Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00122)

When I refer to history, I will refer to three basic categories.

1. The Daily News- 99% accurate and 1% error-prone
2. Modern to Ancient History- possessing reasonable to nominal 
accuracy, according to the quality of recording methods and the age 
of the original manuscripts; mostly accurate, albeit incomplete and 
riddled with various errors, even as the Bible is
3. Ancient Mythology- 1% accurate and 99% error-prone

Beyond this, there is also the realm of unrecorded history (or, as 
in many cases, those portions of ancient history wherein the ancient 
texts were irretrievably lost).  To gain information about 
unrecorded history and/or lost books, one must either look to 
metaphysical writers claiming supernatural revelation about the pre-
historic ancient world, or engage in direct supernatural 
communication with beings who are eons old.

You wrote:

>I'm not sure how to understand your meaning here.  If you are 
talking 
>about the notion of history in the modern sense, it really began 
around 
>the time of the Renaissance.  It became a fad to dig up old Roman 
>statues and use them in their gardens for decorations. So, people 
began 
>to become interested in who the statues represented, when did they 
live, 
>and what their lives were like. The most famous work to come out of 
this 
>tradition was Gibbon's multi volume work, the Decline and Fall of 
the 
>Roam Empire.  Historical writings based upon archeology began in 
the 
>1840s when a few wealthy hobbyists began looking for ancient 
treasures 
>and mythological cities.  Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy 
was 
>the most famous of these.  The beginning of scientific archeology 
was 
>motivated by a desire to more clearly understand the Biblical 
>narratives--particularly to prove that the Bible is indeed an 
historical 
>account.  The movement instead has tended to backfire, beginning 
with 
>Ernest Renen's controversial Vie de Jesus which attempted to put 
Jesus 
>in an historical and political setting based upon the archeology of 
the 
>time. The research also inspired a school of "Higher Criticism" 
which 
>asked hard questions and threw doubt upon the Bible as an 
historical work. 
> 
>The so-called historical works of the medieval period, were usually 
>hagiographic accounts of kings and saints. The accounts are written 
>according to formulas.   Butler's Lives of the Saints is a famous 
>example of this.
> 
>As we move back into the classical period, we find that the Romans 
are 
>probably the only group that thought very nearly like us.  But even 
>Suetonius' Annals of Rome, is more in the form of still current 
oral 
>memories.  Plutarch's lives is more interested in communicating 
moral 
>and philosophical lessons than an exacting account of history.  
>Herodotus also moves back and forth between oral history, personal 
>observations and moralizing.
> 
>There is also a tremendous body of literature that extends back 
into 
>earliest antiquity.  Some of it takes the form of folk tales, 
legends, 
>fabula, and mythology.  The ladder is found in all cultures of the 
>world, has a distinct structure, and was universally held as 
sacred. 
> 

I am referring to this full gamut of recorded history and beyond.

> Actually, if I remember my linguistic classes correctly, syllables 
> always represented sounds.  Chinese and classical Japanese 
characters 
> were modified glyphs which represented images which were 
associated with 
> sounds.  The Egyptian Hieroglyphs represented associations of 
images and 
> sounds.  For instance, the appearances of certain snakes in a 
cartouch 
> would approximately represent our modern "S" sound--like the 
hissing of 
> a snake. 
> 

I'm hoping that you at least get my general idea.  I'm hoping to 
advance beyond the mere realm of historical specifics here, and 
introduce a few ideas which go beyond the recorded texts.  Perhaps 
you can look beyond my psuedo-history lesson, and interpret my text 
more as a parable, not focusing so much on historical specifics, but 
rather metaphysical concepts.

>Actually the tombs were decorated by a group of specialists in that 
>field--sort of priests-scribes who formed the hieroglyphs and 
paintings 
>according to an ancient set of guide lines. They were very precise 
in 
>their exposition.  It was only with the reign of Amenhotep XIV that 
the 
>style was changed--and then, only temporarily.  The painted scenes 
were 
>mostly about an idealistic afterlife, based upon the interests of 
the 
>deceased.  If the deceased, for instance, liked to hunt birds, then 
>there would be a scene of him hunting birds in the afterlife.  The 
>Hieroglyphs were mostly prayers, and formulas from the Book of the 
>Dead.  

