Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Osiris The Lord: Out of Egypt
http://www.truthbeknown.com/osiris.htm

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:42 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Hello all.

I’m an independent researcher of Egypt and I took the time to read the article linked here by Acharya S. Before I comment I would like to say that my interest in Egypt has nothing to do with linking it to Christianity however I do find the links interesting and it’s something I do find important enough to investigate. I’ve engaged in plenty of debates in the past and because of my interest in Egypt, and it’s relation to western society in general, (not just Christianity) Acharya’s name invariably comes up.

As much as I’d like to believe the strong link between Christianity and the Egyptian culture, through my studies, and through the critics of Acharya, I find some of the information in this article questionable and rushed. My post here is in no way an attack, just a desire for clarification and further substantiation.

One of the most glaring problems with the article I noticed right away was this statement.

Quote:
In spite of the rampant evemerism regarding the Osirian earth-wandering legend, Osiris is essentially the sun, regularly identified as such in the Egyptian Bible, the Book of the Dead.


The Book of Going Forth by Day is not an “Egyptian Bible” by any means. My point is not to nitpick and be meticulous (I actually get annoyed by people who do this). However my point is to raise the contentions of Acharya’s critics to consciousness. While I see absolutely nothing wrong with relating the Book of Going forth by Day to the Old or New Testament as a sorta of “spiritual collection,” to the ignorant, saying that the Book of Going forth by Day is an Egyptian Bible is misleading. If you’re making a liberal comparison, you should state that you are. Otherwise people are going to misinterpret your thoughts, and possibly conceive of you as “lying” and thus contrive some conspiracy in their minds that you’re evil. I am not saying that a reaction like this is justified, but the vast majorities of people are not critical thinkers and will interpret such a statement in a face level value. An estimated 70% of the US population are the MBTI sensor type, which is prone to superficial, literal interpretations. (Kroger & Thuesen, Type Talk, p28). Therefore by saying “Egyptian Bible” you are likely to get them to think something along the lines of:

1. The Egyptians where orthodox. (Traditional? Yes. Orthodox? No.)
2. The Book of Going for by Day was the “law” of belief.
3. The Book of Going for by Day depicted historical events.

And none of them are true.

Again, I don’t see anything wrong with making such a liberal comparison and I’m not saying that such a comparison was what you were implying. However, that doesn’t stop people from inferring it from reading your article. My concern is non-liberal, literal minded people are most definitely not going to take you seriously when you make comparisons like this. And one of the reasons people conceive of you as “lying” or “amateurish” is these leaps in comparisons. Therefore, your voice is not heard by many.

Osiris is also not “essentially the sun.” If Osiris was essentially the sun, then why would Ra be the Sun as well? Why would Horus be the sun as well? Did they think that all three where “essentially the sun?” Not exactly. The problem is a category issue that is result of how we think versus how they thought. Budge is outdated and problematic. Appealing to an authority of Budge (that he doesn’t have) is not a smart move for more controversial points. Your critics, along with modern professional Egyptologists will eat you alive for this. I am not saying that budge is worthless, far from it actually. I’m saying if you’re going to make a point that people will violently object too (it brings the solar connection to Jesus closer), avoid Budge.

Essentially, all Egyptian gods are deified concepts/principles. The physical is irrelevant. The physical simply serves as a mental stimulus to invoke “the perfect thoughts” as the Egyptians were realist about ideas. Basically, the Sun is a sign of many gods given the context of its use as an image. Osiris, along with every Egyptian god is an evolving deified principle which sometimes, yes, the Sun served as the material object to invoke the “right thoughts.” The Egyptians didn’t think that the sun was Osiris anymore than a Christian thinks a cross in a cathedral is Jesus.

For example, the following are references in Ani’s Book of Coming Forth by Day.

Reference to Re (Ra)

Quote:
Chapter for being in the presence of Re

I am that Re who shines in the night. As for anyone who is in his suite or who lives in the suite to Thoth, he will give appearance in glory to this Horus in the night and joy to me, because I am one of these, and my enemies will be driven off from Entourage; I am a follower of Re who has received his firmament. I have travelled in the air, I have summoned this Great Goddess, I have adorned the god of Authority, I have passed by that Destructive One who is in the road to Re, and it is well with me. I have reached this Old One who is at the limits of the horizon…
Primary Source: The Papyrus of Ani; James Wiserman, 1998. p118.

Clearly Re is serving as the sun. Now here is another reference to Osiris this time.

Quote:
Chapter for four torches for the ceremonies which are carried out for a spirit

The touch comes to your Ka (personality/essences), O Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners, and the touch comes to your Ka, O N. There comes he who promises the night after the day; there come the two sisters of Re; there comes she who was manifested in Abydos, for I cause it to come, even that Eye of Horus which was foretold before, O Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners. It is safe in your outer chamber, having appeared on your brow, for it was foretold before you, O N, and it is safe on your brow.
Primary Source: The Papyrus of Ani; James Wiserman, 1998. p119.

Osiris, in this context, is clearly an interwoven state of consciousness that the Egyptians identified with the cosmos and its elements (like the sun, bringing light).

This leads me to my next concern, how you’re conceiving of their gods. Specifically you mention that Osiris was believed to have actually walked the earth. Here is my issue, I believe you’re not making the right distinction between the god (deified principle) Osiris and how it manifested physically (Horus) in the material world. I believe the context you’re speaking in is roughly New Kingdom and later as you make the statement “Osiris is the greatest of God” and you also mention the Israelis. Here are the problems:

1. To the “master of secrets, perfects, or initiates of the mysteries” Osiris was never thought to have been physically manifested in the world. They distinctly thought of their gods existing in sorta of spiritual realm that could be accessed by dreams, visions, death, etc. The physical manifestation of Osiris is Horus. Osiris walked the earth all the time as Horus’ embodiment. The Egyptians literally address the pharos as “the embodiment.” The incarnations of Horus to Osiris were cyclonic as their time was conceived of this way.

