Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
halall
These words are fairly clear in meaning are they not?
i John
2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
@Mr. Georgie Porgie: “halall [sic] These words are fairly clear in meaning are they not?
Please assume I am stupid (many do).
I ask again…
In your opinion…
Do these words not argue that anyone who does not Believe these words is Evil?
Please advise.
halall
i John 22 says that persons who deny that Jesus is the Christ are LIARS as to whether they evil it does not say that.
It also says that such folk are anti i.e ahainst Christ or anti i.e they put something elses or some one else in Christ’s place; it does not say that such folk are evil IT SAYS THEY ARE LIARS.
I John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, DOES NOT HAVE the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgesthe Son has the Father also].
Neither of these verses says anything about anyone being evil.
Some that do not believe are just unbelievers, but some who dont believe are evil and mockers and scoffers also.
But these verses DO NOT argue anyone who does not Believe these words is Evil
EVEN THE DYSLEXIC CAN SEE THIS MAN.
Now you are advised!
GP, Further to your I John 2: 22, 23 reference, here is the exegesis of these two verses:
“Who is a LIAR but he who denies that Jesus IS the Christ? He IS the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever DENIES the Son does NOT have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
Exegesis:
“The LIAR’ (ho pseustes). The LIAR (with the article) par excellence. Rhetorical question to sharpen the point made already about *lying* in 1:16; 10, 2:4; 21. See 5:5 for a like rhetorical question. “But” (ei me). except, if not. ‘That denieth that Jesus IS the Christ (ho arnoumenos hoti Iesous ouk estin ho Christos). Common Greek idion for ‘ouk’ to appear after ‘arneomai’ like redundant ‘me’ in Luke 20:27 and Heb. 12:19. The old Latin retains ‘non’ here as old English did (Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors IV. ii. 7, “He denied you had in him no right”). The Cerinthian Gnostics denied the identity of the man Jesus and Christ (an aeon, they held) like the modern Jesus or Christ controversy. ‘This is the antichrist’ (houtos estin ho antichristos). The one just mentioned, Cerinthus himself in particular. “Even he that denieth the Father and the Son (ho arnoumenos ton patera kai ton huion). This IS the inevitable logic of such a rejection of the Son of God. Jesus had Himself said the very same thing (John 5:23f.).
“Hath not the Father (oude ton patera echei). “Not even does he have the Father” or God (II John 9). “He that confesseth the Son (ho homologon ton huion). Because the Son *reveals* the Father (John 1:18; 14:9). Our ONLY approach to the Father IS by the Son (John 14:6). Confession of Christ before men IS a prequisite for confession by Christ before the Father (Matt. 10: 32 = Luke 12:8).
There IS no other way. All who deny this, are, therefore LIARS!
Exactly Zoe ! So then you have the right based on Scripture to call all deniers of Christ LIARS…which is of course my point! LOL
GP:
In view of your above, i John
2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
What is your exegesis of the very first
pope’s well documented (by your fairy story book) thrice denial of the son of god?
@GP
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
To be a liar one has to know. Anyone who does not know that “jesus is christ” and denies christ cannot be a liar.
Are you sure those words were directed at mankind, or maybe another god coming on the scene?
Note: “He is the anti-christ”. It is my opinion that the antichrist is not human but a rival god. No man is that powerful.
@GP
“Exactly Zoe ! So then you have the right based on Scripture to call all deniers of Christ LIARSโฆwhich is of course my point! LOL”
I think you have gone mad. You have no such right under the constitution. If I took you to court for calling me a liar, could you prove it?
hmmmmm…. the things people do because they think they have a divine right. Has the Magna Carta done nothing for your senses?
In your god world, if that kingdom comes, that may be so, but right now, it would not only be slander but religious persecution under the laws of Barbados and international law.
You guys exceeding your limits. Please be advised that all you have is a faith. It starts with “I believe”. You have no truth.
@Dictionary
“for a final corrective plea for reasonableness and civility on your part…”
Take your plea to GP who is constantly lacking civility. He think he in Hitler country, but let he know that Hitler dead and gone and the Berlin wall came down.
Et cetera /ษt หsษtษrษ/ “and the rest (of such things)”
Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.
Infinity (symbolically represented by โ)
The first known practitioner of monotheism was an Egyptian Pharaoh named Amenhotep IV who later changed his name to Akhenaten 1350 – 1334 BCE. He instituted monotheism in Egypt before there were christians.
GP, Let’s have a look at the words ‘Liar’ ‘Liars’ ‘Hated’ ‘Hate’ and ‘Haters’ as God uses them in His Word.
“I *HATE* and abhor *lying* but thy law do I LOVE.” (Psa. 119: 163) emphasis added.
