@InfoRoom . But those Romanists who do not greatly love the Jesuits, and their number is not limited, use the term as indicating that the Black Pope rules the White Pope...even while the former [i.e., the Black Pope] is obligated to make, at least, a show of submission to the latter." (1896)
M.F. Cusack (Ex-nun of Kenmore; author of the book The Black Pope)
@InfoRoom "In Roman Catholic circles it is well known that the Black Pope is the term used for the [Superior] General of the Jesuits. As the Pope is always robed in white, and the [Jesuit Superior] General in black, the contrast is obvious.
@InfoRoom "Today they [i.e., the Jesuits] are stronger in the United States than they ever were in any of the countries of Europe which expelled them as a menace to the government." (1912)
God had to bring the Ancient Israelites OUT of the Nephilim (fallen angel, demi-god) worshipping, occultists of Ancient Egypt to teach them the real truth about the True God who created ALL of humanity, His Ways, Divine Nature,Laws, Covenants and Promises and Prophecy. Ancient Egyptians followed the same religious occultism as the Ancient Sumerians, India, Asia, Inca,Myan, Roman, Greek, Norse=fallen angel worshipping religions satan teaches knowledge to..so they seem smart..but all dead cultures
His work is shunned by the establishment, Hummmm, I wonder why, but you can get any episode of the Simpsons at a fingers snap. The suppressors of Illumination continue to hope that you keep that tv remote in your hand. Enough said. Do the research...
@matrixmaster79 and Dan Brown made millions shilling his own neo-gnostic anti-establishment alternative history. does that mean he's right too? give me a break. nobody's saying you can't read the work of amateurs and kooks or even enjoy it. but if people are going to thump it as THE TRUTH and insult those who don't buy it, especially without a serious factual defense of said theories, then they should expect a less than positive reaction.
so yes, it's delicate, but history I think is complex enough that people can be taught it responsibly. the old idea of making "heroes and villains" perhaps is more the problem, because it oversimplifies things into "black and white" (no pun intended). when it comes to race, naturally there's the tendency to make the people you like "us" and the people you don't like "them" even to the point of assigning race even where it's unwarranted or false
So don't be amazed by Blacks and others after coming to see the reality that if these ancient folk would be alive in the Jim Crow American south, be regulated to the back of the bus. Whether or not you want to call them Black notwithstanding. The status quo of keeping them white is kept today mostly by silence and the denial of categories that are no longer convenient.
I was the only Black in the classroom. I remember what the encyclopidia and text books use to say. I remember the images some even to this day of pale white skin, exposed, wearing white and lots of gold in the hot African sun, with straight bob cut. Some will at least have the African corn rows, making the images even more ridiculous. I remember what I read in H.G. Wells, "History of the World" and other books. My friend, there was indeed a concerted effort to make an
@LordMungu you're talking about the effects of culture. The thing is though, should we modify the facts to make ourselves feel better? Is the truth malleable to our feelings? There are plenty of heroes and things one can admire in one's culture without inventing fake ones. History is not always so cut and dried. I greatly admire MLK Jr. for example as I think most Americans do. But he was also a plagiarist and an adulterer. By admitting that am I doing wrong or doing justice to the truth?
"The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project addresses authorship issues on pp. 25–26 of Volume II of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., entitled "Rediscovering Precious Values, July 1951 – November 1955," Clayborne Carson, Senior Editor. Following is an excerpt from these pages:
"Moreover, King's actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship."
@sitabanu of course. I didn't say MLK Jr. invented mythicism. I judge his work in this area worthless based on the obsolete and poor quality of his sources. it would be illogical to defend Mythicism on the basis that "well a great man like MLK Jr. supported it." scholarship didn't stop in the 1950's.
Nah...my point was only the characterization of his appropriating theological scholarship rather than attempting to pass off another theologian's work as his own. The whole religion and theosophy is a fool's la la land of either 'treasures in heaven' or at a minimum 72 black-eyed virgins. I do not know one normal woman who dreams of having access to 72 virgins! This paradise for men only. Pretty sexist if you ask me!
@sitabanu not sure why you brought "theosophy" into it. I have no interest in defending Muhammad's view of paradise. what you said has little to do with what I was talking about, which was whether the "pagan copycat theory" has historical validity as an explanation for the origin of Christianity (or might explain away the need for an actual historical person behind the "Jesus Legend"). using MLK's paper to support mythicism is worthless, I'm saying. he was an amateur using obsolete research.
@XSC3 I was not commenting on the subject of your post but on your characterization of MLK as a plagiarist. I am not interested in the overall concept of 'Jesus Christ' as myth or man. It serves no purpose when talking to atheists and the religious won't be moved to consider the odds.
@sitabanu oh ok. MLK's plagiarism is relating to his dissertation. this finding was revealed in 1991 by a Boston University panel. I'll send you the link
Well...that was my first post !..."The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project addresses authorship issues on pp. 25–26 of Volume II of The Papers... "Rediscovering Precious Values, July 1951 – November 1955," Clayborne Carson, Senior Editor. Following is an excerpt from these pages:
"Moreover, King's actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship."
@sitabanu so MLK was a preacher first, not a scholar. that doesn't excuse the plagiarism IN HIS ACADEMIC WORK though. I mean, if we insist on calling him "Dr. King."
he was a complex man, and he's remembered for his preaching and activism, not for being an academic. still, even if he'd plagiarized nothing, my point about the mythicism stuff still stands, and that's all most people are talking about here anyway. did anybody important ever give credence to Mythicism, in other words.
I think it's pretty clear that the Muslim view of paradise in the afterlife is one of enhanced earthly delights. you get to have all the sex you want (and you will have incredible stamina), you get to drink all you want (and it won't make you drunk), you get shade, relaxation and tasty fruit served to you. it's the sort of thing that people in the arabian desert (yes, primarily men, but also women) would think sounded great.
Some Muslims might spiritualize that view of the afterlife, but I think most throughout history have taken it literally. so basically you get access to the pleasure dome, if you're a good Muslim. I'm not a Muslim, I'm just telling you. people have different views of the afterlife. look at the Mormons. the traditional Christian view seems to be more of people being asexual. so they get mocked for having "no sex in heaven" while Muslims and Mormons get mocked for having sex in heaven.
@XSC3 "[Jesuit Adam] Weishaupt established the [modern version of the] Illuminati specifically to be a front organization behind which the Jesuits could hide. After being [formally] abolished by [Pope] Clement XIV in 1773, the Jesuits used the Illuminati and other organizations to carry out their operations. Thus, the front organizations would be blamed for the trouble caused by the Jesuits."
Bill Hughes (Author of The Secret Terrorists and The Enemy Unmasked)
@XSC3 "They [i.e., the Jesuits] have so constantly mixed themselves up in court and state intrigues that they must, in justice, be reproached with striving after world dominion. They cost kings their lives, not on the scaffold, but by assassination, and equally hurtful as the society of Illuminati; they were the foremost among the crowd, at all events, who applauded the murder scenes in Paris [during the French Revolution]."
@XSC3 "Never before in the course of the world's history had such a Society [i.e., the Jesuit Order] appeared. The old Roman Senate itself did not lay schemes for world domination with greater certainty of success." (1800)
@sitabanu so complain to a Muslim scholar, but from what I've heard, Muslim women get to be in this paradise as well, but they get to be wives of "great men" or something. depends upon whom you talk to. I'm sure if you any but a fundie Muslim, they'll be happy to explain to you that the women get 72 dark eyed young men to "attend" to their desires just as the equivalent men get their women. does that fix the "sexism" problem for you?
@sitabanu how do you know? anyway, we're talking about what pious muslims are told they can expect in the afterlife.
what's "normal"? you might argue that a "normal" woman doesn't want to be bossed around by men her whole life and wear the hijab as well (though that would be western bias speaking). plenty of men don't sleep around/wouldn't cheat on their 1 spouse, but I don't hear you saying that's "abnormal"
You are mixing things up. Muslim men do not 'cheat' on their wives if they are practicing the Sunna of having up to four wives - cavaet - he can afford up to four. 'Cheating' per se in a Muslim households is not forbidden as men have concubines. Christian marriages end in divorce as often as non-Christian. Monogamy without marriage is just stupid unless of course she has a subsistence order from the Family Court. So, a 'normal' man or 'woman' is pretty much a figment of society.