I am not referring exclusively to Egyptian heiroglyphs, nor to a 
specific time period.  That was simply one example.  Heiroglyphs 
exist internationally.  Heiroglyphs often contained chronological 
picture records of the deceased's primary life events, acting as 
historical accounts.  These historical accounts may also have 
contained creative vision concerning potential afterlife events, but 
they were not restricted to such.

>As for "artistically acute" I think we need to be very careful 
>about judging ancient art from our own standards.  For instance, 
the 
>Lascaux cave paintings in France, which have been dated to over 
thirty 
>thousand years old, show examples of all of the techniques used in 
art 
>today--including perspective, which was only reintroduced into 
Europe 
>during the Renaissance.
> 

I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily accept the speculations of a 
limited number of historians concerning the 30,000 year dating 
timeline, insofar as a very large portion of historians do not agree 
with such a timeline.  You may refer to the volumes that I had 
referenced earlier, entitled "Chronology of World History" as 
published by ABC-Clio/Hutchinson, which begin dating any such 
materials as no older than 10,000 BC.  Again, historical accuracy 
and dating begins to get a bit hazy the further that we go back.

>Refined languages?  I have in my library a textbook on Egyptian 
>Grammar.  It is an oversize book of over 600 pages.  I was 
interested in 
>making a study of it and found the language incredibly 
sophisticated and 
>almost overwhelming.  I have in the past studied Latin as was 
spoken 
>during the time of Augustus, dipped into Sanskrit and Greek.  In 
>structure, these languages are far more sophisticated than modern 
>English.  When I studied Latin, I remember translating phrases 
which I 
>perfectly understood, but because of the limits of the English 
language, 
>could not be properly translated.  I would say, that instead of 
>languages becoming more refined, they have been dumbed down over 
the 
>centuries.
> 

This is not the case with all languages.  Are you suggesting then 
that languages never evolved, but rather devolved?  Rather than 
languages beginning with ten words and increasing to ten thousand 
words, they started with ten thousand words and devolved down to ten 
words?  Don't you think they had to start someplace?  I'm not quite 
certain where your precise point of disagreement is.

>I don't know of any culture that created tombs, or even caves to 
teach 
>history--particularly to "little children."

That's okay.  Perhaps it will make sense to you over time.

>The Egyptian tombs were 
>sealed after the deceased was entombed.

Are you certain?  Or is that what you were taught?  Are you 
referring to individual sarcophagi perhaps?  Not all tombs contained 
their heiroglyphs solely on the inside, nor were they all 
necessarily immediately sealed. Although we may perhaps today retain 
the impression that you suggest, insofar as our interpretations of 
history are often strained through the limititations of our own 
present-day cultural experiences.  Again, I am not restricting my 
references to Egyptian tombs either.

>We will probably never answer 
>all of the questions about the Lascaux caves but most 
archaeologists 
>believe that the caves was used for initiation purposes--for the 
>initiation of adults, or of those being initiated into adulthood at 
>puberty.   Ancient caves were used in the Mediterranean world and 
in 
>India for sacred initiations also. This seem also to be true of 
Asia in 
>general.  Some have paintings, some do not.    How do you interpret 
>pictures?  Well, pictures are culturally bound.  If we understand 
the 
>culture, then we can understand the pictures. 
> 

I suggest otherwise.  Even within those selfsame cultures, strings 
of pictures may be interpreted any number of ways, even as strings 
of words in a sentence may have multiple interpretations.  And the 
pictures more flagrantly than the words.  Simply because two or more 
people originate from the same culture, does not mean that the 
images will be identically interpreted.  Are you suggesting that the 
ancients did not engage in misinterpretations in their days?