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I *HATE* every FALSE (lying) way.” (Psa. 119: 104) emphasis added.
Hear Jesus:
‘Ye are of your *father* the DEVIL, and the lust of YOUR *father* you will do. He (Satan) WAS a muderer from the BEGINING, and abode NOT in the TRUTH, because there IS NO TRUTH in him. When he speaks a LIE, he speaks of his own, for he IS a *LIAR* and the father of it.” (John 8: 44) emphasis added.
Exegesis:
‘Ye are of your father the devil (humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou). Certainly they can “understand” (ginoskete in 43) this “talk” (lalian) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (akouein in 43). It was like a BOMBSHELL in spite of the preliminary preparation. ‘You will DO (thelete poiein ). Present active indicative of ‘thelo’ and present active infinitive, ‘Ye wish to go on doing.’ This same idea Jesus presents in Matt. 13: 38 (the sons of the EVIL one, the devil) and 23: 15 (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also I John 3:8 for “of the devil” (ek tou disbolou) for the one who persists in sinning. In Rev 12: 9 the DEVIL is one who leads ALL the world astray. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol V, p. 153) emphasis added.
“He that believeth on the Son of God hath the *WITNESS* in himself: he that believeth NOT God hath made Him a *LIAR* he believeth NOT the *record* that God gave His Son.” ( I John 5:10) emphasis added.
Exegesis:
‘Believeth on (pisteuon eis). John draws a distinction between “not bellieving God (me pisteuon toi theoi) in next clause, the TESTIMONY of God about His Son, and surrender to and RELIANCE on the Son as here (eis, and the accusative). (Ibid, Vol VI, p. 241) emphasis added.
“I KNOW they works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou cannot bear them which are EVIL: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and ARE NOT, and have found them LIARS.” (Rev. 2: 2) emphasis added.
Exegesis:
These evil men were indeed a heavy burden. “And did try’ ( kai epeirasas). First aorist active indicative of ‘peirazo’ to test, a reference to a recent crisis when the Nicolaitians (verse 6) were condemned. Paul had foretold such false teachers (Gnostics), grievous wolves, in Acts 20: 29; in sheep’s clothing, Jesus had said (Matt 7:15) ‘And they ARE NOT (kai ouk eisin). ‘And did find’ (kai heures). Second aorist active indicative of ‘heurisko’. Dropping back to the regular structure parallel with ‘epeirasas.’ ‘FALSE’ (pseudeis). Predicate accusative plural of ‘pseudes’ self-deceived, deceiving LIARS, as in 21:8). (Ibid., Vol VI, p. 298) emphasis added.
Hear Jesus on how His followers WILL be HATED.
“And you SHALL be HATED of ALL men, (without distinction) for MY NAME sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matt. 10: 22) emphasis added.
Exegesis:
‘Ye SHALL be HATED (esesthe misoumenon). Periphrastic future passive, linear action. It will GO ON through tht ages. “For My name’s sake (dia to onoma mou). “He that endureth to the end” )ho hupomeinas eis telos). Effective aorist participle with future indicative. ( Ibid., Vol I, pp. 81,82) emphasis.
NOTE: The kind of *LIARS* here identified in God’s Word, and those that *HATE* us that stand up for the truth of the Bible, can, and ARE clearly witnessed on BU!
Hear Jesus again at the HATERS of Him and His Father:
“If I had not done among them works which NONE other man did, they had not had sin: BUT now have they BOTH seen and *HATED* both Me and My Father.” ( John 15: 24) emphasis added.
Exegesis:
“They have both SEEN and HATED” (kai heorakasin kai memisekasin ). Perfect active indicative of ‘horao’ and ‘miseo’ permanent ATTITUDE and responsibility. The *WORLD* and the ecclesiastics (Sanhedrin) had UNITED in this attitude of hostility to CHRIST and in reality to His Father, Almighty God. (Ibid., Vol. V, p. 263) emphasis added.
This hatred against Almighty God, His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ IS nothing new, it has been going on from the very beginning in Genesis, and HAS intensified since the Incarnation of the Word (Logos) JESUS, especially since His Glorious Resurrection, as THAT WAS the Omnipotent VICTORY over Sin, DEATH, and Satan, and he HATES that historic REALITY, for which he has no weapon. So he instills in the hearts and minds of ‘Scoffers’ and unbelievers, all kinds of LIES, and varying degrees of HATRED, ever so subtle in some, but it is still there.