Any 'normal' woman in a monogamous society - having lived more than 25 years and having had more than one or two intimate relationships is fully aware of her needs. Therefore, no 'normal' woman wants to have access to 72 virgins. Done maybe one or twice but 70 more times than that! Nah! Nothing but frustration and a waste of a 'washing my hair tonight' night.!!! This is not even a question of 'the flesh is willing..." LOL.
@LordMungu the image of "white caucasion Egypt" is wrong, I agree. but so is "all black African Egypt." Whether one is mangling history for "white pride" or "black pride" it's still mangling history. If one wants to claim the "ideals" of a culture, one doesn't have to share the skin color (or anything) of that people. It's natural enough, but people should realize that's not how it works. Having "irish blood" doesn't give you the virtues of the Irish people and lacking it doesn't prevent you.
Let me help you see the point here. When I was in H.S. In world history class (1980s) our teacher told the class the ancient people of the Nile were white. He did not mention race with any other people we covered. One day I will never forget we viewed a film on the King Tut exhibit. A bold young white kid, who's name I have not forgotten to this day, asked the teacher, "Isn't Tut Black?"
Clearly embarrassed the teacher said yes Tut was. I was the only Black in the classroom. I re
@LordMungu your teacher was wrong. Honestly growing up I always pictured (or saw pictured) the ancient Egyptians as "tan" (vaguely Indian or Arab looking, I suppose). It wasn't until later that I started hearing people promoting the idea that ancient Egypt looked like 1950's Harlem.
Gerald Massey is wrong about a lot of things, not least of which, the "connections" between Jesus and Horus, which goes hand in hand with his interpretation of certain inscriptions. The man was not an expert but a dabbler. Clearly his interest in Egypt and so forth was related to his interest in the occult. He was living at a time when it was highly fashionable to conduct esoteric "research" (dabbling) in order to try to invent fanciful histories for secret societies and so forth. "Pop" history
Why is it that when Black People CORRECT a misconception, we are accused of exaggerating for self esteem. That is a classic fallback position for people who don't acknowledge the effect of culture and history as a tool for oppressing people. I hope you argue as extensively against portrayals of blond haired blue eyed Jesuses as you do against the Black African Egyptians. THEY are the ones who claim to have migrated from Nubia/Kush. How do you deny the wall paintings, mummies and sculpture?
@easmachine I think the issue here is that in order to counter perceived racism, some racists are making up their own nutty theory. There's no evidence that there was some "pure black race" that founded and ruled all of Egypt, or that Jesus was a black African, etc. Replace "pure black race" with "pure white race" and it's still not true. Your worth is not based on sharing similar skin color with some people who did something good or bad.
Okay. This has gotten out of control. If the people of Qemt were 'Afro-Asiatic' does that make them less 'Black' in the modern use of the term in America? 'Pure' races do exist in isolation. The modern world has less racial-convergence than divergence but historically this is due to 'racialism' and the construct that the Caucasian is at the top of the pyramid and only the Sub-Saharan African' is a 'true Negro, hence, why this group is dismissed from civilization or being civilizers.
the idea that you have to make the Egyptians into "black people" in order to give modern black Americans a sense of pride and accomplishment, or a source of pure wisdom, I think is just as wrong headed as claiming they were "white" in order to bolster the egos of modern white people. Let's stick to the historical facts and leave the pure speculation out of it. If I were black and interested in polo instead of ancient Egypt, would that make me some kind of "Uncle Tom"? hope not
@XSC3 Uncle tom? I guess you go on the internet and look up black terminology. You love us huh? Well most White girls in america love black men so I understand.
Nobody talks about the ancient egypt being a civilization of black africans to feel better.. It's because it is fact. Sorry for bad english I originally speak french, but i know you understand me fool.
physical strength, creativity, and intelligence is NOT based on skin color. that's true of ancient people and modern people alike. the ancient did what they did without help from "space brothers." Nobody is saying they were a bunch of "white guys" who is an expert in the field today.
so you are saying the writings in the tombs of acnient eygpt have no revelence to todays thought? and that black people inparticualr and people of color or darkskinned people did not built and rule eygypt? i repect your thoughts and opions on here. may i ask what educational backround do you have?
I'm saying they're of little or as much relevance to modern thought as any other ancient writing. Sure they've influenced plenty of people, and their value has ZERO to do with anyone's skin color. To say the Ancient Egyptians were "black" is about as accurate as saying modern United States citizens are "black." As for my educational background, I've got a masters of divinity in church history and a bachelors in art & design and religious studies. I'm not trumpeting my own credentials, of course
@rjohson: the space aliens theory is rejected by the experts, and I agree, it is quite racist, not just because often the aliens are described as "nordic type" but because it assumes that ancient people were too stupid to build and create, they had to have astronauts from the future or bug eyed martians do it for them. It's not a scholarly theory at all. But you don't need to reverse racism and say that it was built black men as if mixed race societies couldn't do those things.
I've had more than a few people come up to me and basically boil down Greco-Roman and even Christian theology/mythology as bog standard literalist stuff (that they then toss out as no longer relevant), but they interpret ancient Egyptian mythology as this deep, symbolic, invincible stuff that is still relevant today. it gets really scary when they start mixing in racial theories and end times BS
with regard to Egyptian mythology, the trouble is that in the 19th century a bunchy of Europeans got together and decided that there was all this magical symbolism and connection to modern thinking, they mixed it all together with their philosophies and some religions of other cultures and out came "modern" Occultism, Theosophy, etc. The "lost lore of egypt" has been used to prop up every new superstition since that time, pretty much. so you have to be very critical in your research
So far from Egyptian mythology being founded on words that have lost their senses, it is the science of Truth in a twofold phase or character, called Mâti
Now, it is immaterial whether the Greek muthoi or mythoi be connected at root, not merely etymologically, with the Egyptian Mâti who represents the 'Two Truths,' but mu and ma are interchangeable, and these sayings were held to be the words of truth and wisdom personified. When Paul speaks of a true saying he means one of the sayings of Truth, of Aletheia.
The myths are sayings because they were only to be said, not written; hence muthos denotes anything delivered by word of mouth. They are myths because uttered by word of mouth alone, but they were so uttered because they contained the hidden oral wisdom and dark sayings of old. The mythoi are the logia, and the logia, or sayings, are assignable to a sayer or logos, who was personified as the utterer in the mythology which preceded theology
Μυθικός signifies that which pertains to fable and myth in an early sense; mυθολογεω, is to recite fables. In Attic prose the myth was commonly a legend of early Greek times, before the dawn of history. The mythoi were no mere sayings in a modern sense; [p.136] they were mystical. In them the mysteries were uttered by word of mouth to the ear alone; like the smriti of India.
The muthoi or myths did not begin in Greece or originate in any other Aryan language; nor with the sayings which are the fading metaphors of mythology, and the utterances of its second childhood. Nor is the myth a mere word in Greek. Mutheo¬mai is not simply to say, but to feign and fable, represent and invent.
The Greek muthoi, for sayings, represents the Egyptian mutu, for ejaculations or brief utterances. Mutuni (Eg.) means 'Lo it is,' or 'It is verily so.' In a similar sense, 'So mote it be' is used by our Freemasons, which brings on a saying and an ancient mode of saying under one word. Mat (Eg.) signifies the pronouncing of conservative formulas. And these formulas and wise sayings were part of the muthoi in Egypt.
Such teaching of 'comparative mythology' is the result of its being limited to the Aryan area; and if the myth be no longer intelligible in the later languages we must look for it in the earlier.
For it has been affirmed by Max Muller and maintained by his followers that the radical meaning and primitive power of certain words (and sayings) must be obscured or lost for them to become mythological and that the essential character of a true myth consists in its being no longer intelligible by a reference to the spoken language[1].
...and his , Muller, concept is confusion, i.e., Babel. If the meanings are obscured by intentionally employing the wrong language to translate 'Egyptian', and interpret it, then this misleads the student away from the truth and is - to my mind - the essence of evil -not sin - false construct. In short we cannot know the empiric 'truth' so 'truth' becomes subjective to profane mythology and imbued with the 'imagination' of men.
