civilizations because I thought it was too well known - but instead, and like every other ancient civilization I studied - rife with questions, counter theories and mysteries.

[Festina]

38 minutes ago, Piney said:

Dario Salas Sommer is neither a historian nor a Egyptologist. He borrowed the name of the eminent Egyptologist John Baines for his fake "institute".

The real Prof. John Baines, formerly of Oxford has absolutely nothing to do with him. 

Very clever of him I might add.  Did you read the book? If not, don’t bother commenting.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Salas_Sommer

Hermes. Hermeticism. Egypt. 

You still have no definitive answers as to why we are still victims of Yahweh’s patriarchy.  

Thousands of books have been written.  Universities have dedicated so much effort and yet no genuine progress has been made. 

Rinse, Wash, Repeat, ad nauseum — All the while making a profit without any knowledge or wisdom being gained.  Ignorance reigns. 

ACADEMIA — FAILURE.  “But there was money to be made”. And MINDS to be “shrunk”. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[Festina]

@HansluneYes, confusion reigns. 

[Hanslune]

35 minutes ago, Piney said:

Dario Salas Sommer is neither a historian nor a Egyptologist. He borrowed the name of the eminent Egyptologist John Baines for his fake "institute".

The real Prof. John Baines, formerly of Oxford has absolutely nothing to do with him. 

For those interested the book can be read here for free:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/brujos/brujos_hablanE2.htm

From the conclusion I found this part amusing:

 

Quote

Many pseudomasters say that "Teachings must be free." We state something absolutely different:

true Teachings cannot be bought, as they are not for sale. But it is necessary that the student contribute something of value to those who instruct him—either to the school, or to the physical Master. This is an occult law which cannot be violated.

 

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, Festina said:

@HansluneYes, confusion reigns. 

Yes but that is unfortunately the status of almost all organizations in most fields, it is not unique to Egyptology.

[Festina]

7 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

For those interested the book can be read here for free:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/brujos/brujos_hablanE2.htm

From the conclusion I found this part amusing:

 

 

Amusing?  Contributing is not necessarily a monetary thing unless one is obsessed with money. Nor is paying ones “dues”.  Sacrifice of passions. 

Was there coinage in ancient Egypt?  

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[Thanos5150]

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Well, I'm not a vain git, or a person who likes to give the impression that they are perfect,

Yes, that would be foolish of you. 

Quote

....but at least I got three out of five right, which means you got three out of five wrong, and I assume that to be the case as you have not mentioned any of the other three tombs.

Fantastic. So despite the fact I just showed you how you got the other two completely wrong, using among others your own sources, instead of making the effort to make sure you are actually not wrong again you just assume you are somehow still right and I am wrong about the other three for no other reason than I did not take the time to explain why you are wrong despite my even asking you the question: "Should I keep going...?"  Uhh.... Its like watching a car fall off a cliff and seeing survivors getting out of the wreckage only to watch the car explode into flames.  And ironically you quote one of the sources I gave you below so not only are you banking on me being wrong, despite your spectacular failure, but the source as well. This is not going to end well. 

You: "Senedjemib Inti G2370 has only a decorated chapel Senedjemib Inti"

Wrong. THE SENEDJEMIB COMPLEX, PART 1.(p79-80); "The east wall of the [burial] chamber north of the entrance was plastered and painted in black with a compartment offering list (pl. 53a–b; fig. 71)." You can make the effort to red the offering list if you like. 

You: "Seshemnefer [IV] has only a decorated chapel Seshemnefer"

Wrong. From the source I provided: 

"Of the five above mentioned tombs, three represented human figures in their burial chambers (Kaemankh, Rawer III and Kakherptah/Fetekti), while the 'other two only inscribed an offering list (Senedjemib /Inti and Seshemnefer IV)."

"The walls of the other two burial chambers in this group (Senedjemib/Inti and Seshemnefer IV) appear to have been less dressed before receiving the plaster and painting."