To those scoffers, haters, and whatever else ‘shade’ of deception you fit into, and hold, be warned:
Hear and listen to our Almighty God:
” No weapon formed against you(us) shall prosper, And any tongue which rises against you in judgment, You shall condemn. This IS the heritage of the servants of the Lord. And their righteousness IS from Me.” (Isaiah 54: 17) emphasis added.
Amen and Amen!!!
Anonymous
In view of your above, i John
2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
What is your exegesis of the very first
popeโs well documented (by your fairy story book) thrice denial of the son of god?
I dont know who the first pope was, but if in your apparent ignorance you are referring to Peter, please kindly note that Peter thrice denied that he knew Christ— for which he repented.
However, note that Peter did not not deny that Jesus is the Christ!
In fact it was Peter who CONFESSED THAT JESUS WAS THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
Note also that Jesus said that it was on this nugget of truth that he would build his church.
The primary doctrine in the church is that JESUS THE CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH!
Note that John who was present is always stating that this is the main plank of NT theology.
Will you now go and search the scriptures and study to show your self approved unto God so that you may be able to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE SCRIPTURES.
w
Annonymous
You like to Google in your efforts to contradict me, so go google and find a few good Bible commentaries and look up i John 4; 16 for your friend Rok who can only say what his daddy tells him to say HE HARPS ALWAYS on YU HAVE A BELIEF you DONT KNOW.
His problem is he doent know so he does not believe
4:16 And we have KNOWN and BELIEVED the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Zoe could you kindly exegete the Scripture in the Synoptics when Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ and compare it with 1 John 2 using the Greek and Strong numbes for this “questioner”?
Some men like to scoff and mock as they question. But they are mocking God and his word – not us.
I love i John 2:21 where he deals with the concept of “Truth” or ” Lie” and ” no lie is the truth”
John asserts in this verse that he did not write because his readers did not have “the truth” or were ignorant of the truth, but rather to confirm them in the truth that they knew, and to remind them of the fact that no lie is of the truth.
The Gnostics were teaching doctrines that were contrary to the Word of God, and therefore they were lies. Their principal lie, the very basis of all their teaching, was their denial that Jesus is the Christ. They were teaching that Jesus was a mere man and that the Christ came upon Him at His baptism. This is the great lie of some of the cults today. The Bible everywhere insists that the Jesus of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. It is not correct to say that the Christ came upon Jesus, but rather that Jesus is the Christ.
It is noteworthy that the Spirit does not enlighten us by any inner imagination, but that He uses “the truth”, by which we are enabled to detect error. We can only detect lies and error by knowing the truth.
In I John 2:23, the apostle stresses the importance of correct belief about Christ, because the Person of Christ is the great test of every antichristian system.
One of the main planks of Johnโs teaching concerns what is thought and taught about the Lord Jesus. John teaches us to judge others and ourselves on how they/we stand in relation to the truth as to the Person of Christ?
John teaches us that we are to judge folk by the Christian terms or jargon that folk may use or the practices they may pursue, but by whether they deny the Son or not.
He particularly said โWhoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Here we have the wonderful truth of the unity between the Father and the Son.
You cannot have the Father unless you have the Son. This is a concept that is erroneously taught by all Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Mohammedans, Modernists, Russellites and Jews.
Smith opines correctly that โ It will be found that every false system denies in some form the truth of the Person of Christ. S His Person.
There are, however, two main forms of error and opposition to the truth. One form of error, mainly found among the Jews, denies that Jesus is the Christ – the Messiah that is to come.
The other form of error, arising in the Christian profession, denies the truth of the Father and the Son. When the Antichrist appears he will unite the lie of the Jews with the lie that arises in the Christian profession, denying both that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is a divine Person.
Today, every false system that has arisen in Christendom stands condemned by the denial of the truth of the Person of Christ as the Son, and denial of the truth of the Son will lead to the denial of the truth as to the Father.โ
The Scriptures teach that ANY MAN AND EVERY MAN WHO DENIES THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS A LIAR. And I am quite willing to go to court on this mater.
God says so: and therefore for me it is so! He said to search and study and contend for the faith, and I do so fearlessly.
Sorry GP
that’s a different anonymous. I really should get a name but I like ‘anonymous’. I don’t “google” to contradict you by the way (how egotistical LOL). Because you (or anyone else) posts something doesn’t mean I assume it to be wrong. Posts usually provoke me to research whatever topic is the subject of the post. BU is a kind of catalyst for learning.
Just a pointer to help recognise my posts … I rarely if ever make gratuitous derogatory comments about religious beliefs and sacred texts even if I privately (i.e. to myself) think them absurd (now don’t go jumping to an erroneous conclusion). I would not have referred to the Bible as a ‘fairy story book’.