The words myth, mythos, and mythology are derived from the Greek μύθος, muthos, which is usually taken to mean a saying, a word, and is sometimes equivalent to logos. In consequence, mythology has been declared to have originated in mere sayings, the clue to which was lost before mythology proper could have existed
XSC3 it is interesting that you use the term 'Mythers" I am sure you are using it in a perjorative manner, therefore I doubt you are aware of the "real" meaning of the word "Myth"
Massey's "The Natural Genesis",the chapter is called "The typology of the two truths"
The unique quality of Massey's work is that "belief " is not called for, one just needs to examine the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions.
Judeo Islamic Christian Academia is more or less biased in favor of their own prejudices and preconceptions, scholarship that challenges the "status quo" is not readily accepted.
XSC3 if you had read Massey's work you would not be asking for someone to show you those :glaringly obvious pre-christian sources for all the bible stories"
Massey has provided the evidence of those sources in all three volumes of his monumental work. It's quite obvious you have not read Massey or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance,
We agree NC360 it is Massey's conclusions that frightnen those who are unable to "look truth squarely in the face without flinching" these people mostly fall in the category of so-called "beleivers". Basically they are christian fundamentalists who believe that the mythical is "historical"
I'd love it if someone could show these "glaringly obvious pre-Christian sources for ALL of the Bible stories" specifically the ones from the life of Jesus. Since the Mythers can't do this without mangling the stories or referring to specifically POST CHRISTIAN stories, I'd say they've failed in that case, MarsSentinel.
@ rjohnson, you said it would be "easy" to show the "pre-Christian Jesus stories."
If it's so easy, please send me a PM (private message) with your evidence. Again, don't just SAY it's true, show me verifiable sources for it (Ie: pre-Christian primary sources for these pagan myths "just like Jesus"), especially if you don't think modern experts can be trusted.
I would be interested to know where Massey has gone "overboard" as you put it. From my perspective and many other great scholars of the past and present, Massey was'nt just a great scholar of his time especially in relation to Egypt, he was ahead of his time!
I agree KamiteGnostic, Massey's work is some of the best.
I do understand though, why people become offended and ignore his work. He showed much on how the Goddess was first, and though I'm in agreement, it's not a comfortable subject for many people to hear... even today.
If so, how is this criticism any less valid than that you claim the rest of us don't accept his work because it "offends our beliefs"?
His work is certainly useless. Try modern Egyptologists. Show me that they agree with his conclusions, and then we can get somewhere. That goes for KamiteGnostic as well...
He was "ahead of his time" in the sense of promoting conspiracy theories and amateur wishful thinking as fact. That's for sure...
Essentially his work is treated as holy writ by conspiracy theorists. They don't seem to realize that historical criticism, like science, evolves and develops with new evidence, it isn't some kind of once and for all thing that is perfected by one person. Nevermind that he wasn't an expert in his own day anyway.
Contrary to what XSC3 is saying Gerald Massey's work is far from useless. Massey Knew more about Ancient Khemet than all of the so called Egyptologists of "modern scholardhip" 'Modern Scholarship" has yet to reach the level of Massey's knowledge of ancient Khemet. Schwaller De Lubicz. John Anthony West and a few other modern scholars can be said to be in the same leage with Massey.
To call Gerald Massey's work useless is to demonstrate a level of ignorance that is almost unimanageable.
While I do find the texts and claims of Massey to go overboard at times like I mention in my video I do find his works enjoyable and you are right he was a great thinker in his time. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@wayman29, that's actually a much more reasonable statement. I find a lot of writers enjoyable even though their works are obsolete. I greatly enjoyed reading Soranus and Aristotle on medicine and the sciences. I like seeing the ancient minds working with what they had and spinning their various theories. I'm not saying we should just mock people because they don't have the tools we have today (and we stand on the shoulders of giants). It's when people treat Massey as if he's near infallible...
gearld massy and cheikh anta diop work canot be challeged even by modern critics; modern critcis will have you believe the ancient eygptians were white and that space aliens build the pyramids; thats because they cant stand the fact that blacks built and ruled ancient eygpt.
Wrong... modern Egyptologists do NOT say that the ancient Egyptian pyrmamid builders were "white" (if by that you mean Caucasion). Most theorists do NOT subscribe to that or the equally incorrect theory that they were all "black" (sub-saharan Africans, or what the early 20th century would call "negros"). Egyptians didn't think of race the way 20th century westerners do, but they would be what we'd today call "mixed race." or a multi-racial society.
You guys are forgetting one thing... Gerald Massey was a white man.
Gerald Massey's work IS amateur and obsolete, and no amount of chest beating or immature threat spewing will change that, sorry. Facts are facts. If we followed the logic of conspiracy theorists, we should be getting our knowledge of science from 100 year old books written by non-scientists. Enough with the empty appeals to authority, show us the modern Egyptologists who attest to Massey's accuracy.
@XSC3 so instead we should be getting our entire basis of religion from 2000 year old books put together by Constatine that say noah got two of every animal? prove to me that the bible was written by god and not copied from earlier civilizations. they made egyptian myths into your religion.
@colt10ram. Constantine had nothing whatever to do with either the composition or the canonization of the books of the Bible. If you think he did... think again. ;) Clearly certain parts of the bible are mythic or parabolic in nature, not straight history. Regardless of whether you think the Bible is "true" or just a bunch of random stories and opinions you disagree with, the point is that we use the best tools we can to determine what it most likely means to not misrepresent it.
@colt10ram I'm not one of those folks who believes that "it means whatever you want it to mean" (it's interesting that usually secular skeptics will reject the bible because they think it means "something bad" so they would seem to reject this method or point of view anyway). So we should strive to figure out what the original audiences of these writings thought of them and the history of interpretation of them, as well as the language. we don't just latch onto what one person thought one time
do schoolchildren need "heroes that look like them"? On a human level,sure. but we can find those people in facts, not fantasy. next, as they grow, they need to discover that it's not just straight heroes and villains, and not just where historians disagree. humans are complex, they're not cardboard cutouts. So Christopher Columbus was neither a saint nor a monster. we can teach why history remembers someone. We remember MLK Jr. for his civil rights activism and eloquence, not his personal sins
A LOT of people back in the day distorted history, taking advantage of the fact that knowledge of ancient Egypt was not widespread, and playing on people's desire to know more about that period and region in the West. That's how Joseph Smith Jr. was able to start a new religion (the LDS Church, based on the Book of Mormon written by ancient lost tribes of Hebrews in "Reformed Egyptian") as just one major example.
Another great example... Charles Taze Russell, forerunner of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) predicted the end of the world based on his measurements of the Great Pyramid at Giza, or rather it's inner passages, if memory serves (his gravesite is even shaped like a pyramid).
This interest in Egypt was given a major shot in the arm in the following century with the discovery of King Tut's tomb, which set off the infamous "Mummy's curse" hysteria fed by the media, and many successful horror films (Boris Karloff's famous first portrayal came to the screen a mere decade after Carter's discovery. Many discoveries were made, but we've moved on since then. A lot of stuff people said about Egypt in the 19th century is garbage now.
@KamiteGnostic you won't get to the truth by following amateur conspiracy theories (until you find out just how wrong they are). this idea of a glorious "black Egypt" that represents all that was good about mankind's wisdom is simply a myth (and it's still a myth if you try to "white wash" it). The ancient wisdom of Egypt thing is more a product of the middle ages and the renaissance, fed by the Greco-Roman mystery cults that used some of the same names and terms borrowed from ancient egypt
@KamiteGnostic of course once you get into the occult circles and finally the modern racialist theories, you really go off the deep end. So I'd caution anyone who is going there, don't be so gullible. don't let personal prejudice draw you in to stuff that just isn't true. Modern scholarship surpassed Massey a long, long time ago. The guy didn't know what he was talking about in the first place, and anything he did know, he picked up from the (at the time primitive) Egyptology of his day
@KamiteGnostic respect for Massey can be placed in his enthusiasm for Egypt and the work he did on his own as far as an amateur could go. however to use him as an authority to place in him the kind of authority that conspiracy theorists do, is simply unwarranted. It would be like somebody putting all their trust in Velikovsky for astronomy (or James Ussher for history).
@KamiteGnostic unless you are studying conspiracy theories or the early days of Egyptology and its popular appeal (including the effect it had on the popular occult movement amongst Westerners), ...