2. You need to further substantiate the earth wandering legend. I actually find this legend extremely probable for various reasons (like their concept of marking time in relation to the Ka) however I have never seen any Egyptian primary source that confirms that the Egyptian people thought that Osiris physically walked the earth. If this is true then they definitely were common people and this should be clarified as well.

I have many more comments and concerns that can be raised later on in the discussion as the prior discussion was simply an opener. I also just want to reiterate that I am not attacking or degrading your work. I am simply pointing out how people are going to perceive your work. The pious will find each and every meticulous detail that they can, misperceive them as grossly erroneous, and therefore not hear your message.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Welcome H. M. Trismegistus - thanks for your thoughts.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I’m an independent researcher of Egypt"

Excellent! Do you have any specific qualifications or credentials in this field of study?

Am I to assume you haven't yet read "Christ Conspiracy" or "Suns of God"? There are obviously more details in the books to help with clarifications. Keep in mind that that article is excerpted from "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" (2004).
Quote:
Trismegistus "The Book of Going Forth by Day is not an “Egyptian Bible” by any means."

Well, thanks for bringing that up - any collection of books could be called a bible. The word "bible" does not belong to Judaeo-Christianity. The word bible comes from the Greek term biblia and simply means "book."
Quote:
Bible: "A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bible

The precedent didn't begin with Acharya. On Google books alone there are over 300 references to the Egyptian bible So, at the end of the day, it's really not misleading in any way at all.
Quote:
Trismegistus "Osiris is also not “essentially the sun.” If Osiris was essentially the sun, then why would Ra be the Sun as well? Why would Horus be the sun as well? Did they think that all three where “essentially the sun?” Not exactly. The problem is a category issue that is result of how we think versus how they thought."

This is a common misunderstanding with folks trying to understand the Egyptian gods. Few understand how the Egyptians viewed their gods - folks simply don't realize how interchangeable they are and what they're representing or symbolizing, in this case, the sun. For example, Horus is the sun at sunrise until 12 noon when the sun is at its "most high" and becomes Ra. At 6 Ra becomes Atum until mid-night when Atum becomes Osiris the god of the underworld (night). And then, Osiris becomes Horus in the morning to start all over again.

From the article
Quote:
"Although Ra is the "chief" sun god, in the Egyptian pantheon sun gods "come before us in wild confusion," and numerous others possess solar attributes. In the "British Museum Papyrus" of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, parts of which may date to 7,000 years ago, the God Sun Ra is called, "the lord of heaven, the lord of earth, the king of righteousness, the lord of eternity, the prince of everlasting, ruler of gods all, god of life, maker of eternity, creator of heaven." The bulk of these epithets were later used to describe the Christian solar logos, Jesus. That the rest of the Egyptian pantheon were all forms of Ra or the sun means that they shared at least some of these divine attributes as well. A number of these gods were "sons of Ra," regarding whom Kuhn states: "In Egyptian scriptures the twelve sons of Ra (the twelve sons of Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel) were called the 'twelve saviors of the treasure of light.'"

Quote:
Trismegistus "Budge is outdated and problematic.....Your critics, along with modern professional Egyptologists will eat you alive for this."

Does this comment come from your own study of Budge or from the opinion of others going around the net who may or may not necessarily know about Budge's works at all? The theistic critics are always going to hate the exposure that their religions origins are rooted in natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars etc.

You'd be surprised - Sir E.A. Wallis Budge was the Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum and a professed Christian, is far better than most realize. Egyptologists are familiar with Budge due to his book "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" but rarely study his works in depth. When people call Budges work "outdated" they need to be very specific because his entire body of work is NOT outdated, however, since he wrote in the late 19th & early 20th centuries some of his methods would be considered outdated in our modern times 100 years later - obviously. Egyptologists have a newer method of transliteration, for example. So, the word "outdated" needs to be clarified in a case such as this. Some misuse the word "outdated" in cases such as these to mean something completely different from what is intended - such as the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 and Anti-Acharya cult. They attack his credibility and try to claim his entire body of work is "outdated" - simply false.

Meanwhile, no study of the comparisons between Egypt & Christian religions would be complete without Budge and others like William R. Cooper (1843-1878), a lawyer and Egyptologist and Gerald Massey - most Egyptologists have no idea who Massey even is.
Quote:
"I am aware of the debate concerning Dr. Budge's work, a controversy that some have suggested represents a form of rivalry not uncommon in the academic world or in the world at large. I personally have found nothing egregious about his discussion of the Egyptian religion in English, although I cannot vouch for everything in his hieroglyphic dictionaries, for instance, which are considered "outdated" in their system of transliteration but which nevertheless appear to be sound overall. (Allen, J., TAEPT, 13) Nor can Budge be criticized for venturing what turned out to be certain flawed dates of pharaohs and texts; in consideration of the more limited knowledge of those particular subjects at the time, in general Budge did extremely well in his estimations. The fact remains that Budge was extremely talented linguistically, as well as extraordinarily well educated and experienced as to Egyptian antiquities, culture, religion and language. He also knew his own Christian faith very well, as evidenced by his remarks thereupon. In this present work, I have used the translations of not only Budge but also others, such as Renouf, Mercer, Faulkner, Parker and Allen. I also provide Budge's assessment of Egyptian religion, including some linguistic interpretation, but no subject that would become "obsolete" within the past decades since his passing. Moreover, in comparing the older and newer editions of Egyptian texts, I am not at all convinced that the latter are superior purely in terms of translation. Perhaps Budge is unpalatable to some because he states that an investigation of the Egyptian religion's influences upon Christianity would fill "a comparatively large volume!" (TGE, I, xvi)"

- Footnote from page 3 of The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1

Quote:
Trismegistus "all Egyptian gods are deified concepts/principles. The physical is irrelevant."

