Jerry- History, Mythology and the resurrection of the dead
Apr 07, 2006 04:02 PM
by Vincent
It seems we're headed nowhere at this point. I must busy myself
with funeral arrangements for my mother. Thanks for the
discussion. Take care.
Vince
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
>
> >1. The Daily News- 99% accurate and 1% error-prone
> >
> Such optimism. :-)
>
> >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.
> >
> Personally, I take either source with a grain of salt. I put more
stock
> in archeology, though that does not mean that I necessarily agree
with
> their interpretations either.
>
> >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.
> >
> I understand. However, unless your general ideas are also more or
less
> consistent with the data, I can't get too excited about them.
>
> >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.
> >
> This is a very general usage of hieroglyphs. That is fine. But I
> cannot comment upon your own or other's visions. Some art works,
> obviously (to me) depict visionary experiences. Others do not. I
think
> I have a very good sense of distinguishing between the two.
However, I
> have no way of knowing whether we would agree upon which are
visionary
> and which are not. Anyway, I seem to be more eclectic about these
> things. Yes, I have had a lot of visions, and based partly on
those
> experiences, I readily recognize visionary art. However, my
> understanding about what I see also comes from my studies in
history,
> literature, cultural studies, archeology, comparative religious
studies etc.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> I believe the 30,000 year or so dating is well established and was
> derived from carbon dating.
> However, the date is not very relevant to the point: The Lascaux
> paintings exhibit techniques not developed in Europe until the
> Renaissance and after.
> 10,000 BC, or even a 100 AD date would still be significant to the
point
> I was trying to make.
>
> >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.
> >
> I have lots of history books in my library with lots of points of
view.
> I try to take everything on balance.
>
> >This is not the case with all languages. Are you suggesting then
> >that languages never evolved, but rather devolved?
> >
> I am suggesting that language evolves with the culture. French is
an
> especially good legal language. English is an especially good
business
> language (for reasons beyond its increasingly wide usage).
Sanskrit is
> an especially good language for expressing spiritual concepts.
>
> >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.
> >
> Vocabulary size has little to do with it. It is the ability of a
> language to express ideas. This has more to do with the
language's
> structure and the interfacing of the language to the speaker's
> perceptions. For instance. With a moment's reflection, I think it
would
> be obvious to you why in English we have a single word for ice.
Yes,
> the Eskimo have many words. Obviously, snow is a far more
important
> part of their culture and life style than to ours. So, vocabulary
is a
> product of human experience and environment.
>
> In early Victorian times and earlier, scientists had a notion of
> "primitive languages." Languages based upon some minimal grammar
and
> limited vocabulary. The Tarzan novel was based upon this
notion: "Me
> Tarzan, you Jane." When the first British explorers encountered
the
> Aborigines in Australia, the sounds they made sounded like
gibberish and
> they assumed that they had no real language at all. Now we know
that
> there is no "primitive" language anywhere, regardless of the
culture.
>
> My point about languages "dumbing down" is in reference to the
> progressive simplification of our modern European languages.
Classical
> Greek, Latin, Sanskrit etc.
> were declined languages. Of the modern European languages, only
German
> has retained a remnant of this. The language of Alexander the
great was
> very complex, while the Koine Greek, which the New Testament was
written
> is much simpler in its structure. The Latin of Augustus was a
declined
> language, but this no longer exists in modern Italian. I have
here an
> ethnographic paper of an 1870s period anthropologist who lived
with the
> Pueblo Indians of New Mexico for several years. He learned their
> language with great difficulty. He found that their language has
a
> similar structure to ancient Greek, and just as sophisticated. .
>
> To give you some examples of structure and the expression of
ideas. I
> recall in a linguistic class, we were discussing one of the
African
> tribal languages. In tenses, we basically have past, present and
> future. But this language was structured for distant,
intermediate and
> near past, several kinds of present tense, we have nothing to
compare
> to, and numerous future tenses. Another example, in English we
have the
> term "you" which can be used in second person singular or plural
(unless
> you are from Texas, where "you all" is allowed :-) . Otherwise,
the
> listener has to figure from context which is meant. Yet, I
remember in
> studying Latin, the language allowed us to designate not only
singular
> and plural, but the gender of the singular or plural, or in
plural,
> whether it was a mixed gender. In English we can speak to three
men and
> say, "you guys" or three women and say "you gals." What do we say
for
> two men and a woman? I ran across many things of that nature,
where
> modern English was unable to accurately translate the meaning from
the
> Latin without an explanatory footnote.
>
>
> >>The Egyptian tombs were
> >>sealed after the deceased was entombed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Are you certain? Or is that what you were taught?