@KamiteGnostic his work IS "useless," in the sense that it's obsolete. Whatever he said that is true and verified will be echoed by modern Egyptologists and those modern Egyptologists will not only know those things but MORE. We have much better evidence and tools to examine that evidence and knowledge of the languages than anyone in Massey's day. So no offense is intended if you consider the man a hero and admire him. you just can't use him as the first or last word on Egypt
@KamiteGnostic. you're defending him purely on ideological grounds, that's the trouble. you buy into the myth of a "black Egypt" as the source of all great human wisdom. this concept is simply a tweak of the outdated (and racist) ideas of enlightenment era thinkers plundering similarly confused ideas from the renaissance. Ironically, a white englishman becomes the hero of black supremacists. Freud is also fun to read, but he's not exactly SOTA.
@KamiteGnostic reading Massey is valuable in seeing how uneducated people interpreted Egypt when the field was in its infancy, and is also useful for seeing where conspiracy theorists go wrong in their studies. I will grant you that. if we really want to find the "truth" (if there is any) in Massey's work, we need to examine his sources. the notion that modern Egyptologists somehow haven't done this, and he knows all this stuff they don't is sheer presumption. gnosticism, much?
@KamiteGnostic and with respect to wayman, I wouldn't take his maxim too far. just because some "lone wolf" writer presents some ideas at odds with the mainstream, does not automatically lend his ideas more credibility. but as a starting point, those who wish to say that this non-expert who died over a century ago knew more than all the experts of today bear the burden of proof. appealing to his continued popularity amongst laymen doesn't fulfill this obligation.
"Armchair" researchers? You can read from anywhere. I mean, say you attend Harvard as a student of Egypt or religion. You read books, go to lectures, write papers, and in the end you are a credentialed student. How is it different if I attend to all the same material outside of Harvard? How many Christians go to Israel or Egypt? Yet they claim absolute knowledge of ancient happenings and deny the glaringly obvious pre-Christian sources for ALL of the Bible stories.
The difference is that if you attend a university you have to pass EXAMS, you have your work evaluated, graded, and judged. You have to PASS the test. You have to successfully DEFEND your dissertation. Amateurs have to do none of these things. They don't have to pass peer review, they can just self publish and make money saying any old crap. That's why amateurs will never pull the same kind of weight that experts can in matters of fact like the study of history.
who determines what an expert and ameture is? i know a guy with a PHD and he made the staement that eygpt is not in Africa. how the fuck was he able to recieve a Phd in theology and still believes eygpt is not in africa? so your theory goes out the window.
who determines? Accredited universities primarily, they establish a person has earned an advanced degree in a certain subject. Number two (which KEEPS checking them, to see if they've lost it) are peer reviewed journals, run by other experts in that field. Without those two, yes, it's all just a big popularity contest. Btw rjohson, what you said about the above expert is known as "hearsay."
He probably meant Egypt is in NORTH Africa (a separate designation from sub saharan Africa).
The Osiris myth, the Jesus Myth, The Mithra myth, the Khrysna myth are all the bread and wine myth (not myth). Read the Golden Calf Story, Read Deutronomy 9, Look for references to DEW in the Bible and go from there!
I cant believe all you people are still agruing about the Roman Myth.
Hey that sounds interesting. Never thought of it before. I think the text of "Adapa and the food of life" might be one of those old accounts you mention. thanks for the idea. I'll have to check it out.
@callumcoutts so a symbolic interpretation of one passage from the bible reveals a vast conspiracy which proves all of known history and scholarship wrong? Sorry, but how is that convincing? There are a dozen such theories flying around like that, not a one of them which has any proof, but asks us to assume a conspiracy (which violates occam's razor). What makes you think the original authors or audience had that in mind?
So in short, it's fine if amateurs want to challenge the "establishment" of scholars and experts. But they need to argue their case just like anyone else... based on the best evidence, not conspiracy theory. So they can ask the question, but the questions asked by the Mythers have been asked and answered, often many times over. Hence why the Mythers revert to conspiracy theory to explain away the rebuttals.
XSC3, Massey wasn't about making people like you happy, but rather to find the truth regardless of who it upsets. You don't like his work? Well no surprise, since you don't like his conclusions.
If Massey was about finding the truth, it's a pity he never wrote it down, NC360.
I'm "happy" when people use actual evidence to promote sound historical scholarship. Posers like Massey don't impress me, nor do those wannabes who quote his work as some sort of revelation (while thumbing their noses at modern scholarship).
Basically what I've found is that the Mythers consider the fact that books exist (with covers and everything) that say Jesus was a made-up fictional character and therefore Christianity is all wrong to be sufficient to back up their views. They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between amateurs (especially ones who plagiarize from obsolete debunked sources) and experts. If they resent people with credentials, more's the pity.
Massey is a favorite of the Jesus Mythers, unfortunately his "expertise" is limited, since he's a "self taught" Egyptologist (in a period when it was possible to get away with that, as very little was actually known about ancient Egypt). It's a better idea to rely on actual biblical scholars and professional historians, not poets.
Yes he was self taught and had some great ideas. George Frazer was self taught and wrote one of best anthropology book the Golden Bough. So some arm chair scholars can break into the room.
That's fine, but modern scholarship trumps their amateur research. Yet, the Mythers still cite them as if their work trumps the research of the modern era (which benefits from new textual and archaeological discoveries, etc).
No not always they contribute to the debate. many times the "experts" are proven wrong when something new is dug up. They then have to change their theories about things. Arm chair scholars also change their views when they read about it from the scholars in the scientific journals and the over priced books put out on the topic.
But the Mythers have yet to be proven right (and in fact have been proven wrong on many of their points, especially as new evidence comes to light and is seen by more people, especially people with more experience and better training). Their positions may have appeared much stronger back in their own day of course. One shouldn't try to spin this into a populist "the best selling amateurs are always right" bias either.
all I am pointing out is that it was advanced for their time period on how they thought about the topic. I didn't say it was an earth shattering modern revelation that was just discovered in the texts of Massey.
Paul is the creator of Christianety...
InfoRoom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InfoRoom . But those Romanists who do not greatly love the Jesuits, and their number is not limited, use the term as indicating that the Black Pope rules the White Pope...even while the former [i.e., the Black Pope] is obligated to make, at least, a show of submission to the latter." (1896)
M.F. Cusack (Ex-nun of Kenmore; author of the book The Black Pope)
augustmaquet 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InfoRoom "In Roman Catholic circles it is well known that the Black Pope is the term used for the [Superior] General of the Jesuits. As the Pope is always robed in white, and the [Jesuit Superior] General in black, the contrast is obvious.
augustmaquet 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InfoRoom "Today they [i.e., the Jesuits] are stronger in the United States than they ever were in any of the countries of Europe which expelled them as a menace to the government." (1912)
Jeremiah J. Crowley
augustmaquet 1 week ago
God had to bring the Ancient Israelites OUT of the Nephilim (fallen angel, demi-god) worshipping, occultists of Ancient Egypt to teach them the real truth about the True God who created ALL of humanity, His Ways, Divine Nature,Laws, Covenants and Promises and Prophecy. Ancient Egyptians followed the same religious occultism as the Ancient Sumerians, India, Asia, Inca,Myan, Roman, Greek, Norse=fallen angel worshipping religions satan teaches knowledge to..so they seem smart..but all dead cultures
successissure 9 months ago
Comment removed
successissure 9 months ago
I adore Gerald Massey. Thank you.
DrMickaelleDougherty 1 year ago
Oh i forgot, Dan Winter and his research was as revered as Massey, so much that he was kicked out of the country. What does that tell you?
matrixmaster79 1 year ago
His work is shunned by the establishment, Hummmm, I wonder why, but you can get any episode of the Simpsons at a fingers snap. The suppressors of Illumination continue to hope that you keep that tv remote in your hand. Enough said. Do the research...
matrixmaster79 1 year ago
@matrixmaster79 and Dan Brown made millions shilling his own neo-gnostic anti-establishment alternative history. does that mean he's right too? give me a break. nobody's saying you can't read the work of amateurs and kooks or even enjoy it. but if people are going to thump it as THE TRUTH and insult those who don't buy it, especially without a serious factual defense of said theories, then they should expect a less than positive reaction.
XSC3 6 months ago
so yes, it's delicate, but history I think is complex enough that people can be taught it responsibly. the old idea of making "heroes and villains" perhaps is more the problem, because it oversimplifies things into "black and white" (no pun intended). when it comes to race, naturally there's the tendency to make the people you like "us" and the people you don't like "them" even to the point of assigning race even where it's unwarranted or false
XSC3 1 year ago
......cont.....