While the Egyptian gods are deified concepts and principles, I would completely disagree that the physical is irrelevant. That's not a definitive statement about the Egyptian religion at all - more of a subjective view which isn't accurate. The Egyptians venerated the sun for a variety of reasons - they saw the light (physical), they felt the warmth (physical), and they witnessed the effects of the power of the sun all around them in the form of photosynthesis (physical). The Egyptians were completely obsessed with the physical which is why they mummified their dead to prepare for resurrection and built those huge wonders of the world called pyramids as their tombs / resurrection machines. The Egyptians saw Osiris as the sun, as is obvious from practically every page of their funerary literature.

"Ruling over the universe by day, the Sun was identified with Horus, the god of kingship; at sunset he was seen as Atum, the oldest of all gods. The Sun's daily movement through the sky was viewed as a journey from birth to death, and his rebirth at dawn was made possible through Osiris, the force of new life....

"...In the middle of the night the Sun merged with Osiris's body; through this union, the Sun received the power of new life while Osiris was reborn in the Sun." -- Dr. James P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (8)

The fact will remain that numerous gods in the Egyptian pantheon were perceived as solar in nature, or SUN GODS, including Isis in her earlier manifestation.

You seem to want to get into a semantic discussion of mysticism that is irrelevant to what the Egyptians themselves perceived but appears to be a projection of your own mystical endeavors, which sound quite a bit like Theosophy. Acharya does not project Theosophical interpretations into her assessment of the Egyptian religion.
Quote:
Trismegistus "The physical manifestation of Osiris is Horus."

Agreed - the king/pharaoh is Horus, Osiris's resurrection on Earth.

So too, however, was Osiris's passion celebrated every year, during which his physical body was sought. Osiris's relics were said to be in various places throughout Egypt, as were his tombs - all signs of a belief in a PHYSICAL god who walked the earth. Diodorus speaks of Osiris as a "real person," reflecting the beliefs, no doubt, of many millions of AVERAGE Egyptians, not the “master of secrets, perfects, or initiates of the mysteries.” There were some half a BILLION followers of the Egyptian religion, and very few of them were "master of secrets," etc.
Quote:
Trismegistus "You need to further substantiate the earth wandering legend."

Diodorus Siculus, Greek Historian (c. 90-21 BCE) discussed Osiris as a mortal walking the earth - he was repeating long-held Egyptian beliefs.

Acharya substantiates every major claim and most minor ones with a significant amount of citation. You would actually need to read her fuller works to know that.
Quote:
Trismegistus "I am simply pointing out how people are going to perceive your work."

Thank you for your concern. Many thousands of people perceive Acharya's work in the straightforward, nonmystical and uncomplicated manner in which it is intended. No reading into it is necessary, nor is worrying excessively about what "the pious" will find in it.

I hope all of this information was helpful.

You may enjoy Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection It will be around 600 pages and contains nearly 2,400 footnotes/citations, utilizing over 900 sources that include books by respected publishers and peer-reviewed journals. There will also be dozens of illustrations.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:25 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
"The Book of Going Forth by Day is not an “Egyptian Bible” by any means."


Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Well, thanks for bringing that up - any collection of books could be called a bible. The word "bible" does not belong to Judaeo-Christianity. The word bible comes from the Greek term biblia and simply means "book."

Quote:

Bible: "A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bible

The precedent didn't begin with Acharya. On Google books alone there are over 300 references to the Egyptian bible So, at the end of the day, it's really not misleading in any way at all.


H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
I have many more comments and concerns that can be raised later on in the discussion as the prior discussion was simply an opener.


Not to be offending in any way, but it looks like your "opener" didn't really go over so well after all.

Now are your deeper concerns about Acharya's work a little more thought out or should we expect more of the same?

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:12 am 
Offline
Hermes

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:21 am
Posts: 150
Location: Italy
I really want to read the next Acharya's book! It should be amazing! :D

It appears that even freemasons, that even today practice the osiridian mysteries in their ceremonies, have some problem with the identity of Osiris:

The final and most important area for Pike was that of the symbolism of the legend of Osiris and Isis, to which Pike believed was the basis for the story of Hiram and the legend of the third degree. This legend, which we will briefly explore, is as follows: Osiris, ancient King of Egypt, was the sun and Isis, his wife and sister, the moon. Typhon, his jealous
brother, plots to kill Osiris and take the throne and his wife. Typhon traps Osiris in a chest and throws it into the Nile, drowning Osiris. Isis searches and finds the body, but it is stolen by Typhon who cuts it into 14 pieces and throws them into the Nile. Isis searches again but finds only one part, which she fashions, a substitute. By a mystical union Isis and Osiris have a son, Horus, who defeats Typohn in battle and then assumes his father’s earthly kingdom. Osiris is raised and given sovereignty over the underworld.
Pike not only finds the legend of Isis and Osiris to be both a parallel and source for the Hiramic legend, he also finds in this myth the symbolic meaning of the Master Mason symbol of the weeping virgin when he writes, “Blue masonry, ignorant of its import, still retains among its emblems one of a woman weeping over a broken column, holding in her hand a branch of acacia…while Time we are told stands behind her combing out the ringlets of her hair…this representation of Isis, weeping at Byblos, over the column torn from the palace of the king, that contained the body of Osiris, while Horus, the god of time, pours ambrosia on her hair (p.379).” Here Pike is a bit inconsistent, for in another work he writes that the image of Time combing the ringlets of a woman’s hair, “…is not a symbol of any thing moral, philosophical, or spiritual”. To further cement in Pike’s mind the source of Egypt in the legend of the 3rd degree, he shows a hieroglyphic picture of a lion raising Osiris by the Lion’s grip (p. 80), claiming this as the source of the Lion’s Grip in the 3rd degree. I am sure Pike had in mind a portion of the Egyptian Pyramid Text that describes the raising of Osiris as we read, “Thereupon the faithful son (Horus) went in solemn procession to the grave of his father (Osiris), opened it, and called upon Osiris to rise: Stand up! Thou shalt not end, thou shalt not perish!; But death was deaf. Here the Pyramid Texts recite the mortuary ritual, with its hymns and chants; but in vain. At length Osiris awakes, weary and feeble, and by the aid of the strong grip of the lion-god he gains control of his body, and is lifted from death to life. Thereafter, by virtue of his victory over death, Osiris becomes Lord of the Land of Death, his scepter an Ank Cross, his throne a Square.