> If you mean events such as winning a war, it was the kings which 
> commissioned the art to commemorate the event.  Of course, the 
event was 
> portrayed according to how the king wished.  Paintings and 
carvings at 
> the Ajunta and the Elephanta caves, for instance, portrayed gods, 
> goddesses, Buddhas, etc.  They had a strictly religious sense 
which was 
> commonly understood in the relevant religious community.  Some 
> represented myths (if you will), which were also the common 
heritages of 
> that religious community.
> 

Wars, as you mention, were common historical events which were 
recorded in heiroglyph murals upon the walls, ect. within a king's 
burial labyrinth.  Finally we have some point of agreement here.  
And even the divine mythologies of the ancients were accorded as 
ancient history by their authors.  Heiroglyphs containing images of 
ancient elder gods and goddesses were not mere make-believe, 
fashioned after the manner of fantasaical metaphor, within the 
context of the belief systems of the ancient theists.  They were 
considered by the authors to be literal historical events.

> I'm not aware of any culture that had such a practice. 
> 

That's okay.  I'm not requiring you to know.

> Amazing statement.  The common wisdom is that story paintings were 
> depictions of already extant oral traditions.

This is true also.  But common sense would also assert the reverse.

>Who have you been reading 
>that argues that oral traditions derived from paintings?
> 

Take the Bible as one example.  The Old Testament.  Temple 
illustrations would be a common example of this.

> This is an amazing scenario.  You are assuming that ancient people 
> thought the same way that we do today.

And you're projecting an assumption of your own, in that you believe 
that I have made such an assumption.  Why do you believe that I 
would assume this?  Further, in what ways do you believe that the 
teaching styles are different from today?  I have not referenced 
that our primary teaching methods of today are extrapolations of 
murals on walls.  I don't see the consistency in your reasoning.

>Sorry, but none of this hangs together.

Quite a blanket statement to say the least.  You seem to have your 
mind made up.

>Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures.

And history is not?  I suggest that the two are not in strict 
opposition to each other.  Rather, they intertwine together.

>Based upon 
> what you have written so far, you must believe that the Egyptians, 
for 
> instance, really believed that their god and goddesses literally 
had 
> human bodies and animal heads!
> 

That is partially correct, but you're getting a bit overly-
simplistic here.  Your apparent assumption is that the Egyptians 
simply envisioned the head of an animal and the body of a human 
being (or vice versa), and attached the two of them together as some 
descriptive form of metaphor.  But such an assumption is entirely 
incorrect, and merely serves to reflect a metaphysically 
unenlightened interpretation of the historical records, at least 
regarding this particular matter.

In reality, what the Egyptians (among many other cultures) were 
attempting to communicate, through the use of icons and idols, was 
that the archonic species of the astral planes, whom they worshipped 
and encountered, were a mixture of man and beast.  These icons were 
then used as visual focal points for meditation periods, wherein 
religionists would attempt to commune with their goddesses and 
gods.  Christians would refer to these goddesses and gods 
as 'demons'.  (Even today, Roman Catholics use similar icons as 
meditative focal points to commune with 'GOD' through departed 
saints, although they aim for a higher spiritual realm.)

I have directly encountered such hybrids myself, amidst my own 
astral experiences.  You have referenced prior that you believe such 
metaphysical experiences to be inherently dangerous, and so you 
allowed fear to get the best of you at that time.  You will not 
discern this knowledge yourself through the reading of history 
books, for they are metaphysical in nature.  I suggest that you do 
not limit yourself to such finite resources in this regard.

> Closer to the truth, I would say that "mythological metaphor" was 
> degraded into literal "truth."
> 

I believe that you are in error, insofar as you are merely 
projecting your own cultural colorizations upon the historical 
records.

> Sorry. I'm not convinced.

I was not attempting to convince you, but for some reason you 
believe that you need to be convinced.

>My masters degree was in literature, and I 
> spent a lot of years studying the structure of ancient and modern 
> literature, and on how language constructs our realities.  When I 
was in 
> France, however, I did visit a lot of medieval cathedrals.  The 
door 
> ways were often decorated with images of the devil devouring 
sinful 
> people, or people otherwise suffering the torments of hell.  Be 
even 
> here, this was artistic followings of medieval theology in order 
to 
> scare their illiterate congregations into conforming to their 
faith. 
> 

Are you then asserting that you have some form of 'authority' on the 
matter, on the basis of your public education and personal studies?  
I suggest that studies in literature are inadequate to gain 
metaphysical interpretations of historical texts.  There is 
something more needed.