> >
> We know this from written records. The tombs were sealed to
protect the
> treasures within them, and we closely watched. During the great
> archaeological explorations of the nineteenth century, and ending
with
> the spectacular finding of Tut's intact tomb, the archaeologists
would
> come across sealed tombs only to find that they were broken into
via
> tunnels dug to enter from the side etc. Interestingly, the major
thief
> at the time were the people who built the tombs in the first
place. We
> have written records of them being caught and tried.
>
> >Are you
> >referring to individual sarcophagi perhaps?
> >
> No. The tombs in the Valley of the Kings, Armana and elsewhere.
>
> >Not all tombs contained
> >their heiroglyphs solely on the inside, nor were they all
> >necessarily immediately sealed.
> >
> Have you specific records of Egyptian tombs that we not sealed
once the
> mummy was interred?
>
> >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.
> >
> As I say. We have good written records about tomb making,
including
> records of the day to day lives to the tomb makers preserved in
little
> notes etc. scratched into pieces of wet clay.
>
> >Again, I am not restricting my
> >references to Egyptian tombs either.
> >
> I can only comment upon what you specifically identify.
>
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> Still I maintain that the meaning, whether of strings of pictures
or
> strings or words, is culturally bound.
>
> >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.
> >
> Individual differences--fair enough. Still, if they share the
same
> culture, they share cultural meanings.
>
> >Are you suggesting that the ancients did not engage in
misinterpretations in their days?
> >
> Misinterpretation of some current glyph or story painting made by
a
> member of their own tribe? No. Not likely.
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> I believe that you inadvertently pasted together two sentence
fragments
> of mine into a single one of a different meaning than I had
intended.
> In Egypt, the records of the King's conquests were put on
monuments in
> public places for all to see.
>
> >And even the divine mythologies of the ancients were accorded as
> >ancient history by their authors.
> >
> Divine mythologies were treated in an entirely different way.
They were
> communicated by priests or bards. Typically the sacred stories
were
> ordered to be only told at certain times of the year. Typically
the
> most sacred stories were told in the winter. Some stories were
told to
> mixed audiences, some to children, some only to the men. These
> generalizations were pretty universal, whether it be Native
Americans,
> Greeks, Egyptians or Celtic tribes.
>
> >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.
> >
> There is a lot of discussion among Egyptologists regarding how the
> Ancient Egyptians understood their gods, and I doubt if many of
these
> questions will ever be answered. I don't think that the
simplistic
> notion that the Egyptians (or even Greeks for that matter)
regarded
> their myths as historical events is held by more than a few die
hards of
> the Victorian world view. Especially once you consider the very
> different way history and myth was handled by these ancient
cultures.
> Among the Greeks, I think I earlier pointed out to you that they
even
> has words to distinguish between them: Historia (history); Mythos
> (Myth); and Logos (a words of many meanings, but in this case, the
basic
> facts free of interpretations).
>
> Have you ever carefully read Homer's Odyssey? It is such a rich
and
> complex work, which at the same time entertains (it is a comedy)
yet
> teaches. It would have been considered no more historical than
> Tolkein's Lord of the Rings would be considered historical today.
>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> Common sense also suggests to me that oral traditions preceded the
> "story paintings."
>
> >>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.
> >
> What temple illustrations?
>
> >>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?
> >
> Statements you have made over the past exchanges left me with this
> impression. We had a discussion earlier where I had gone into
some
> detail about how the notion of history has changed over the
centuries,
> and is quite different now. You did not agree at the time.
Perhaps
> you can clarify your position?
>
> >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.
> >
> It is the difference between orality and literacy. The most
famous
> treatment on this was done by Walter Ong (Orality and Literacy),
and
> remains an important classic. All cultures begin in orality, and
most
> have changed to one of literacy, once they adopted a written
language,
> but not necessarily. India, for instance, remained primarily an
oral
> culture in spite the fact that they had more printed texts than
any
> other culture, up to the time of the mechanical printing press.
The
> Greeks were still and oral culture during the time of Plato,
though
> writing was becoming pretty extant. One of the earliest literary
> cultures was Alexandria, though morality still had a powerful
sway. It
> wasn't until the European medieval period that the written word
came to
> be held supreme.
>
> >>Sorry, but none of this hangs together.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Quite a blanket statement to say the least. You seem to have
your
> >mind made up.
> >
> >
> I simply concluded that your lengthy logical string did not hold
> together in my mind because of the numerous instances that I gave.
> Perhaps you will be able to answer these objections. In that case,
I
> might be better able to better perceive the connections you are
making.