To Pike there was no doubt of the relationship between the sun, moon and master of the lodge to that of Osiris, Isis and Thoth (called by the Greeks Hermes) and the relationship this has to that of Alchemy. Osiris, the sun, Pike claimed was the all Seeing Eye in our lodges (p. 477). The only problem is, Osiris is not, nor ever was, the sun god of Egypt, that role was played by the god Ra (or Re). Pike utilized the teachings of ancient sources, chiefly as told by Plutarch, who had misunderstood the Egyptian deity hierarchy. We now understand that Osiris is connected with the moon, and not the sun. We should not fault Pike to much, for the understanding of hieroglyphics and that of Egyptology in general was still in its infancy during Pike’s time, the Rosetta stone itself only recently having been deciphered. We should further remember that Bro. Pike wrote to primarily a Masonic audience. His writings were not subject to peer review nor read by other scientists. This allowed errors of understanding on Pike’s part to be left uncorrected. Certainly this corrected understanding puts many of Pike’s comparisons and Alchemical descriptions of Osiris and Isis in a very tenuous position to say the least (to those who familiar with Alchemy you will understand the importance of the relationship between the sun and the moon that Pike was incorrectly referring to regarding Osiris and Isis).


http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/albert_pike.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."

- Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian,

* source: "The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus, / "Suns of God" 89

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Quote:
"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."

- Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian


Quote:
The final and most important area for Pike was that of the symbolism of the legend of Osiris and Isis, to which Pike believed was the basis for the story of Hiram and the legend of the third degree. This legend, which we will briefly explore, is as follows: Osiris, ancient King of Egypt, was the sun and Isis, his wife and sister, the moon


So far it looks as if Osiris was considered to represent the sun as of the 1st century BCE. Pike (33 degree Freemason) seemed to agree.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:04 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
Well that was interesting. I don't have a copy of Acharya's latest book yet, but I would like to hear his opinion on Tom Harpur's conclusion about Osiris/Horus. Since I do have that book, I can work with something, besides Acharya's Suns of God and Christ Con. My hands are sort of tied concerning any response to comments on her book Out of Egypt. Can't say much with just reading an excerpt of her newest book or a web article related to it.

I think it is a big jump to critic a web article in reference to a book before actually reading the book. A web article condenses too much to be a good means of judging a book. It would be more fair, if you have read it, to critic Tom Harpur's book, before critiquing a book that is not yet available to everyone. Last I checked, people could only pre-order the book at this time, so I doubt anyone, except maybe Freethinka, have read any of the book itself.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:27 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Quote:
Suns of God, P. 350

"Buddha's identifcation with the moon is the same as the solar Osiris's relationship to the moon, reflecting the lunar cult stage of astrotheology, which dates back millenia and in many places predated the solar cult. Again, in the Buddha myth appears astromythology commonly applicable to both the sun and moon."



This is the same for Yahweh as Acharya points out earlier in "Sons of God". Even Yahweh had lunar aspects left over from earlier cult times even though his solar cult aspects where emphasized as the religion progressed. So in the case of Yahweh, Osiris, and the Buddha, it appears that both lunar and solar symbolism was applied.

And in the case of Osiris it appears that to the ancients he represented the sun as it burrows through the underworld of the earth every night (midnight through sunrise), when the suns light is reflected off of the moon causing the monthly moon phases.

So what I'm getting out of this so far is that Osiris is solar even though one can find lunar aspects associated with him that are left over from earlier times, but that doesn't make Osiris any less solar in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
That's right Tat - even the ancients knew that the light coming from the moon was actually being reflected from the sun. That's why we have the soli-lunar interchangeability at play here.

That fact is missed by most folks who simply don't have that depth of knowledge. They often get confused on the soli-lunar interchangeability by not making the connections.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:32 am
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
You know, I think I'm beginning to understand why Islam is lunar. If I remember correctly, Muhammad and his group moved around mostly at night, even hid in the shadows, hid their women under black sheets, etc etc.

Like the Buddha's birth story, which is unarguably celestrial, the stories of Muhammad actually took place in the night sky. Doesn't make the disgusting book more appealing, but that would explain why it is lunar.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:58 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
That's right Tat - even the ancients knew that the light coming from the moon was actually being reflected from the sun. That's why we have the soli-lunar interchangeability at play here.

That fact is missed by most folks who simply don't have that depth of knowledge. They often get confused on the soli-lunar interchangeability by not making the connections.


They seem to get stuck thinking that it's a choose one or the other situation when it really isn't. At least not according to the broader understanding of how the solar gods represent the sun at different parts of the day and night.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:58 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Quote:
Excellent! Do you have any specific qualifications or credentials in this field of study?