ROK // January 8, 2010 at 8:24 PM
The first known practitioner of monotheism was an Egyptian Pharaoh named Amenhotep IV who later changed his name to Akhenaten 1350 โ 1334 BCE. He instituted monotheism in Egypt before there were christians.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The flaw in this statement is that Christians are not recognised as the first practitioners of Monotheism.
Consider the following questions.
Did this pharaoh exist before or after the flood?
If it was after the flood, could you answer the following questions?
What was the timeline on Abraham and God’s covenant with him?
How did Moses fit into this pharoah’s rule and wasn’t Moses kind of touchy on this Monotheism stuff?
Did this pharaoh perhaps finally get the message which by then God had given to His chosen people and they had been practicing for centuries?
Was Amenhotep perhaps plagiarising a centuries old tradition of Abraham and his seed …..
…. ie he saw they were on to a good (God) thing …
…. and the flood thing just wasn’t cool?
If you got this far could you see your way to perhaps admitting that what you have been able to glean of ancient Egypt agrees with the story in the Bible and God was indeed not pleased with the polytheists that existed at the time.
As an aid, you may want to have a look at a couple of statements you made earlier on this thread:
“It is purported that Abraham was the first Jew, born around 1700 BC”
“It is interesting to note that Noahโs ark was never found, yet the flood would have occurred as recent as some time around 1700 B.C.”
Try googling Abraham timeline.
You could also try flood timeline.
…. and if we take 1700BC as you say as the time of the flood and Abraham, …..
….. however I think you are wrong on one or the other, ….
….. probably both …..
….. then clearly it must follow the Egyptian Pharaoh of 1350-1334BC lived almost 400 years after Abraham,
…. 1700BC as you say, …
…. and it just might be that he plagiarised the traditions Abraham and his seed adopted in their covenant with God.
… that is, assuming you are right and Amenhotep IV was the first pharaoh to institute monotheism in Egypt.
the real Anonymous
My apologies Sir. LOL
John
You are a man I respect, but arent you making a very unreasonable request of our dear friend Mr King?
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle… and i dont mean a gate called a nedle but a literal needle. Ask him something easier such as who is the PM of Barbados? or what is the date?, or how many bridges are there in Bridgetown?
And to all those who mock believers or Christians about Christmas, note that at no place in the scriptures are we taught to celebrate Christ’s birth or birthday!
Search and study the scriptures and you will see that. However, the scriptures teach us to celebrate his death; and so one of the two ordinances of the Church is the Lord’s supper- the simple breaking of bread in commemoration of his body broken, and the grape juice to commemorate his blood shed on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
John is certainly right in correcting Rok re the fact that Christians were not the first monotheist, as monotheism HAD it beginning with OT Judaism.
Also, Akhenaten’s so-called monotheism in Egypt, was essentially nothing more than attempting to recognize the life-sustaining force of the Sun, which offers absolutely no basis whatsoever for Mosaic or ethical monotheism, which is based on Almighty God’s revelation of Himself as the Creator of the Universe, including the Sun.
Among the gods of Egypt who had a far reaching impact, beyond merely local appeal, Ra and Osiris were by far the most important false deities. Ra the so-called sun-god had his main cult center at Heliopolis. He early became closely associated with kingship, reaching theological dominance in the state in the 4th and 5th dynasties, outrivaling Ptah of Memphis, the administrative capital. His cult also affected the forms of Egyptian temple cult generally. His impact on the monarchy is indicated by the title “Son of Ra” adopted by nearly every Pharoah from the 5th dynasty to the Roman period, some 3,000 years in all. Akhenaten endeavoured to make a special form of *sun worship* the sole religion of Egypt.
Akhenaten’s so-called attempt at solar (sun-god) monotheism was not only paganistically shallow, concentrating on the beneficent and life sustaining force of the sun, essentially, just another form of pagan *idolatry* but, it also had absolutely NO moral tone or any philosophically sound basis in truth.
This IS once again, focusing on the ‘Shadow’ in this case of Akhenaten, the Sun, rather than on the Creator of the Sun, just another blatant form of looking to the created thing, ‘Idolatry’ instead of looking unto, and Worshipping the absolute Creator, Almighty God of the historic Hebrews of the Old testament, Judaism!
GP, I’ll do the exegesis on Peter’s declaration of Jesus IS the Christ and I John 2, tomorrow.
Good night to all!
ROK
Just googled the two words timeline Moses and here is an extract from a site.
Doesn’t mean the site has the right dates but check out how monotheism appears to come to Egypt.
It is after the Exodus.
It seems reasonable to assume, ….
….. and I stress assume because I really don’t know, ….
…… that the trials and tribulations visited on the ancient Egyptians by God, at the time of Moses, took about three generations, or rather reigns, to sink in before monotheism was adopted.