>
> >>Metaphor is a natural part of ancient cultures.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And history is not?
> >
> >
> Metaphor is a linguistic element common to all ancient cultures
that I
> know of. History, as I explained above, has changed meaning. To
the
> Greeks, "historia" meant an inquiry--not a narrative of past
events.
> What we now call history would better fit the Greek term: logos--
but
> even then different from our modern notions of history. Again,
mythology
> was the precinct of priests and bards. Accounts of wars won and
public
> works built were recorded on public monuments commissioned by the
> rulers. One is sacred, the other secular. One is logos: the
other is
> mythos.
>
> > I suggest that the two are not in strict
> >opposition to each other. Rather, they intertwine together.
> >
> I'm guessing that you mean here mythology and history (as opposed
to
> metaphor and history, which would not make any sense to me). I am
> saying that they were clearly differentiated and handled in
different
> ways, as I described above. However, you have no doubt noticed
that
> often the names of real people and places whom and which were
commonly
> known to the people were used in mythologies. This was done as a
> literary device--not to communicate history. For instance, one
could
> compose a modern story about Hitler marching into Hell and
outsmarting
> the Devil and threatens to do more evil on earth. Because I chose
> Hitler, this story would have an obvious special meaning that
would not
> be there if I had chosen, say, John William Smith. In other
cases in
> mythology, the names themselves were suggestive. In more near
modern
> times, we borrowed this literary device. For instance, in a
dramatic
> story of a battle between Dishonest John and Dudley Doright, I
don't
> think even a child or five would have any problem distinguishing
by the
> names alone, who is the "good" guy and who is the "bad." There
are many
> other literary elements which make history and mythology (logos
and
> mythos) easy to distinguish. If you are really interested, at a
later
> time, we can go through some of them.
>
> So, the distinctions between history and mythology were clear (at
least)
> in ancient Mediterranean cultures, were still clear to the
educated
> during the classical periods under Roman occupation, and did not
become
> completely confused until around the late fifth of early sixth
> centuries. There are clear reasons for this change, but I will
save
> that for a later discussion--if you are interested.
>
> >>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.
> >
> If you were talking about the Aztec culture, there is a lot of
clear
> evidence that many of their entities were beings in astral realms.
We
> even know quite a lot about their visionary practices. For Egypt
it
> isn't so clear and there is quite a spectrum of opinion on the
matter.
> Yours may even be represented somewhere. I can't say that your
idea is
> correct or incorrect. I can say that based upon what I understand
about
> Egyptian religion, your idea leaves too many loose strings for my
> satisfaction.
>
> >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.)
> >
> >
> As did the Jews. Their god was God, and everyone elses gods and
> goddesses were demons.
>
> >I have directly encountered such hybrids myself, amidst my own
> >astral experiences.
> >
> OK
>
> >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.
> >
> Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I had previously
stated
> that I have had natural abilities since childhood. They were not
the
> result of any practices. My mother had the same abilities, and my
> father also, but of a different nature. Also, my mother's
mother. I
> did not know my father's family. So, we did not attach any
special
> value to these phenomena. I also told you that I have had many
visions,
> so the experiences you have so briefly described are already very
> familiar to me. I did, however, warn you that getting too carried
away
> with these things is, in my opinion, dangerous. You seem to have
caught
> my meaning, so I let it drop with no further comment. Also, out
of
> regard for a hint of defensiveness which I (rightly or wrongly
sensed) I
> let the entire discussion concerning spiritual practices drop.
>
> >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.
> >
> My sources are many, and not limited to books.
>
> >I believe that you are in error, insofar as you are merely
projecting your own cultural colorizations upon the historical
records.
> >
> >
> Whether my opinions are errors or not, they are based upon years
of
> study of comparative religions, cultures, and literature of
cultures
> different from my own. They derive from my explorations of many
books,
> conversations with knowledgeable people with many diverse
opinions, and
> yes, my own visions and intuition.
>
> >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.
> >
> I am asserting that my opinions are based upon study and and a
life time
> of personal experience and searching. My metaphysical
interpretations
> (which I have not shared) are not based upon studies in
literature. I
> know of no public or private university which offers courses on
> metaphysical interpretations of literature.
>
> >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.
> >
> Since you asked, I believe that heaven is a state of consciousness.
>
> >The reason that it sounds like 19th century speculation is likely
> >because you're straining it through your 19th century
perspective.
> >
> OK. I see that at this point the tone of our discussion is moving
> towards ad hominem attacks. Such, IMO, is not conducive for
productive
> discussions. So, I will stop at this point until I hear from you
again
> in a different tone.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vincent wrote:
>
> >Jerry-
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