Am I to assume you haven't yet read "Christ Conspiracy" or "Suns of God"? There are obviously more details in the books to help with clarifications. Keep in mind that that article is excerpted from "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" (2004).


As I’ve said I study it independently (for several years now). I study Egypt from a diverse range of professional perspectives. These perspectives includes all…

The Oxford Crowd: Pinch, Silverman, Naydler, etc.

The Afrocentric Crowd: Sertima, Diop, Rashidi, etc.

The “fringe” Crowd: Osman, Gadalla, etc.

And the “old school” Crowd: Budge, Lockyer, etc.

Of course there’s more but those immediately come to mind.

And you are right; I have not read the Christ Conspiracy or Suns of Gods. I currently don’t plan to either. It’s not that I think anything is wrong with the books. I’m sure they’re very goods reads. It’s that the pious have already had their hands in tearing her works apart. I simply don’t believe intimately knowing her books are going to correct this problem. My approach is to thoroughly understand Egypt independent of unestablished sources that will get vast majority of people to turn their heads. The truth is not nearly as important as what people believe, through perception, what the truth is. Thus I believe the way to let Egypt’s voice be heard is thoroughly and scholastically exam Egypt and let the links to the western society (and Western Theology) speak for its self. This can be done without the sensational approach, and it will take far more seriously without it.

Quote:
Well, thanks for bringing that up - any collection of books could be called a bible. The word "bible" does not belong to Judaeo-Christianity. The word bible comes from the Greek term biblia and simply means "book."


Again my problem is not really that comparison was made. The concern is more or less how the comparison is going to effect people’s interpretation of what the Book of Going Forth by Day is. Can you honestly say that the ignorant (Christian or not) will not get the wrong idea? We have to remember that the bible is not just a “book” to many Christians. It is the law, it is the word, and it is the universal truth. It’s not wise of you to believe that those emotional connotations are not (or should not) play a role in their interpretation of the comparison. And to those who are not Christian, the bible still unconsciously contains connotations of “the ultimate law or authority” as can be demonstrated by the many non-theological books using the word as a sort of marketing catch phrase. (like the Linux Bible).

Quote:
The precedent didn't begin with Acharya. On Google books alone there are over 300 references to the Egyptian bible So, at the end of the day, it's really not misleading in any way at all.


I never thought that Acharya started it; I just want to make that clear. I don’t find the listings on Google books to be surprising at all. Here’s the problem, the Book of Going Forth by Day was once thought of as an “Egyptian Bible” even by scholars and it still remains that way in the pop culture of many. I believe it began in the middle ages if my memory serves me right. During this time we couldn’t it. During this time we couldn’t read the book and thus the notion of this was purely speculative and inaccurate. After the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, however, we eventually unlocked the key to actually reading it. Egyptology thus became a serious subject and left the realm of speculation. Subsequently scholars began to realize that its use and purpose is very dissimilar than the Old or New Testament. Calling it a “bible” gives the pious valid reason to think Acharya’s scholarship is Ad hoc and superficial in this instance.

Your number of 300 books does not impress me. I find it probable that many of those books are using either 1) outdated popular culture notions 2) liberal comparisons. No serious Egyptologist believes the Book of Going Forth by Day is, in substances, comparable to the bible. If you find one that does, I will concede your point. But I have read the works of many and most will tell you what I just did. Again it’s not that I find that making the liberal comparison is wrong. Simply, it would do her own scholarship justice if she explains the things I just did. The pious will most definitely interpret her intentions as some evil anti-god attack. Their opinions, as ridiculous as it may be, are still important as for us all to unite in understanding of one another, despite our differences. You patronizing them and blowing them off as “not important” is at best self-severing and does society no justice at all.

My only criticism of Achayra was that she explains what I have a little further so that the pious don’t have valid reasons to misinterpret her and thus delude themselves in discrediting the connection between Egypt and the West.

Quote:
This is a common misunderstanding with folks trying to understand the Egyptian gods. Few understand how the Egyptians viewed their gods - folks simply don't realize how interchangeable they are and what they're representing or symbolizing, in this case, the sun. For example, Horus is the sun at sunrise until 12 noon when the sun is at its "most high" and becomes Ra. At 6 Ra becomes Atum until mid-night when Atum becomes Osiris the god of the underworld (night). And then, Osiris becomes Horus in the morning to start all over again.


I’m really glad you seem to truly understand them! Unfortunately most don’t however. I find it effective to explain to people that their gods are divine principles, and thus why they can take so many (seemingly) contradictory roles.

Quote:
Does this comment come from your own study of Budge or from the opinion of others going around the net who may or may not necessarily know about Budge's works at all? The theistic critics are always going to hate the exposure that their religions origins are rooted in natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars etc.


It comes from professional, peer reviewed, doctors of Egyptology. The first one that comes to mind is Dr. Ogden Goelet, professor of eastern studies. He advises James Wasserman to not use Budges translations in the 1998 publication of the Book of Going Forth by Day because they use a new system of translations. Read the Forward.

http://www.amazon.com/Egyptian-Book-Dea ... 16&sr=11-1

This book was used in the History Channel’s 2006 documentary. It is top-notch stuff. If you would like to provide me with an Egyptologist that fundamentally relies on Budge, I would love to see who that person is. This isn’t to say that Acharya does, I’m only saying that for the more controversial things Budge should be avoided. With all the advancements in modern Egyptology, there is little need to use, solely, Budge for a point.