>Which demonstrates the evolution of Christian theology.
> 

Or perhaps the 'convolution' of Christian theology.

>Most cultures had the human species come from the sun or moon, or 
from 
>under the earth.

Thereby representing a broader perspective that the human species 
firstly originated from the universe.  But this metaphor is not 
isolationist in nature.  They cultures also commonly believed that 
the goddesses and gods originated from the universe, while 
simultaneously co-creating it.  And then subsequently creating and 
pro-creating with the human species.

>But the human species was usually created by a god.  

Or more accurately, through gods.  Through direct creation or 
procreation.  Correct.

>Loki, in German mythology;

Actually, Loki is reputed to have sired many humans and beasts 
through direct crossbreeding with other species in a procreative 
fashion.

>Thoth in the Egyptian;

Crossbreeding is also reported with Thoth, albeit there is the 
additional story of the direct creation of a 'light-soul'.

I suggest that the concepts of creation and procreation are not 
mutually exclusive among the goddesses and gods.  It's not simply 
one of the other.

>Yaldabaoth in certain 
> gnostic sects....
> 

I've not directly studied classical gnosticism, but you seem to be 
referring to the Christian demiurge.

> Yes, resurrection was an Egyptian doctrine.  But it was Osiris who 
is 
> resurrected in heaven, as the people believed they would also do. 
Once 
> they were osirified--they would live with the father in heaven.
> 

And where do you believe heaven to be, if not here on our earth?  Is 
heaven a distant place up above from you in your perspective?  The 
Christians believe in both ascension into heaven and the universal 
resurrection of the dead.  Even as the Egyptians did.  The two 
doctrines are not mutually exclusive.

> Where did you read this?   Sounds like some 19th century 
speculation.
> 

The reason that it sounds like 19th century speculation is likely 
because you're straining it through your 19th century perspective.  
Actually, the ancient doctrines of physical immortality and the 
resurrection of the dead, two concepts which are not mutually 
exclusive, originate from ancient mythology.  These similar ideas 
are littered throughout both the bible and mythological texts.  They 
will not be found in your modernized history books, if that's what 
you're looking for.  I would also suggest not getting too caught up 
with the idea that the Egyptians had originated the idea.  They 
merely shared these ideas with the Jews and other earlier religions.

> Why they practiced mummification is still a matter of 
controversy.  But 
> we know now that the Egyptians believed that each person had 
several 
> souls, one which would remain near the earth for a time, and one 
which 
> resurrects in heaven.  The mummification was apparently to extend 
the 
> life of the earthly soul.
> 

Yours is perhaps a narrower interpretation.  I suggest that you do 
not limit yourself to your 'certified' history books.  Historians 
are not typically qualified to interpret metaphysical realities.  
They miss many things of a metaphysical nature.

> Yes, the Jews followed after the Egyptians in the burial custom, 
and the 
> Christians followed the Jews.  The Jews also learned circumcision 
from 
> the Egyptians.
> 

And the Jews and Egyptians learned many of these things from still 
others.

> First I have heard of this.  Every culture which I am familiar, 
which 
> believes in some form of reincarnation, believes that the final 
goal is 
> to join the gods in the invisible worlds. 
> 

It sounds like you're gravitating a bit towards modernized 
Christianity, and perhaps straining your reincarnational readings 
through it.  The ancient mythologies teach that the elder gods came 
physically to the earth, even departing from the 'invisible' worlds 
as you term them.  It was believed among Jews, Egyptians and 
virtually every pagan religion which ever existed that immortals had 
walked the earth.  I further suggest that no world is invisible, 
except to those who are blind to see it.  And each and every 
metaphysical dimension is either more or less uniquely material than 
our own.

>Who? Which ancients? 

The elder gods which existed prior to the dawn of ancient history.

>Which culture? Which religion?

All of them in some way, shape or form.  Metaphysical realities and 
universal truth are not restricted to one culture against another, 
nor one religion against another.