@XSC3
So don't be amazed by Blacks and others after coming to see the reality that if these ancient folk would be alive in the Jim Crow American south, be regulated to the back of the bus. Whether or not you want to call them Black notwithstanding. The status quo of keeping them white is kept today mostly by silence and the denial of categories that are no longer convenient.
LordMungu 1 year ago
....cont......
@XSC3
I was the only Black in the classroom. I remember what the encyclopidia and text books use to say. I remember the images some even to this day of pale white skin, exposed, wearing white and lots of gold in the hot African sun, with straight bob cut. Some will at least have the African corn rows, making the images even more ridiculous. I remember what I read in H.G. Wells, "History of the World" and other books. My friend, there was indeed a concerted effort to make an
LordMungu 1 year ago
@LordMungu you're talking about the effects of culture. The thing is though, should we modify the facts to make ourselves feel better? Is the truth malleable to our feelings? There are plenty of heroes and things one can admire in one's culture without inventing fake ones. History is not always so cut and dried. I greatly admire MLK Jr. for example as I think most Americans do. But he was also a plagiarist and an adulterer. By admitting that am I doing wrong or doing justice to the truth?
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3
"The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project addresses authorship issues on pp. 25–26 of Volume II of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., entitled "Rediscovering Precious Values, July 1951 – November 1955," Clayborne Carson, Senior Editor. Following is an excerpt from these pages:
"Moreover, King's actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship."
sitabanu 6 months ago
@sitabanu of course. I didn't say MLK Jr. invented mythicism. I judge his work in this area worthless based on the obsolete and poor quality of his sources. it would be illogical to defend Mythicism on the basis that "well a great man like MLK Jr. supported it." scholarship didn't stop in the 1950's.
XSC3 6 months ago
@XSC3
Nah...my point was only the characterization of his appropriating theological scholarship rather than attempting to pass off another theologian's work as his own. The whole religion and theosophy is a fool's la la land of either 'treasures in heaven' or at a minimum 72 black-eyed virgins. I do not know one normal woman who dreams of having access to 72 virgins! This paradise for men only. Pretty sexist if you ask me!
sitabanu 6 months ago
@sitabanu not sure why you brought "theosophy" into it. I have no interest in defending Muhammad's view of paradise. what you said has little to do with what I was talking about, which was whether the "pagan copycat theory" has historical validity as an explanation for the origin of Christianity (or might explain away the need for an actual historical person behind the "Jesus Legend"). using MLK's paper to support mythicism is worthless, I'm saying. he was an amateur using obsolete research.
XSC3 6 months ago
@XSC3 I was not commenting on the subject of your post but on your characterization of MLK as a plagiarist. I am not interested in the overall concept of 'Jesus Christ' as myth or man. It serves no purpose when talking to atheists and the religious won't be moved to consider the odds.
sitabanu 6 months ago
@sitabanu oh ok. MLK's plagiarism is relating to his dissertation. this finding was revealed in 1991 by a Boston University panel. I'll send you the link
XSC3 6 months ago
@XSC3
Well...that was my first post !..."The Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project addresses authorship issues on pp. 25–26 of Volume II of The Papers... "Rediscovering Precious Values, July 1951 – November 1955," Clayborne Carson, Senior Editor. Following is an excerpt from these pages:
"Moreover, King's actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship."
sitabanu 6 months ago
@sitabanu so MLK was a preacher first, not a scholar. that doesn't excuse the plagiarism IN HIS ACADEMIC WORK though. I mean, if we insist on calling him "Dr. King."
he was a complex man, and he's remembered for his preaching and activism, not for being an academic. still, even if he'd plagiarized nothing, my point about the mythicism stuff still stands, and that's all most people are talking about here anyway. did anybody important ever give credence to Mythicism, in other words.
XSC3 6 months ago
I think it's pretty clear that the Muslim view of paradise in the afterlife is one of enhanced earthly delights. you get to have all the sex you want (and you will have incredible stamina), you get to drink all you want (and it won't make you drunk), you get shade, relaxation and tasty fruit served to you. it's the sort of thing that people in the arabian desert (yes, primarily men, but also women) would think sounded great.
XSC3 6 months ago
Some Muslims might spiritualize that view of the afterlife, but I think most throughout history have taken it literally. so basically you get access to the pleasure dome, if you're a good Muslim. I'm not a Muslim, I'm just telling you. people have different views of the afterlife. look at the Mormons. the traditional Christian view seems to be more of people being asexual. so they get mocked for having "no sex in heaven" while Muslims and Mormons get mocked for having sex in heaven.
XSC3 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XSC3 "[Jesuit Adam] Weishaupt established the [modern version of the] Illuminati specifically to be a front organization behind which the Jesuits could hide. After being [formally] abolished by [Pope] Clement XIV in 1773, the Jesuits used the Illuminati and other organizations to carry out their operations. Thus, the front organizations would be blamed for the trouble caused by the Jesuits."
Bill Hughes (Author of The Secret Terrorists and The Enemy Unmasked)
augustmaquet 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XSC3 "They [i.e., the Jesuits] have so constantly mixed themselves up in court and state intrigues that they must, in justice, be reproached with striving after world dominion. They cost kings their lives, not on the scaffold, but by assassination, and equally hurtful as the society of Illuminati; they were the foremost among the crowd, at all events, who applauded the murder scenes in Paris [during the French Revolution]."
Hector Macpherson
augustmaquet 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XSC3 "Never before in the course of the world's history had such a Society [i.e., the Jesuit Order] appeared. The old Roman Senate itself did not lay schemes for world domination with greater certainty of success." (1800)
Friedrich von Hardenberg (German philosopher)
augustmaquet 1 week ago
@sitabanu so complain to a Muslim scholar, but from what I've heard, Muslim women get to be in this paradise as well, but they get to be wives of "great men" or something. depends upon whom you talk to. I'm sure if you any but a fundie Muslim, they'll be happy to explain to you that the women get 72 dark eyed young men to "attend" to their desires just as the equivalent men get their women. does that fix the "sexism" problem for you?
XSC3 6 months ago
@XSC3
Like I said a normal woman does no want access to 72 virgins!
sitabanu 6 months ago
@sitabanu how do you know? anyway, we're talking about what pious muslims are told they can expect in the afterlife.
what's "normal"? you might argue that a "normal" woman doesn't want to be bossed around by men her whole life and wear the hijab as well (though that would be western bias speaking). plenty of men don't sleep around/wouldn't cheat on their 1 spouse, but I don't hear you saying that's "abnormal"
XSC3 6 months ago
@XSC3
You are mixing things up. Muslim men do not 'cheat' on their wives if they are practicing the Sunna of having up to four wives - cavaet - he can afford up to four. 'Cheating' per se in a Muslim households is not forbidden as men have concubines. Christian marriages end in divorce as often as non-Christian. Monogamy without marriage is just stupid unless of course she has a subsistence order from the Family Court. So, a 'normal' man or 'woman' is pretty much a figment of society.
sitabanu 6 months ago
Any 'normal' woman in a monogamous society - having lived more than 25 years and having had more than one or two intimate relationships is fully aware of her needs. Therefore, no 'normal' woman wants to have access to 72 virgins. Done maybe one or twice but 70 more times than that! Nah! Nothing but frustration and a waste of a 'washing my hair tonight' night.!!! This is not even a question of 'the flesh is willing..." LOL.
sitabanu 6 months ago
@LordMungu the image of "white caucasion Egypt" is wrong, I agree. but so is "all black African Egypt." Whether one is mangling history for "white pride" or "black pride" it's still mangling history. If one wants to claim the "ideals" of a culture, one doesn't have to share the skin color (or anything) of that people. It's natural enough, but people should realize that's not how it works. Having "irish blood" doesn't give you the virtues of the Irish people and lacking it doesn't prevent you.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3
Let me help you see the point here. When I was in H.S. In world history class (1980s) our teacher told the class the ancient people of the Nile were white. He did not mention race with any other people we covered. One day I will never forget we viewed a film on the King Tut exhibit. A bold young white kid, who's name I have not forgotten to this day, asked the teacher, "Isn't Tut Black?"