Quote:
You'd be surprised - Sir E.A. Wallis Budge was the Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum and a professed Christian, is far better than most realize. Egyptologists are familiar with Budge due to his book "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" but rarely study his works in depth. When people call Budges work "outdated" they need to be very specific because his entire body of work is NOT outdated, however, since he wrote in the late 19th & early 20th centuries some of his methods would be considered outdated in our modern times 100 years later - obviously. Egyptologists have a newer method of transliteration, for example. So, the word "outdated" needs to be clarified in a case such as this. Some misuse the word "outdated" in cases such as these to mean something completely different from what is intended - such as the Anti-Zeitgeist part 1 and Anti-Acharya cult. They attack his credibility and try to claim his entire body of work is "outdated" - simply false.


I know who Budge is and I know his story very well. I am not attacking Budge and I’m not claiming all of his work is outdated, just for the record. In fact I’ve used Budge before to defend the Mary thing. However when I did this I used him along with modern information to support the claim. What I’m saying is this; Acharya should not use Budge as a fundamental source for more controversial points. (the nature of Sun ideology) We simply have more information about Egypt available to use now. In the 1800s Egyptology was in its infancy. We have a far better understanding of them now. It’s not exactly hard to get modern scholars that cover the sun in Egypt.

Quote:
Meanwhile, no study of the comparisons between Egypt & Christian religions would be complete without Budge and others like William R. Cooper (1843-1878), a lawyer and Egyptologist and Gerald Massey - most Egyptologists have no idea who Massey even is.


Agreed.

Quote:
While the Egyptian gods are deified concepts and principles, I would completely disagree that the physical is irrelevant. That's not a definitive statement about the Egyptian religion at all - more of a subjective view which isn't accurate. The Egyptians venerated the sun for a variety of reasons - they saw the light (physical), they felt the warmth (physical), and they witnessed the effects of the power of the sun all around them in the form of photosynthesis (physical). The Egyptians were completely obsessed with the physical which is why they mummified their dead to prepare for resurrection and built those huge wonders of the world called pyramids as their tombs / resurrection machines. The Egyptians saw Osiris as the sun, as is obvious from practically every page of their funerary literature.


They didn’t think Osiris was, literally, the sun. That was my point. And that’s why I said the physical is irrelevant. You surely took my words a little out of context. They thought the gods actually lived in an entirely different realm. This is evident and consistent in all Egyptian texts as they believe they would actually encounter the gods in death (which they conceived as an alternate consciousness). Physical objects were manifestations of the gods; they are in lower order of necessity. The light is so important because it invoked the “proper thoughts and feeling” of the divine substances, which were conceived of as innate abstractions. They were indeed realist about these abstract objects such as ideas and feelings so they spoke in a realistic manner about them. They had to be “perfected” through activating the ka (heka).

Quote:
He gave birth to the gods,
be made the cities,
be established the provincial divisions,
he put the gods in their places of worship,
be fixed their offerings,
be established their shrines.
He made their bodies according to the wishes of their hearts.
And so the gods entered into their bodies
of every kind of wood,
of every kind of stone,
of every kind of clay,
of every kind of thing which grows upon him,
In which they have taken form.

Primary Source: Shabaka Text, 59-61.

This passage clearly shows the gods manifesting from the divine substances (nTr, nTrw – often transliterated as neter, or netjer) into physical forms. The priest used the power of heka (magic) to channel the divine substances (principles) by activating a persons essence, which is known as the ka. The gods are clearly innate abstractions, that must be perfected. A primary example of this is when Auset creates Horus. If you are as familiar with Budge as you claim to be then surely you will recall that Auset’s speech was “perfected.”

Thus no god is thus literally a physical object, neither is Osiris. They only serve as “images” for the innate. The Egyptians orientation was inner, not outer.

Quote:
One of the consequences of the Egyptians’ belief that their language was a divine gift was a conviction that a similarity between words did not arise accidentally, but instead reflected an actual relationship which the god themselves had intended to be discovered by people. Paronomasia was especially important as a means of revealing the hidden connection between this world and the next.
Goelet, BD, p146

Emphasis added by me. Dr. Goelet clearly supports my point of view as well. The “god” is an idea whereas physical sensory data (sounds, feeling of warmth, etc) invokes the god, literally. It is the Egyptians task to become intimate with the gods, through the physical. This is different from them actually thinking they are the physical. Sensory data such as images, sounds, feelings, etc, are all channels to invoke the god, which is literally an abstraction.

You can’t expect people to know things like this. Therefore saying Osiris is essentially the sun will likely get people to think that the Egyptians thought Osiris was literally the sun, which isn’t true. Any Egyptians that did, did not reflect the views of the Priesthood. This is like a future culture using the opinions of some John Does to represent our culture’s entire take on Christianity. It’s asinine.

Quote:
"Ruling over the universe by day, the Sun was identified with Horus, the god of kingship; at sunset he was seen as Atum, the oldest of all gods. The Sun's daily movement through the sky was viewed as a journey from birth to death, and his rebirth at dawn was made possible through Osiris, the force of new life....

"...In the middle of the night the Sun merged with Osiris's body; through this union, the Sun received the power of new life while Osiris was reborn in the Sun." -- Dr. James P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (8)


That quote definitely doesn’t do the Sun phenomenon justice. Although I haven’t read that specific book, I have read works by Dr. Allen and even Allen doesn’t think that the Egyptians thought Osiris was literally the sun. I mean you realize he’s using phrases like identified with? Yes, the solar phenomenon was huge. Nobody disagrees with that. But as I already demonstrated, through primary sources, (which you haven’t) their point of reference to the Sun as an object was Re not Osiris, and Allen himself explicitly says this.
Quote:
Re: the sun per se; depicted as a man, a falcon, a ram, or a man with the head of one or the other of these animals. Re means simply “sun”, and in the New Kingdom and later, it was often preceded by the definite article( pa-Re, “the sun”). As the physical manifestation of the sun god.
Allen, Ancient Egypt, p119.