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> >Of course, a stange thing occurs the further that we go back in 
> >recorded history.  History begins to convert to mythology, with 
no 
> >fine line inbetween the two. 
> >
> I'm not sure how to understand your meaning here.  If you are 
talking 
> about the notion of history in the modern sense, it really began 
around 
> the time of the Renaissance.  It became a fad to dig up old Roman 
> statues and use them in their gardens for decorations. So, people 
began 
> to become interested in who the statues represented, when did they 
live, 
> and what their lives were like. The most famous work to come out 
of this 
> tradition was Gibbon's multi volume work, the Decline and Fall of 
the 
> Roam Empire.  Historical writings based upon archeology began in 
the 
> 1840s when a few wealthy hobbyists began looking for ancient 
treasures 
> and mythological cities.  Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy 
was 
> the most famous of these.  The beginning of scientific archeology 
was 
> motivated by a desire to more clearly understand the Biblical 
> narratives--particularly to prove that the Bible is indeed an 
historical 
> account.  The movement instead has tended to backfire, beginning 
with 
> Ernest Renen's controversial Vie de Jesus which attempted to put 
Jesus 
> in an historical and political setting based upon the archeology 
of the 
> time. The research also inspired a school of "Higher Criticism" 
which 
> asked hard questions and threw doubt upon the Bible as an 
historical work. 
> 
> The so-called historical works of the medieval period, were 
usually 
> hagiographic accounts of kings and saints. The accounts are 
written 
> according to formulas.   Butler's Lives of the Saints is a famous 
> example of this.
> 
> As we move back into the classical period, we find that the Romans 
are 
> probably the only group that thought very nearly like us.  But 
even 
> Suetonius' Annals of Rome, is more in the form of still current 
oral 
> memories.  Plutarch's lives is more interested in communicating 
moral 
> and philosophical lessons than an exacting account of history.  
> Herodotus also moves back and forth between oral history, personal 
> observations and moralizing.
> 
> There is also a tremendous body of literature that extends back 
into 
> earliest antiquity.  Some of it takes the form of folk tales, 
legends, 
> fabula, and mythology.  The ladder is found in all cultures of the 
> world, has a distinct structure, and was universally held as 
sacred. 
> 
> >This is because modern phonetic-based 
> >languages descended from picture-based alphabets containing 
> >thousands of visual symbols.  An ancient Oriental alphabet might 
> >contain 1000 different characters, for example, as opposed to a 
mere 
> >26 characters in phonetic english.  Each syllable represented a 
> >picture prior to phonetics.
> >
> Actually, if I remember my linguistic classes correctly, syllables 
> always represented sounds.  Chinese and classical Japanese 
characters 
> were modified glyphs which represented images which were 
associated with 
> sounds.  The Egyptian Hieroglyphs represented associations of 
images and 
> sounds.  For instance, the appearances of certain snakes in a 
cartouch 
> would approximately represent our modern "S" sound--like the 
hissing of 
> a snake. 
> 
> >And before ancient alphabets concisely contained 1000 letters, 
> >languages first existed as heiroglyphs in caves and tombs.  (For 
> >example, in Egyptian pyramids). The walls of caves and tombs 
> >recorded the life histories of the dead, as documented by ancient 
> >news reporters who weren't that artistically acute. 
> >
> Actually the tombs were decorated by a group of specialists in 
that 
> field--sort of priests-scribes who formed the hieroglyphs and 
paintings 
> according to an ancient set of guide lines. They were very precise 
in 
> their exposition.  It was only with the reign of Amenhotep XIV 
that the 
> style was changed--and then, only temporarily.  The painted scenes 
were 
> mostly about an idealistic afterlife, based upon the interests of 
the 
> deceased.  If the deceased, for instance, liked to hunt birds, 
then 
> there would be a scene of him hunting birds in the afterlife.  The 
> Hieroglyphs were mostly prayers, and formulas from the Book of the 
> Dead.  As for "artistically acute" I think we need to be very 
careful 
> about judging ancient art from our own standards.  For instance, 
the 
> Lascaux cave paintings in France, which have been dated to over 