Even so, if monotheism was copied, the Egyptians didn’t understand the God of Abraham and came up with their own interpretation of a god.
Here is a timeline from a site on the internet leading up to the adoption of monotheism in Egypt.
1525 Moses born
1510 Thutmose II becomes pharaoh
1504 Hatshepsut becomes pharaoh
1487 Moses flees Egypt
1483 Thutmose III becomes pharaoh
1483 The great oppression of the Hebrews begins
1450 Amenhotep II becomes pharaoh
1447 The Exodus begins
1446 The Tabernacle constructed
1423 Thutmose IV becomes pharaoh
1410 Amenhotep III becomes pharaoh
1407 Moses dies; Joshua conquers Canaan
1400 Conquest of Canaan completed
1377 Akhnaton becomes pharaoh; inaugurates monotheistic reforms
Of course another scenario might be that the timeline is derived from translations by Europeans who naturally had knowledge of the Bible and manipulated the dates to suit the Bible’s timeline.
But I see you seem to have adopted years for Akhnaton’s rule, 1350-1334BC which are not much at variance with this site, 1377 BC, ….
…. so clearly the Europen influence in translation can be discounted!!
…. and from the same site a timeline for the foundation of two other World religions ….
563 Buddhism founded by Siddhartha
553 Belshazzar becomes regent in Babylon
550 Cyrus becomes king of Persia
550 The temple of Artemis erected at Ephesus
550 Confucius begins to teach
I stress I do not know if these dates are correct.
Okay Folks
Some follow up items, but first what you will probably not hear in the regional news:
+++++++++++++
BRADES, MONTSERRAT, Jan 8, 2010 — After a two-week declining trend in cyclic activity, the Soufriere Hills volcano underwent a sudden,unexpected Vulcanian explosion triggering fountain-collapse pyroclastic [red hot gas and ash] flows.
The pyroclastic flows reached the sea in the East, and came up to a mile from the sea in the West, with burning trees across the full width of the Belham valley serving notice that the pyroclastic flows now clearly immediately threaten the environs of Salem, the southernmost inhabited village.
As of Friday evening, civil authorities were meeting to address the implications of such unexpected heightened activity, and the island’s sole high school, which occupies a campus on the northern side of Salem, had its classes suspended by authorities . . .
DEVELOPING . . .
++++++++++++
Also, thanks David — and I see there was a format problem; sorry.
Now, on points:
1] A few balancing words on 1 Jn 2:
Zoe and GP, I must note that there is a specific context for the rejection of Christ that manifests the spirit of antichrist; which you should have explained and emphasised more specifically in speaking abut liars against the gospel and their animating spirit:
1 Jn 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[d] 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichristโhe denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised usโeven eternal life.
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeitโjust as it has taught you, remain in him.
It is clear here that John is speaking about those who have chosen the way of apostasy: having known or had compelling access to the truth of the Risen Christ [remember those 500+ witnesses and the manifestation of life-transforming, miracle-working, demon-driving heavenly power . . . ], they now choose to deny, reject and oppose it.
That is they are willfully rejecting the truth they know or should know, are slanderously twisting and dismissing it and are trying to mislead others into following them into error.
It is not the mere questioning or “honest”misunderstanding- and/or innocent ignorance- driven rejection of the gospel that is at stake, but willful apostasy from it, leading to heresy that dishonestly selectively rejects compelling evidence and willfully denies the reality of God Incarnate in the Christ who came, was born of a virgin, lived among us so that we could observe the glory he shone in his selfless compassionate service, died for our sins on a cross, rose from the dead with 500+ witnesses, and poured out his Spirit on us so that we, too may walk in his ways.
Such are indeed liars [remember the second, subtler sense of lying where one willfully neglects the duty to truth and spreads malicious and/or misleading falsehood in the teeth of what one ought to know], and opponents of the truth manifested and evidenced in compelling ways in Christ.
Unfortunately, this cap all too aptly fits too many professed skeptics of the gospel in the Caribbean.
And, the peoples of our region need to know that!
2] Roots of Monotheism:
We have good reason to know that the Bible’s early books give good history, given that they have a habitual, detailed, chronologically fitting in pattern of accuracy that pious frauds composed at the times alleged by adherents of the skeptical modernist theological speculations have advanced simply would not. Right down to having the right prices for slaves at the right times, and the right patterns for personal names, not to mention the famous case of the astonishing accuracy of the names of kings etc.
So, we have every right to trust them when they get into the main plot line.
And what we learn from that is that right from the beginning, men knew the true Creator-God.