You: "Ra-wer III has only a decorated chapel Ra-wer III"

Wrong. As we shall see, spectacularly wrong. From the same source I cite above:

"Of the five above mentioned tombs, three represented human figures in their burial chambers (Kaemankh, Rawer III and Kakherptah/Fetekti), while the 'other two only inscribed an offering list (Senedjemib /Inti and Seshemnefer IV)." 

"It is possible that the burial chamber of Rawer III contained a similar repertoire of scenes, but these are very poorly preserved. The remaining scenes, however, show offering bearers, offering table and butchers at work."

"No photographs of Rawer Ill's walls are available, but the excavator's description suggests that they were prepared in the same way as that used in Kaemankh's burial chamber. He writes 'its walls are dressed to an almost incredible smoothness in order to receive the painted scenes with which they are decorated'."

So for those keeping score at home this makes 5 out of 5 you are wrong. What a maroon.  

And ironically, the source you cite as "proof" Rawer III does not have a decorated burial chamber makes no mention of the burial chamber at all and is specifically referring to a notable inscription found on a stela in his serdab with the paper's stated intention to review this specific inscription.  And here is the real kicker: this is not even Rawer III but Rawer dated to the first half of the 5th Dynasty attributed to the reign of either Neferkare or Sahure. Your source even tells you this on the very first page.  WTF? Every single source you cite your got completely wrong as if you didn't actually read a word it said or make any effort to actually understand it. But somehow this equates to you "still" are somehow "right" and I am wrong? And this does what to your credibility with the rest of your bluster? Pfft. It never ceases to amaze me how pervasive this behavior is none more so with those think they are the most qualified to tell others what is what. 
 

Quote

I'll post this quote from Naguib Kanawati you linked to.

Until late in the Fifth Dynasty reign of Djedkare/Isesi, walls of burial chambers were bare of any decoration

Or you could just quote me when I said to you the first time in post #139: "And just an FYI, there is a gaggle of 5th Dynasty tombs at Giza with decorated burial chambers whose date is in question though commonly thought most date to to the reign of Djedkare/lsesi who was active at Giza".  

Quote

We certainly have the burial chamber of Unas decorated at the end of the Fifth Dynasty, and Djedkare was his predecessor, so that puts a decorated burial chamber back by one reign, and a very long way short of the Fourth Dynasty. Your snippy post does not solve the issue of the undecorated burial chamber of G1, or any other Fourth Dynasty pyramid.

You keep beating the same strawman to death banging on about burial chambers, which I have not disputed, no matter how many times I respond about how pyramids are more than just the burial chambers. 

Quote

I'll take it that you do not have any issues with the rest of my post you quoted, that is the bulk of that post.

Or maybe you have wasted enough of my time as it is and are not worth the effort. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Piney]

21 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

From the conclusion I found this part amusing:

He doesn't understand human genetics or biology, I give him that,

This was a giggle. Especially since Koot Humi was a Theosophist fabrication and the only historical Jesus was a gibbering idiot.

Quote

If we had the opportunity to meet and speak to a Stellar Man, we probably would not find him appreciably different from any other man. There is nothing more laughable than the physical appearance that some mystics pretend to find in the great initiates. Looking at pictures of legendary Masters such as Jesus, Koot Humi, Morya, Serapis Bey, or others, some people expect to see extraordinary physical beauty as if the Masters were angels incarnate.

 

[Festina]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

He doesn't understand human genetics or biology, I give him that,

This was a giggle. Especially since Koot Humi was a Theosophist fabrication and the only historical Jesus was a gibbering idiot.

 

Baines knew who the historical “Jesus” /“Paul” was and he was a Pythagorean. However, speaking to a Judeo-Christian audience he felt he needed to tell a ‘white’ lie.  Message received —  albeit convoluted. As it goes.  

‘Jesus’  was a magician. One of the Magi so called.  

 

Did you read the first two chapters? 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Festina

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Festina said:

‘Jesus’  was a magician.  

Jesus was a doomsday prophet who was killed with a rock. Paul of Tarsus, like Augustine of Hippo wanted to be him and put words in his mouth.