Clearly embarrassed the teacher said yes Tut was. I was the only Black in the classroom. I re
LordMungu 1 year ago
@LordMungu your teacher was wrong. Honestly growing up I always pictured (or saw pictured) the ancient Egyptians as "tan" (vaguely Indian or Arab looking, I suppose). It wasn't until later that I started hearing people promoting the idea that ancient Egypt looked like 1950's Harlem.
XSC3 1 year ago
KelferMookie, sending death threats won't win you any arguments.
XSC3 1 year ago
Gerald Massey is wrong about a lot of things, not least of which, the "connections" between Jesus and Horus, which goes hand in hand with his interpretation of certain inscriptions. The man was not an expert but a dabbler. Clearly his interest in Egypt and so forth was related to his interest in the occult. He was living at a time when it was highly fashionable to conduct esoteric "research" (dabbling) in order to try to invent fanciful histories for secret societies and so forth. "Pop" history
XSC3 1 year ago
Why is it that when Black People CORRECT a misconception, we are accused of exaggerating for self esteem. That is a classic fallback position for people who don't acknowledge the effect of culture and history as a tool for oppressing people. I hope you argue as extensively against portrayals of blond haired blue eyed Jesuses as you do against the Black African Egyptians. THEY are the ones who claim to have migrated from Nubia/Kush. How do you deny the wall paintings, mummies and sculpture?
easmachine 2 years ago
@easmachine You are very correct my friend.
"XSC3" is an insecure white soul wondering the internet spreading false doctrine.
KelferMookie 1 year ago
@KelferMookie how are you able to type all that with a straight jacket on? Very impressive.
XSC3 1 year ago
@easmachine I think the issue here is that in order to counter perceived racism, some racists are making up their own nutty theory. There's no evidence that there was some "pure black race" that founded and ruled all of Egypt, or that Jesus was a black African, etc. Replace "pure black race" with "pure white race" and it's still not true. Your worth is not based on sharing similar skin color with some people who did something good or bad.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3
Okay. This has gotten out of control. If the people of Qemt were 'Afro-Asiatic' does that make them less 'Black' in the modern use of the term in America? 'Pure' races do exist in isolation. The modern world has less racial-convergence than divergence but historically this is due to 'racialism' and the construct that the Caucasian is at the top of the pyramid and only the Sub-Saharan African' is a 'true Negro, hence, why this group is dismissed from civilization or being civilizers.
sitabanu 6 months ago
the idea that you have to make the Egyptians into "black people" in order to give modern black Americans a sense of pride and accomplishment, or a source of pure wisdom, I think is just as wrong headed as claiming they were "white" in order to bolster the egos of modern white people. Let's stick to the historical facts and leave the pure speculation out of it. If I were black and interested in polo instead of ancient Egypt, would that make me some kind of "Uncle Tom"? hope not
XSC3 2 years ago
@XSC3 Uncle tom? I guess you go on the internet and look up black terminology. You love us huh? Well most White girls in america love black men so I understand.
Nobody talks about the ancient egypt being a civilization of black africans to feel better.. It's because it is fact. Sorry for bad english I originally speak french, but i know you understand me fool.
KelferMookie 1 year ago
physical strength, creativity, and intelligence is NOT based on skin color. that's true of ancient people and modern people alike. the ancient did what they did without help from "space brothers." Nobody is saying they were a bunch of "white guys" who is an expert in the field today.
XSC3 2 years ago
so you are saying the writings in the tombs of acnient eygpt have no revelence to todays thought? and that black people inparticualr and people of color or darkskinned people did not built and rule eygypt? i repect your thoughts and opions on here. may i ask what educational backround do you have?
rjohson 2 years ago
I'm saying they're of little or as much relevance to modern thought as any other ancient writing. Sure they've influenced plenty of people, and their value has ZERO to do with anyone's skin color. To say the Ancient Egyptians were "black" is about as accurate as saying modern United States citizens are "black." As for my educational background, I've got a masters of divinity in church history and a bachelors in art & design and religious studies. I'm not trumpeting my own credentials, of course
XSC3 2 years ago
@rjohson: the space aliens theory is rejected by the experts, and I agree, it is quite racist, not just because often the aliens are described as "nordic type" but because it assumes that ancient people were too stupid to build and create, they had to have astronauts from the future or bug eyed martians do it for them. It's not a scholarly theory at all. But you don't need to reverse racism and say that it was built black men as if mixed race societies couldn't do those things.
XSC3 2 years ago
I've had more than a few people come up to me and basically boil down Greco-Roman and even Christian theology/mythology as bog standard literalist stuff (that they then toss out as no longer relevant), but they interpret ancient Egyptian mythology as this deep, symbolic, invincible stuff that is still relevant today. it gets really scary when they start mixing in racial theories and end times BS
XSC3 2 years ago
with regard to Egyptian mythology, the trouble is that in the 19th century a bunchy of Europeans got together and decided that there was all this magical symbolism and connection to modern thinking, they mixed it all together with their philosophies and some religions of other cultures and out came "modern" Occultism, Theosophy, etc. The "lost lore of egypt" has been used to prop up every new superstition since that time, pretty much. so you have to be very critical in your research
XSC3 2 years ago
Comment removed
MachoKokoa 2 years ago
Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben-Jochanan
mumbleora 2 years ago
So far from Egyptian mythology being founded on words that have lost their senses, it is the science of Truth in a twofold phase or character, called Mâti
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
Now, it is immaterial whether the Greek muthoi or mythoi be connected at root, not merely etymologically, with the Egyptian Mâti who represents the 'Two Truths,' but mu and ma are interchangeable, and these sayings were held to be the words of truth and wisdom personified. When Paul speaks of a true saying he means one of the sayings of Truth, of Aletheia.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
Comment removed
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
The myths are sayings because they were only to be said, not written; hence muthos denotes anything delivered by word of mouth. They are myths because uttered by word of mouth alone, but they were so uttered because they contained the hidden oral wisdom and dark sayings of old. The mythoi are the logia, and the logia, or sayings, are assignable to a sayer or logos, who was personified as the utterer in the mythology which preceded theology
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
Μυθικός signifies that which pertains to fable and myth in an early sense; mυθολογεω, is to recite fables. In Attic prose the myth was commonly a legend of early Greek times, before the dawn of history. The mythoi were no mere sayings in a modern sense; [p.136] they were mystical. In them the mysteries were uttered by word of mouth to the ear alone; like the smriti of India.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
The muthoi or myths did not begin in Greece or originate in any other Aryan language; nor with the sayings which are the fading metaphors of mythology, and the utterances of its second childhood. Nor is the myth a mere word in Greek. Mutheo¬mai is not simply to say, but to feign and fable, represent and invent.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
The Greek muthoi, for sayings, represents the Egyptian mutu, for ejaculations or brief utterances. Mutuni (Eg.) means 'Lo it is,' or 'It is verily so.' In a similar sense, 'So mote it be' is used by our Freemasons, which brings on a saying and an ancient mode of saying under one word. Mat (Eg.) signifies the pronouncing of conservative formulas. And these formulas and wise sayings were part of the muthoi in Egypt.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
Such teaching of 'comparative mythology' is the result of its being limited to the Aryan area; and if the myth be no longer intelligible in the later languages we must look for it in the earlier.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
For it has been affirmed by Max Muller and maintained by his followers that the radical meaning and primitive power of certain words (and sayings) must be obscured or lost for them to become mythological and that the essential character of a true myth consists in its being no longer intelligible by a reference to the spoken language[1].
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
@KamiteGnostic
...and his , Muller, concept is confusion, i.e., Babel. If the meanings are obscured by intentionally employing the wrong language to translate 'Egyptian', and interpret it, then this misleads the student away from the truth and is - to my mind - the essence of evil -not sin - false construct. In short we cannot know the empiric 'truth' so 'truth' becomes subjective to profane mythology and imbued with the 'imagination' of men.
sitabanu 6 months ago
The words myth, mythos, and mythology are derived from the Greek μύθος, muthos, which is usually taken to mean a saying, a word, and is sometimes equivalent to logos. In consequence, mythology has been declared to have originated in mere sayings, the clue to which was lost before mythology proper could have existed
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
XSC3 it is interesting that you use the term 'Mythers" I am sure you are using it in a perjorative manner, therefore I doubt you are aware of the "real" meaning of the word "Myth"
Massey's "The Natural Genesis",the chapter is called "The typology of the two truths"
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
The unique quality of Massey's work is that "belief " is not called for, one just needs to examine the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions.