But, many rebelled, and in the end, we see a particular family [c. 2,000 – 1,750 BC!] that is called out to covenant with the one true God and given the promise of peoplehood that would bring the Saviour into the world.
Thereafter, that family growing into a nation is in Goshen, Egypt as refugees, and remains there for about 400 years. During that time there arises a new dynasty that knows not — i.e. refuses to consult the abundant record that would have instructed them otherwise — nor is grateful to Joseph who had saved Egypt. So, they seek to enslave the children of Israel.
And end up in a confrontation between their living god pharaoh and his idols and magicians backed by demons, and the returned exile and prophet backed up by YHWH. After ten plagues judge the demons behind the lying idols and deceitful magicians, pharaoh is compelled to let his slaves go.
But, on the morrow, he then dares send the equivalent of a modern tank army after them, only to lose his 600 panzers in the Red Sea as a final act of judgement; even as a later pharaoh decisively lost his 6th army at Stalingrad and began the long retreat that ended in suicide in his bunker in Berlin.
[ . . . ]
So, it should be no surprise to find an echo in Egypt’s history, as one pharaoh hits on the same “bright idea” that would later animate a follower of a certain Moon god who evicted 360 fellow gods from “his” temple (but left a crack open for his three star daughter-gods, for a moment . . . ).
And, turning the sun into a god and viewing the sun idolatrously — notice how sun rays suddenly acquire hands! — as the sole god [how convenient that the pharaoh was seen as an incarnation of that same sun god . . . ] is not at all the same as repenting of idolatry and serving the Creator!
Instead, it plainly is a matter of setting up rather “an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles.” [Rom 1:23.]
3] A tale of three mocking skeptics
Onlookers, yesterday was a crucial turning point in this thread, and with implications far beyond this thread.
For, we saw the true, unmasked state of three skeptics — who we first of all need to pray for! — here:
(i) ROK: made it plain that he has closed his mind to the possibility that he may need to learn and accept correction, some 30 years ago; and is utterly uninterested in correcting his slanders against those he objects to, especially on his insistently false and malicious assertions that Bible-believing Christians [and particularly Zoe, GP and the undersigned] promote worship of a blond, blue eyed white man’s god. (Recall, each of us has specifically corrected this falsehood, so to maintain such an accusation in the teeth of truth that is known or should be known is willfully deceitful. Sorry if ROK wants to take offence at such painful truth, but he needs to take a long searching look in the mirror on this one.)
(ii) Hopi: insists on manipulating symbols and language to push a perverted, poisoned view, most recently trying to twist the name of the Jews of Europe into an accusation of nazism, itself a turnabout slander against the people who lost 6 million to Nazism in Hitler’s death camps. refuses to be corrected, dismissing not only well known original language lexicons, dictionaries and encyclopedias but even standard dictionaries when they expose her error.
(iii) Halshall: defiantly insists that so long as he is not compelled by HM courts to do otherwise, he can willfully distort the positions of those he objects to, slandering them. Observe his slander from the Profiling thread, made when he knew Zoe, GP and the undersigned were not around to correct his twisting of the truth:
What I have taken away from debating with the โBU Trinityโ is that the vocal Christians on BU hold the position that they are unquestionably correct. And that those who hold differing positions must be wrong.
Of course he artfully refuses to engage in the precise process of level playing field comparative difficulties as I have challenged him to, which would show that the truth cuts clean across such willfully harmful lies. In particular, it is not mere asking of questions that manifests demonic influence, but willful rejection of truth that one knows or should know multiplied by the associated willful walk in the ways of evil. And, CH, slander like the above — AmHD: “A false and malicious statement or report about someone” [you have even tried to divert our understanding of what “slander” means in this context . . . ] — is one of those ways of evil, beyond dispute. Indeed, CH, the very name, Devil, is derived from Gk diabolos — slanderer.
[ROK, HOPI AND CH: I BESEECH YOU: PLEASE REPENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. ETERNALLY TOO LATE.]
The third of these, however, requires an answer here . . .
4] Addressing the closed-mindedness slander
Onlookers, it is now a day since Mr Halshall has again been invited to address the level-playing field comparative difficulties process as laid out above.
Indeed, it is now coming on to a week since I laid out the tools for such inquiry [based on a course in intro to phil] January 4, 2010 at 8:45 AM and following, and since I then laid out the comparative difficulties challenge the next day here.
Let us observe carefully: NOT ONE OF OUR VAUNTED SKEPTICS HAS EVEN TRIED TO ADDRESS THE WORLDVIEW ANALYSIS LEVEL ISSUE ON THE MERITS.