Emphasis added by me, for you see, the god is literally an abstraction and the sun as a physical object is a manifestation of the abstraction.

Osiris is the result of the sun’s effect on humanity (which is a concept), and not the sun as an actual object, which you seem to think. Do I need to go into more details about the origin of Osiris? Do I need to explain the Akhet (the place he’s likely referring to when he says “Osiris was reborn”)? Do I need to explain their multiple conceptualizations of time? That quote is a gross oversimplification in my opinion. Though I feel I have already demonstrated your superficial understanding inaccurate and ad hoc at best, I will go into greater dept if you chose to argue with me more.

Quote:
The fact will remain that numerous gods in the Egyptian pantheon were perceived as solar in nature, or SUN GODS, including Isis in her earlier manifestation.


I’m not exactly sure what makes you think that I’m saying this isn’t true? Here’s the problem, you obsession with focusing on SUN GODS (as you put it) is the same mentality of Akhenaton. And, as you know if you know as much about Egypt that you pose to know, Akhenaton was a heretic (per se) and his views was by no means reflected by the majority of the Egyptian populace. They hated him so much that they conspired to kill him.

Quote:
You seem to want to get into a semantic discussion of mysticism that is irrelevant to what the Egyptians themselves perceived but appears to be a projection of your own mystical endeavors, which sound quite a bit like Theosophy. Acharya does not project Theosophical interpretations into her assessment of the Egyptian religion.


Trust me; I’m far from a mystic. And even if I wasn’t that doesn’t stop the Egyptians from being mystical. I mean you realize that Memphite cosmogony is basically, in a very general sense, ancient Mysticism don’t you? You can distort and oversimplify my views as a desire for a “semantic discussion of mysticism” as much as you want. It does you or your knowledge level no justice as you don’t know what I believe and now you’re just conjuring your own opinion (which you claim I do).

Here’s the difference, I assert my opinions with professionals in the field and with primary sources that I interpret on my own along with their opinions. You haven’t done either. You simply selectively quote and your quotes (Allen) doesn’t do your cause Justice either. I should ask you, what are your credentials? Why should I take you seriously sir? Until you can back up your perspectives further, I have little reason to take you very seriously. The really messed up part is that I’m “on your side” in the sense that I don’t disagree with Achayra’s and Zeitgeist’s point of view too much. It’s simply oversimplified and rushed. Its critics have damn good reason to complain because the film has an honorable product with a bad marketing department, in a sense.

Quote:
So too, however, was Osiris's passion celebrated every year, during which his physical body was sought.


His body was sought in the myths, sure. However Osiris physical body is the deceased king. There is an overwhelming consensus in Egyptology on this matter. The deceased king was literally referred to as an Osiris. Here’s the problem, there’s a difference between the myths we have available to us in writing (where his body was sought) and how the Egyptian people actually lived their lives, their culture, etc. Their myths were basically artistic writings. What evidence do we have that says Egyptians actually looked for his body in physical form? I haven’t seen any. I don’t deny it, however, I simply haven’t found the evidence for it. For example, tomb robbing was fairly common. One tomb robber referred to Osiris disrespectfully as “old general” and he/she/they looted the tomb. They didn’t leave any sorta of reference about finding any divine relics whatsoever. You can’t use the idealist theology of the priest to accurately represent all the citizens. They were not all submissive followers of the priests.

Quote:
Diodorus Siculus, Greek Historian (c. 90-21 BCE) discussed Osiris as a mortal walking the earth - he was repeating long-held Egyptian beliefs.


The same Diodorus that admits the Egyptians saw them as “mere children” in spirituality? The same Diodorus that tells us that the Greeks traveled to Egypt to receive their education? Give me a break. The Greeks were novices at understanding the complexity of Egyptian theology. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Greeks. But I need more evidence than the likes of Diodorus, Plutarch, etc. They are useful resources, no doubt, but to establish them as an authority (on Egypt) is naïve at best, and Egyptologist agree. There is too much reason to believe the likes of Diodorus, Herodotus, Plutarch, etc where either initiates (which they would have held back the true meaning of the myths), didn’t have a full understanding of Egypt’s theology, or themselves was not speaking literally of events recounted. Not to mention that Diodorus is 1st bc and the Egyptians were ruled by the Ptolemies for a couple of hundred years by this time. Hellenization was huge, and hellenization often reflects the Greeks views on Egypt. If you want to say that the original understanding was misinterpreted by foreigners like the Greeks then this needs a adequate discussion that I’m open for.

Until then I reject Diodorus, sir.

Now again, what is your evidence that the Egyptians thought Osiris literally walked the Earth?

Edit: Fix some grammar mistakes and add the Akhenaton comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:50 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:29 pm
Posts: 6
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
H. M. Trismegistus wrote:
Now are your deeper concerns about Acharya's work a little more thought out or should we expect more of the same?


Do you still think my understanding of Egypt in relation to Acharya's work on Egypt is shallow now sir?

I've only read this one article of hers, and this is just the beginning on how I went I went to myself "okay, now I'm starting to see why people complain about her work a lot." On top of that I don't even remember the other issues that I found rushed and questionable in the article, and that's just one article and two points so far.

Now it's not that I find her works silly, no that's totally not what I think. I find her endeavors very admirable. Unfortunately her works (if they are anything like this article) are not even going to put a dent in the psychology of 2000 years of the church and it's domination over theology. They are simply too rushed so the pious to can conjure reasons not to take the issue seriously far to easily from it. Trust me, I have dealt with them. They are extremely anal and their arguments for absolutely absurd things are getting increasingly more sophisticated. (like Gary Hebermas)

The only people that are going to listen to her are people that are predisposed to her views to begin with. This kinda of material (if it is like the article) will never further advance the issues in the field of rigorous scholarship, and I believe that's an unfortunate fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Geez Trismegistus, no appreciation whatsoever ah? I get the sense that your second post closely resembles the first which has already been addressed. Rephrasing the first posts isn't going to change my response.