Judeo Islamic Christian Academia is more or less biased in favor of their own prejudices and preconceptions, scholarship that challenges the "status quo" is not readily accepted.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
XSC3 if you had read Massey's work you would not be asking for someone to show you those :glaringly obvious pre-christian sources for all the bible stories"
Massey has provided the evidence of those sources in all three volumes of his monumental work. It's quite obvious you have not read Massey or you are suffering from cognitive dissonance,
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
We agree NC360 it is Massey's conclusions that frightnen those who are unable to "look truth squarely in the face without flinching" these people mostly fall in the category of so-called "beleivers". Basically they are christian fundamentalists who believe that the mythical is "historical"
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
I'd love it if someone could show these "glaringly obvious pre-Christian sources for ALL of the Bible stories" specifically the ones from the life of Jesus. Since the Mythers can't do this without mangling the stories or referring to specifically POST CHRISTIAN stories, I'd say they've failed in that case, MarsSentinel.
XSC3 2 years ago
believe me to show jesus storys before christanity is very easy to do. im not even a ameture scholar and i can do that.
rjohson 2 years ago
@ rjohnson, you said it would be "easy" to show the "pre-Christian Jesus stories."
If it's so easy, please send me a PM (private message) with your evidence. Again, don't just SAY it's true, show me verifiable sources for it (Ie: pre-Christian primary sources for these pagan myths "just like Jesus"), especially if you don't think modern experts can be trusted.
XSC3 2 years ago
I would be interested to know where Massey has gone "overboard" as you put it. From my perspective and many other great scholars of the past and present, Massey was'nt just a great scholar of his time especially in relation to Egypt, he was ahead of his time!
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
I agree KamiteGnostic, Massey's work is some of the best.
I do understand though, why people become offended and ignore his work. He showed much on how the Goddess was first, and though I'm in agreement, it's not a comfortable subject for many people to hear... even today.
NC360 2 years ago
NC360, do you believe in "the Goddess"?
If so, how is this criticism any less valid than that you claim the rest of us don't accept his work because it "offends our beliefs"?
His work is certainly useless. Try modern Egyptologists. Show me that they agree with his conclusions, and then we can get somewhere. That goes for KamiteGnostic as well...
XSC3 2 years ago
He was "ahead of his time" in the sense of promoting conspiracy theories and amateur wishful thinking as fact. That's for sure...
Essentially his work is treated as holy writ by conspiracy theorists. They don't seem to realize that historical criticism, like science, evolves and develops with new evidence, it isn't some kind of once and for all thing that is perfected by one person. Nevermind that he wasn't an expert in his own day anyway.
XSC3 2 years ago
Contrary to what XSC3 is saying Gerald Massey's work is far from useless. Massey Knew more about Ancient Khemet than all of the so called Egyptologists of "modern scholardhip" 'Modern Scholarship" has yet to reach the level of Massey's knowledge of ancient Khemet. Schwaller De Lubicz. John Anthony West and a few other modern scholars can be said to be in the same leage with Massey.
To call Gerald Massey's work useless is to demonstrate a level of ignorance that is almost unimanageable.
KamiteGnostic 2 years ago
While I do find the texts and claims of Massey to go overboard at times like I mention in my video I do find his works enjoyable and you are right he was a great thinker in his time. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
wayman29 2 years ago
@wayman29, that's actually a much more reasonable statement. I find a lot of writers enjoyable even though their works are obsolete. I greatly enjoyed reading Soranus and Aristotle on medicine and the sciences. I like seeing the ancient minds working with what they had and spinning their various theories. I'm not saying we should just mock people because they don't have the tools we have today (and we stand on the shoulders of giants). It's when people treat Massey as if he's near infallible...
XSC3 1 year ago
@wayman29
does that mean his arguments are credible... or even scientific?
chica476 6 months ago
What makes Massey reliable, KamiteGnostic? Show me where the modern credentialed Egyptologists validate his work.
XSC3 2 years ago
gearld massy and cheikh anta diop work canot be challeged even by modern critics; modern critcis will have you believe the ancient eygptians were white and that space aliens build the pyramids; thats because they cant stand the fact that blacks built and ruled ancient eygpt.
rjohson 2 years ago
Wrong... modern Egyptologists do NOT say that the ancient Egyptian pyrmamid builders were "white" (if by that you mean Caucasion). Most theorists do NOT subscribe to that or the equally incorrect theory that they were all "black" (sub-saharan Africans, or what the early 20th century would call "negros"). Egyptians didn't think of race the way 20th century westerners do, but they would be what we'd today call "mixed race." or a multi-racial society.
XSC3 2 years ago
You didn't mention Dr. Ben.
Errordemn6 2 years ago
@KamiteGnostic, totally agree! I have his books. He's brilliant.
pedrom41 1 year ago
You guys are forgetting one thing... Gerald Massey was a white man.
Gerald Massey's work IS amateur and obsolete, and no amount of chest beating or immature threat spewing will change that, sorry. Facts are facts. If we followed the logic of conspiracy theorists, we should be getting our knowledge of science from 100 year old books written by non-scientists. Enough with the empty appeals to authority, show us the modern Egyptologists who attest to Massey's accuracy.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 so instead we should be getting our entire basis of religion from 2000 year old books put together by Constatine that say noah got two of every animal? prove to me that the bible was written by god and not copied from earlier civilizations. they made egyptian myths into your religion.
colt10ram 1 year ago
@colt10ram. Constantine had nothing whatever to do with either the composition or the canonization of the books of the Bible. If you think he did... think again. ;) Clearly certain parts of the bible are mythic or parabolic in nature, not straight history. Regardless of whether you think the Bible is "true" or just a bunch of random stories and opinions you disagree with, the point is that we use the best tools we can to determine what it most likely means to not misrepresent it.
XSC3 1 year ago
@colt10ram I'm not one of those folks who believes that "it means whatever you want it to mean" (it's interesting that usually secular skeptics will reject the bible because they think it means "something bad" so they would seem to reject this method or point of view anyway). So we should strive to figure out what the original audiences of these writings thought of them and the history of interpretation of them, as well as the language. we don't just latch onto what one person thought one time
XSC3 1 year ago
do schoolchildren need "heroes that look like them"? On a human level,sure. but we can find those people in facts, not fantasy. next, as they grow, they need to discover that it's not just straight heroes and villains, and not just where historians disagree. humans are complex, they're not cardboard cutouts. So Christopher Columbus was neither a saint nor a monster. we can teach why history remembers someone. We remember MLK Jr. for his civil rights activism and eloquence, not his personal sins
XSC3 1 year ago
A LOT of people back in the day distorted history, taking advantage of the fact that knowledge of ancient Egypt was not widespread, and playing on people's desire to know more about that period and region in the West. That's how Joseph Smith Jr. was able to start a new religion (the LDS Church, based on the Book of Mormon written by ancient lost tribes of Hebrews in "Reformed Egyptian") as just one major example.
XSC3 1 year ago
Another great example... Charles Taze Russell, forerunner of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) predicted the end of the world based on his measurements of the Great Pyramid at Giza, or rather it's inner passages, if memory serves (his gravesite is even shaped like a pyramid).
XSC3 1 year ago
This interest in Egypt was given a major shot in the arm in the following century with the discovery of King Tut's tomb, which set off the infamous "Mummy's curse" hysteria fed by the media, and many successful horror films (Boris Karloff's famous first portrayal came to the screen a mere decade after Carter's discovery. Many discoveries were made, but we've moved on since then. A lot of stuff people said about Egypt in the 19th century is garbage now.
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic you won't get to the truth by following amateur conspiracy theories (until you find out just how wrong they are). this idea of a glorious "black Egypt" that represents all that was good about mankind's wisdom is simply a myth (and it's still a myth if you try to "white wash" it). The ancient wisdom of Egypt thing is more a product of the middle ages and the renaissance, fed by the Greco-Roman mystery cults that used some of the same names and terms borrowed from ancient egypt
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic of course once you get into the occult circles and finally the modern racialist theories, you really go off the deep end. So I'd caution anyone who is going there, don't be so gullible. don't let personal prejudice draw you in to stuff that just isn't true. Modern scholarship surpassed Massey a long, long time ago. The guy didn't know what he was talking about in the first place, and anything he did know, he picked up from the (at the time primitive) Egyptology of his day
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic respect for Massey can be placed in his enthusiasm for Egypt and the work he did on his own as far as an amateur could go. however to use him as an authority to place in him the kind of authority that conspiracy theorists do, is simply unwarranted. It would be like somebody putting all their trust in Velikovsky for astronomy (or James Ussher for history).