“No, not one . . . ”
Instead, they have — as per usual — resorted to their comfort zone of tired trifecta fallacy rhetoric: distractive red herrings, led out to slander-soaked strawmen, and ignited though personal attacks meant to polarise and cloud, thus confuse the atmosphere, blocking the ability to fairly and frankly look at issues of great moment on the merits.
That, sadly, is no accident or mere happenstance.
And, it tells utterly and decisively that the mocking skeptics in question — all of whom obviously have significant educational achievement so that they could easily enough follow — this is college level stuff admittedly; it comes from college courses . . . — the exposition of tools and then address the specific argument in the main if they wanted — clearly know that they are unable to cogently rebut the case on its merits, once an informed person on the other side is present so they cannot get away with their usual rhetorical tricks.
So, plainly, they are in resentful — observe the persistently uncivil tone above! — rebellion against what they know or ought to know. Which has some pretty serious spiritual and eternal implications.
To wit:
Jn 3:19 “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” — Jesus of Nazareth, speaking to Nicodemus when he came to visit him by night
_____________
So, onlookers, let us take warning.
Let us seek and turn to the light, instead of scrambling to hide in dark corners like cockroaches in a badly managed restaurant pantry when the light is turned on.
G’day
D
@John
GP Said:
John
You are a man I respect, but arent you making a very unreasonable request of our dear friend Mr King?
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needleโฆ and i dont mean a gate called a nedle but a literal needle.
QED
@John
It would seem that I don’t need to respond to you. All that you say is correct if you deem it to be correct. OR if GP deem it to be correct for you.
Egypt was so great that all the Greek philosophers went to school there. Even Alaxander the Great went to school in Egypt.
Socrates copied all his plagiarised wisdom from the writings on the temples of Egypt.
For example “ฯ” was first used by the Egyptians hundreds of years before the Greeks. The Pythagorus Theorem was also stolen from the Egyptians by him.
Medicine was first taught in Egypt and again stolen by the europeans. Such subjects as construction, astronomy, science, mathematics, etc. were all taught in Egypt before the europeans stole it.
It was fashionable to steal from the Egyptians in those days. The christians stole monotheism, baptism, the trinity and nearly all its religious principles. After all, the Jews were a tribe that came out of Egyptians.
When they were done, they laid Egypt on the alter of sacrifice and plundered it. They bit the hand that fed them.
The Christians were such copy cats that even the sun they copied from the Sun God and placed it behind the head of christ and called it a “Halo”. What Halo what? That is the Sun and the holy bible properly translated means the book of the sun worshipers.
Ancient Egyptian Religion
Ancient Egyptian religion encompasses the various religious beliefs and rituals practiced in ancient Egypt over more than 3,000 years, from the predynastic period until the adoption of Christianity in the early centuries AD. Initially these beliefs centered on the worship of multiple deities who represented various forces of nature, thought patterns and power, expressed by the means of complex and varied archetypes. By the time of the 18th dynasty they began to be viewed as aspects of a single deity who existed apart from nature, similar to trinitarian concepts also found in Christianity: the belief that one god can exist in more than one person.
These deities were worshipped with offerings and prayers, in local and household shrines as well as in formal temples managed by priests. Different gods were prominent at different periods of Egyptian history, and the myths associated with them changed over time, so Egypt never had a coherent hierarchy of deities or a unified mythology. However, the religion contained many overarching beliefs. Among these were the divinity of the pharaoh, which helped to politically unify the country, and complex beliefs about an afterlife, which gave rise to the Egyptians’ elaborate burial customs.
Egyptian Theology
Egyptian religion was not based on firm theological principles. Its primary focus was simply the interaction between humans and the gods. These gods were believed to be present in every aspect of the natural world, yet their true natures remained to some degree mysterious. Hundreds of gods were believed to exist, and the exact nature of their complex interrelationships is still the subject of scholarly debate.
Egyptian Monotheistic tendencies
At various times during Egyptian history, different gods, including Horus, Ra, and Isis, rose to be seen as the greatest of all the gods. During the New Kingdom, Amun held this position, and a theology developed in which he came close to being a truly monotheistic deity. His true identity was concealed from the visible world, even from the other gods, yet his power permeated the universe. Although they retained their individual identities, all the gods were ultimately aspects of this single hidden force.
Based on this, and upon instances in Egyptian literature where “god” is mentioned without reference to any specific deity, many Egyptologists have argued that beneath the polytheistic traditions of Egyptian religion there was an increasing tendency toward monotheism, while others have seen evidence of pantheism. In recent decades, however, Erik Hornung has disputed these claims, noting that each of the gods, even Amun, was only depicted and worshipped in a limited number of forms, so that Egyptian religion was never completely pantheistic. He also points out that at no point in Egyptian history were the traits of a supreme being limited to only one deity, and many Egyptian writings call particular gods “sole” or “lord of all that exists” even in periods when other gods were preeminent. He further argues that the Egyptians used the generic term “god” to refer to any god, or “whichever god you wish”. His argument is that Egyptian religion was purely polytheistic, having no notion of a divine being beyond the immediate multitude of deities.