thirty 
> thousand years old, show examples of all of the techniques used in 
art 
> today--including perspective, which was only reintroduced into 
Europe 
> during the Renaissance.
> 
> >These 
> >heiroglyphs constituted the most accurate of ancient recording 
> >methods, prior to the introduction of refined languages.
> >
> Refined languages?  I have in my library a textbook on Egyptian 
> Grammar.  It is an oversize book of over 600 pages.  I was 
interested in 
> making a study of it and found the language incredibly 
sophisticated and 
> almost overwhelming.  I have in the past studied Latin as was 
spoken 
> during the time of Augustus, dipped into Sanskrit and Greek.  In 
> structure, these languages are far more sophisticated than modern 
> English.  When I studied Latin, I remember translating phrases 
which I 
> perfectly understood, but because of the limits of the English 
language, 
> could not be properly translated.  I would say, that instead of 
> languages becoming more refined, they have been dumbed down over 
the 
> centuries.
> 
> >However, the little children had a problem learning the history 
> >lessons which were embossed on the walls of caves and tombs.  
After 
> >all, how do you interpret the pictures?
> >
> I don't know of any culture that created tombs, or even caves to 
teach 
> history--particularly to "little children."  The Egyptian tombs 
were 
> sealed after the deceased was entombed.  We will probably never 
answer 
> all of the questions about the Lascaux caves but most 
archaeologists 
> believe that the caves was used for initiation purposes--for the 
> initiation of adults, or of those being initiated into adulthood 
at 
> puberty.   Ancient caves were used in the Mediterranean world and 
in 
> India for sacred initiations also. This seem also to be true of 
Asia in 
> general.  Some have paintings, some do not.    How do you 
interpret 
> pictures?  Well, pictures are culturally bound.  If we understand 
the 
> culture, then we can understand the pictures. 
> 
> >So ancient historians 
> >interpreted the historical storylines, that the ancient news 
> >reporters had embossed on the caves and walls. 
> >
> If you mean events such as winning a war, it was the kings which 
> commissioned the art to commemorate the event.  Of course, the 
event was 
> portrayed according to how the king wished.  Paintings and 
carvings at 
> the Ajunta and the Elephanta caves, for instance, portrayed gods, 
> goddesses, Buddhas, etc.  They had a strictly religious sense 
which was 
> commonly understood in the relevant religious community.  Some 
> represented myths (if you will), which were also the common 
heritages of 
> that religious community.
> 
> >The ancient 
> >historians (even as you consider yourself to be a historian) took 
> >the children directly into the caves and tombs, as per common 
> >classroom settings of the time, and read history lessons from 
walls 
> >as opposed to from books.
> >
> I'm not aware of any culture that had such a practice. 
> 
> >Oral traditions began to follow the 
> >pictures of antiquity.
> >
> Amazing statement.  The common wisdom is that story paintings were 
> depictions of already extant oral traditions.  Who have you been 
reading 
> that argues that oral traditions derived from paintings?
> 
> >However, even among the teachers, different interpretations of 
the 
> >historical picturelines began to occur. And the unintentional 
> >creation of mythology invariably resulted, despite the best 
efforts 
> >of ancient news reporters who would never resort to base 
metaphor.  
> >
> This is an amazing scenario.  You are assuming that ancient people 
> thought the same way that we do today.  Sorry, but none of this 
hangs 
> together. Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures.   Based 
upon 
> what you have written so far, you must believe that the Egyptians, 
for 
> instance, really believed that their god and goddesses literally 
had 
> human bodies and animal heads!
> 
> >The ancient histories became more and more distorted over 
successive 
> >generations, until literal truth was degraded into mythological 
> >metaphor. 
> >
> Closer to the truth, I would say that "mythological metaphor" was 
> degraded into literal "truth."
> 
> >Hence, mythology is little more than bastardized 
> >history.  Same thing goes for the Bible.  The authors intended 
quite 
> >literally what you and I interpet to be mere metaphor.
> >
> Sorry. I'm not convinced.  My masters degree was in literature, 