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic unless you are studying conspiracy theories or the early days of Egyptology and its popular appeal (including the effect it had on the popular occult movement amongst Westerners), ...
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic his work IS "useless," in the sense that it's obsolete. Whatever he said that is true and verified will be echoed by modern Egyptologists and those modern Egyptologists will not only know those things but MORE. We have much better evidence and tools to examine that evidence and knowledge of the languages than anyone in Massey's day. So no offense is intended if you consider the man a hero and admire him. you just can't use him as the first or last word on Egypt
XSC3 1 year ago
@KamiteGnostic. you're defending him purely on ideological grounds, that's the trouble. you buy into the myth of a "black Egypt" as the source of all great human wisdom. this concept is simply a tweak of the outdated (and racist) ideas of enlightenment era thinkers plundering similarly confused ideas from the renaissance. Ironically, a white englishman becomes the hero of black supremacists. Freud is also fun to read, but he's not exactly SOTA.
XSC3 6 months ago
@KamiteGnostic reading Massey is valuable in seeing how uneducated people interpreted Egypt when the field was in its infancy, and is also useful for seeing where conspiracy theorists go wrong in their studies. I will grant you that. if we really want to find the "truth" (if there is any) in Massey's work, we need to examine his sources. the notion that modern Egyptologists somehow haven't done this, and he knows all this stuff they don't is sheer presumption. gnosticism, much?
XSC3 6 months ago
@KamiteGnostic and with respect to wayman, I wouldn't take his maxim too far. just because some "lone wolf" writer presents some ideas at odds with the mainstream, does not automatically lend his ideas more credibility. but as a starting point, those who wish to say that this non-expert who died over a century ago knew more than all the experts of today bear the burden of proof. appealing to his continued popularity amongst laymen doesn't fulfill this obligation.
XSC3 6 months ago
You look like charles manson haha
jimruthless 2 years ago
"Armchair" researchers? You can read from anywhere. I mean, say you attend Harvard as a student of Egypt or religion. You read books, go to lectures, write papers, and in the end you are a credentialed student. How is it different if I attend to all the same material outside of Harvard? How many Christians go to Israel or Egypt? Yet they claim absolute knowledge of ancient happenings and deny the glaringly obvious pre-Christian sources for ALL of the Bible stories.
MarsSentinel 3 years ago
The difference is that if you attend a university you have to pass EXAMS, you have your work evaluated, graded, and judged. You have to PASS the test. You have to successfully DEFEND your dissertation. Amateurs have to do none of these things. They don't have to pass peer review, they can just self publish and make money saying any old crap. That's why amateurs will never pull the same kind of weight that experts can in matters of fact like the study of history.
XSC3 2 years ago
who determines what an expert and ameture is? i know a guy with a PHD and he made the staement that eygpt is not in Africa. how the fuck was he able to recieve a Phd in theology and still believes eygpt is not in africa? so your theory goes out the window.
rjohson 2 years ago
who determines? Accredited universities primarily, they establish a person has earned an advanced degree in a certain subject. Number two (which KEEPS checking them, to see if they've lost it) are peer reviewed journals, run by other experts in that field. Without those two, yes, it's all just a big popularity contest. Btw rjohson, what you said about the above expert is known as "hearsay."
He probably meant Egypt is in NORTH Africa (a separate designation from sub saharan Africa).
XSC3 2 years ago
Gerald Massey. if 100 year old schoarlship is good enough for you, you might be a fundy atheist.
migkillertwo 4 years ago
If you still have 100 year old understanding of religious literature, and it's is good enough for you then you might be fundy evangelical.
wayman29 4 years ago
haha
blastingcaps 3 years ago
Im an armchair scholar as you say.
Do you think it could be possible to turn the world on its head and claim that Jesus and Horus are the white stone?
You know the stone surely, all you scholars out there?
Genesis "the gold of that land is good aromatic resin"
Funny thing is that so is manna (exo). It resembles seed when it dries and is white. Just like the white stone (rev).
The hidden manna (rev). Get gold tried in fire
Bread and wine is a tradition that dates back to circia 8K years.
callumcoutts 4 years ago
The Osiris myth, the Jesus Myth, The Mithra myth, the Khrysna myth are all the bread and wine myth (not myth). Read the Golden Calf Story, Read Deutronomy 9, Look for references to DEW in the Bible and go from there!
I cant believe all you people are still agruing about the Roman Myth.
callumcoutts 4 years ago
i read deut. 9 i dont see any referece to due, and if there is any refe what does it have to do with this video?
rjohson 2 years ago
Hey that sounds interesting. Never thought of it before. I think the text of "Adapa and the food of life" might be one of those old accounts you mention. thanks for the idea. I'll have to check it out.
wayman29 4 years ago
@callumcoutts so a symbolic interpretation of one passage from the bible reveals a vast conspiracy which proves all of known history and scholarship wrong? Sorry, but how is that convincing? There are a dozen such theories flying around like that, not a one of them which has any proof, but asks us to assume a conspiracy (which violates occam's razor). What makes you think the original authors or audience had that in mind?
XSC3 1 year ago
So in short, it's fine if amateurs want to challenge the "establishment" of scholars and experts. But they need to argue their case just like anyone else... based on the best evidence, not conspiracy theory. So they can ask the question, but the questions asked by the Mythers have been asked and answered, often many times over. Hence why the Mythers revert to conspiracy theory to explain away the rebuttals.
XSC3 4 years ago
XSC3, Massey wasn't about making people like you happy, but rather to find the truth regardless of who it upsets. You don't like his work? Well no surprise, since you don't like his conclusions.
NC360 2 years ago
If Massey was about finding the truth, it's a pity he never wrote it down, NC360.
I'm "happy" when people use actual evidence to promote sound historical scholarship. Posers like Massey don't impress me, nor do those wannabes who quote his work as some sort of revelation (while thumbing their noses at modern scholarship).
XSC3 2 years ago
Basically what I've found is that the Mythers consider the fact that books exist (with covers and everything) that say Jesus was a made-up fictional character and therefore Christianity is all wrong to be sufficient to back up their views. They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between amateurs (especially ones who plagiarize from obsolete debunked sources) and experts. If they resent people with credentials, more's the pity.
XSC3 4 years ago
Massey is a favorite of the Jesus Mythers, unfortunately his "expertise" is limited, since he's a "self taught" Egyptologist (in a period when it was possible to get away with that, as very little was actually known about ancient Egypt). It's a better idea to rely on actual biblical scholars and professional historians, not poets.
XSC3 4 years ago
Yes he was self taught and had some great ideas. George Frazer was self taught and wrote one of best anthropology book the Golden Bough. So some arm chair scholars can break into the room.
wayman29 4 years ago
That's fine, but modern scholarship trumps their amateur research. Yet, the Mythers still cite them as if their work trumps the research of the modern era (which benefits from new textual and archaeological discoveries, etc).
XSC3 4 years ago
No not always they contribute to the debate. many times the "experts" are proven wrong when something new is dug up. They then have to change their theories about things. Arm chair scholars also change their views when they read about it from the scholars in the scientific journals and the over priced books put out on the topic.
wayman29 4 years ago
But the Mythers have yet to be proven right (and in fact have been proven wrong on many of their points, especially as new evidence comes to light and is seen by more people, especially people with more experience and better training). Their positions may have appeared much stronger back in their own day of course. One shouldn't try to spin this into a populist "the best selling amateurs are always right" bias either.
XSC3 4 years ago
all I am pointing out is that it was advanced for their time period on how they thought about the topic. I didn't say it was an earth shattering modern revelation that was just discovered in the texts of Massey.
wayman29 4 years ago
Fair enough. My point his work is pretty useless in the field now, except to show what a popular level writer thought about it back then.
XSC3 4 years ago
If its wayman referred then i'll def have to take a look.
MessianicDJ 4 years ago
Thanks, wayman29. I'll take a look.
uziyahuidf 4 years ago