Okay, so basically what you're telling me is that 1. You're not really interested in Acharya's work at all - which would explain why you have so many misunderstandings of it, and 2. You're obsessed with what the "pious" might say or think. Please define this "pious" you keep speaking of in a more specific way. What religious background are you coming from? And why are you obsessed with what they might say or think?

And I get the sense that there's a 3rd - that you're attempting to set yourself up as some kind of expert in Egyptology and you're trying to teach us/Acharya some sort of lesson?
Quote:
Trismegistus "We have to remember that the bible is not just a “book” to many Christians."

Are you seriously bringing the "bible" thing again? You really seem stuck on this issue. Christians who get hung-up on the use of the word "bible" - that is their problem as the definition makes clear. Again, the word "bible" as already made categorically clear is not defined as “the ultimate law or authority” nor does it belong to Judaeo-Christianity nor does any book have to be similar to the OT or NT to be considered a "bible." For example, The Diabetic Bible Cook Book.
Quote:
Bible: "A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bible

It is called The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day for a reason is it not? Your argument on the "bible" issue just seems absurd and irrelevant. Are you demanding everyone else adhere to your beliefs on this issue or just us here? Your goal is for Judaeo-Christianity to own the word "bible" all to themselves?
Quote:
Trismegistus "It’s that the pious have already had their hands in tearing her works apart."

You'll need to be more specific - I have yet to see "the pious" tear her works apart. I have yet to see the pious respond in an objective unbiased manner. The agenda of the pious is blatantly clear - to shore-up the faith at all costs.

What scholarly books have you written on this subject?
Quote:
Trismegistus "My only criticism of Achayra was that she explains what I have a little further so that the pious don’t have valid reasons to misinterpret her and thus delude themselves in discrediting the connection between Egypt and the West."

Actually reading the works first before criticism would cure much of the lack of understanding. Arguing out of ignorance is not always the best method. You're basing your criticism on one online article from a 600 page book with 1,800 footnote/citations to references and primary sources.
Quote:
Trismegistus "It comes from professional, peer reviewed, doctors of Egyptology. The first one that comes to mind is Dr. Ogden Goelet, professor of eastern studies. He advises James Wasserman to not use Budges translations in the 1998 publication of the Book of Going Forth by Day because they use a new system of translations. Read the Forward. "

Okay, so you haven't studied the works of Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum. And nothing in the foreword suggests that Goelet has either - you're only confirming what I already gave you from the footnote in Acharya's The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1. It's typical for scholars to want THEIR interpretations and/or translation to be preferred. And since Budge isn't around to defend his work 100 years later it should be no surprise that interpretations & transliterations and methodology have changed - it still doesn't make Budge wrong.

And, I own the latest 2001 edition to The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day. They seem to appreciate Budges work in a number of ways.

Quote:
Trismegistus "provide me with an Egyptologist that fundamentally relies on Budge"

Are you trying to incorporate a straw man fallacy here or is this just an accident? Nowhere did I even imply that anybody "fundamentally relies on Budge." That is an absurd request.

I get the sense that you did not read my earlier response or you're not paying any attention. If you're not interested in our responses then why are you here? What is your point in being here posting questions if you're just going to ignore the responses? You're not here for any clarifications at all are you? Why don't you come clean and tells us who you are and why you're really here?
Quote:
Trismegistus "I’m only saying that for the more controversial things Budge should be avoided. With all the advancements in modern Egyptology, there is little need to use, solely, Budge for a point."

Well, you're no authority on Budge, you're no authority on Egyptology, you're no authority on Acharya's work - so where do you get-off telling anyone what or who should be avoided? You don't really seem to know much about Budges work beyond the opinions you've heard from others who have never studied Budge. And, modern Egyptologists who attempt to dismiss Budge often have their own interpretations & transliterations and methodology. That's the scholarly community for you - they're not above competition and claim to fame.
Quote:
Trismegistus "What I’m saying, is Acharya should not use Budge as a fundamental source for more controversial points."

Again, you didn't read my earlier post or you're not paying attention. Already provided for you in the footnote from Acharya's The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1 mentioning "I have used the translations of not only Budge but also others, such as Renouf, Mercer, Faulkner, Parker and Allen..."
Quote:
Trismegistus "It’s not exactly hard to get modern scholars that cover the sun in Egypt."

That is an absurd statement - so I'll ignore it.
Quote:
Trismegistus "They didn’t think Osiris was, literally, the sun. That was my point. And that’s why I said the physical is irrelevant."

You were wrong the first time and you're wrong again now too. Horus, Ra, Atum, and Osiris represent the daily physical cycle of the sun. Then there's the yearly cycle etc. To deny the physical aspects of the sun, moon etc is to cut-off any chance of fully understanding what the Egyptians gods concepts and principles were largely based. It's not the only one but it is certainly one of the most important. To deny it is simply absurd.
Quote:
Trismegistus "They thought the gods actually lived in an entirely different realm."

That is ANOTHER aspect as well that we've never denied. There's no need to make this more complex than it really is. Unless you've seen Horus, Isis, Osiris and Jesus lately, they all supposedly exist in a different realm - the ancients never said they saw Osiris walking down main street - but they did consider him the sun at night. Same as they considered Horus the sun in the morning etc. Of course, Christians made their best attempt to make it appear as if Jesus existed but they've never been able to substantiate that claim with valid evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

You have an enormous amount of research to do before you start coming in here with a superiority complex trying to tell us anything about Egypt or religion.

I can't help but feel that I'm wasting my time here.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group