and I 
> spent a lot of years studying the structure of ancient and modern 
> literature, and on how language constructs our realities.  When I 
was in 
> France, however, I did visit a lot of medieval cathedrals.  The 
door 
> ways were often decorated with images of the devil devouring 
sinful 
> people, or people otherwise suffering the torments of hell.  Be 
even 
> here, this was artistic followings of medieval theology in order 
to 
> scare their illiterate congregations into conforming to their 
faith. 
> 
> >Pseudepigraphal literature was deemed even less reliable than 
> >apocryphal literature.  This is despite the fact that some of the 
> >canonized authors had also written books that didn't make it into 
> >the bible, such as Paul and Ezekiel.  Or what about the 
uncanonized 
> >book of Enoch, still existant in a halfdozen ancient languages?  
The 
> >biblical book of Jude directly quotes the book of Enoch as 
> >authoritative, even though it is rejected by the bible's modern-
day 
> >canonizers.  Some books were good enough for the early church 
> >fathers, but not good enough for the modern church.  One-hundred 
> >ancient canons were rejected in favor of a modernized one.
> >
> Which demonstrates the evolution of Christian theology.
> 
> > Did you know, 
> >that prior to the onset of Darwinism, the ancients commonly 
believed 
> >that the human species descended from immortal gods, and that the 
> >doctrine of the resurrection of the dead originated as early (if 
not 
> >earlier) as the most ancient Egyptians?
> >
> Most cultures had the human species come from the sun or moon, or 
from 
> under the earth.  But the human species was usually created by a 
god.  
> Loki, in German mythology; Thoth in the Egyptian; Yaldabaoth in 
certain 
> gnostic sects....
> 
> Yes, resurrection was an Egyptian doctrine.  But it was Osiris who 
is 
> resurrected in heaven, as the people believed they would also do. 
Once 
> they were osirified--they would live with the father in heaven.
> 
> >The earliest recorded Egyptians believed in the Christian 
doctrine 
> >of the final resurrection of the dead which was to occur at the 
end 
> >of time.  (Or at least their version of it.)
> >
> Where did you read this?   Sounds like some 19th century 
speculation.
> 
> > They believed it so 
> >much, in fact, that they began mummifying the dead in 
preservative 
> >wraps, simultaneously extracting their organs into jars, so that 
> >their organs may still be available for their end time 
> >resurrection.
> >
> Why they practiced mummification is still a matter of 
controversy.  But 
> we know now that the Egyptians believed that each person had 
several 
> souls, one which would remain near the earth for a time, and one 
which 
> resurrects in heaven.  The mummification was apparently to extend 
the 
> life of the earthly soul.
> 
> >We still preserve bodies in coffins today, not 
> >allowing their full decay after the model of the Egyptians, even 
> >though we are not commonly aware of why preserving dead bodies 
was 
> >started in the first place.
> >
> Yes, the Jews followed after the Egyptians in the burial custom, 
and the 
> Christians followed the Jews.  The Jews also learned circumcision 
from 
> the Egyptians.
> 
> >Of course, the antithesis of the ancient doctrine of immortality 
was 
> >reincarnation.  If one should not accomplish the re-acquistion of 
> >physical immortality, as is the birthright of our species, having 
> >descended from the elder (immortal) gods, then may that one be 
> >cursed to near-endless reincarnational cycles, until such time as 
> >she/he becomes spiritually reawakened to the inherent physical 
> >immortality contained within our species.
> >
> First I have heard of this.  Every culture which I am familiar, 
which 
> believes in some form of reincarnation, believes that the final 
goal is 
> to join the gods in the invisible worlds. 
> 
> >May the wicked be cast into ever-repeating reincarnational hells, 
> >until such time as they should venture to awaken physically 
forever, 
> >as per the final evolutionary cycle of the human species.  Herein 
> >being the immortal physical resurrection of all dead souls, once 
> >having been trapped in reincarnational cycles, both dying and 
> >birthing from hellish dimension to hellish dimension, despite the 
> >immortal birthright contained therein, which was bestowed upon us 
by 
> >our ancestral elder gods. This is what the ancients believed.
> >
> Who? Which ancients? Which culture? Which religion?
> 
> Best,
> Jerry