More recently, scholars such as James P. Allen and Jan Assmann have suggested that the Egyptians did to some degree recognize a single divine force. Allen’s compromise approach states that the Egyptians could simultaneously be polytheists and monotheists, as demonstrated by the process of syncretism which, he says, “unites the view of god as simultaneously Many and One”. Under this view, it is possible that only the Egyptian theologians fully recognized an essential unity behind the polytheistic system. However, it is also possible that ordinary Egyptians practiced a form of henotheism, identifying the single divine force with a single god in particular situations.
Atenism
The Egyptians did have an aberrant period of true monotheism during the New Kingdom, in which the pharaoh Akhenaten abolished the official worship of other gods in favor of the sun-disk Aten, of which he himself was an aspect. This exclusivity was a radical departure from Egyptian tradition, and the Aten’s impersonal nature did not appeal to the Egyptian people. Thus, under Akhenaten’s successors Egypt reverted to its traditional religion, and Akhenaten himself came to be reviled as a heretic.
Egyptian Cosmology
In Egyptian belief, the universe was governed by the force of ma’at. This Egyptian word encompasses several concepts in English, including “truth,” “justice,” and “order.” It referred to the fixed, eternal order of the universe, both in nature and in human society. This was the most fundamental of all natural forces, believed to have existed from the creation of the universe, which ensured the continued existence of the world. Among humans, ma’at meant that all people and all classes of society lived in harmony. Any disruption of ma’at was inherently harmful, so all people were expected to behave in accordance with it.
In nature, ma’at meant that all the forces of nature existed in balance. It included the cyclical patterns of timeโthe cycle of day and night and of the seasons, and of human generations. While the Egyptians recognized that time is linear, they also saw it as cyclical, in that each of these patterns represented a renewal of ma’at and a defeat of disorder, and thus a repetition of the original creation of the universe. Therefore, the theme of cosmic renewal was present in many Egyptian rituals.
Ma’at also included the structure of the world, which kept each element in its place. The Egyptians had a specific vision of this structure. In this view, the world was surrounded by infinite expanse of water from which it had originally arisen. This water was personified as the god Nun. The earth was envisioned as a flat plate of land, represented by the god Geb. Above him arched the body of the sky goddess Nut, who represented the surface of the primordial water. Shu, the air, stood between Geb and Nut and separated them. During the day, the sun god Ra traveled over the earth, across the inner surface of Nut. At night, Ra was thought to be swallowed by Nut, and pass through her body, or on the outside of the sky, through a region called the Duat. With each new sunrise, Nut gave birth to him again. By the New Kingdom, however, the Duat was also sometimes identified with a region beneath the earth, and Ra was said to sail beneath the horizon to rise into the sky the next morning.
The Divine pharaoh
Egyptians viewed kingship itself as a force of nature. Thus, even though the Egyptians recognized that the pharaoh was human and subject to human frailties, they simultaneously viewed him as a god, because the divine power of kingship was incarnate in him. He therefore acted as intermediary between Egypt’s people and the gods. He was key to upholding ma’at in society, by defending the country from enemies, appointing fair officials, settling disputes between his people, managing the food supply, and appeasing the gods with temples and offerings. For this reason, temple reliefs often depict the pharaoh presenting an emblem of ma’at to the gods, representing his maintenance of the divine order. Theoretically, he held dominion over the entire world, and thus the Egyptian word for “king” referred only to the pharaoh, and not to any foreign ruler.
The king was also associated with many specific deities. While alive, a pharaoh was logically identified with Horus, the god of kingship. Due to analogy between the sun, the dominant force in nature, and the king, the dominant force in human society, the pharaoh was also associated with Ra and regarded as his son. Once Amun had been syncretized with Ra, Amun was also identified with the king and seen as his father. Several goddesses functioned as the “mother” of the pharaoh, and he could also symbolically take the place of the child deity in many family triads of gods.
Upon his death, the king became fully deified. In this state, he was directly identified with Ra, and was also associated with Osiris, god of death and rebirth and the mythological father of Horus. Many mortuary temples were dedicated to the worship of deceased pharaohs as gods.
Egyptian After Life
Afterlife
The Egyptians had elaborate beliefs about death and the afterlife. They believed that humans possessed a ka, or life-force, which left the body at the point of death. In life, the ka received its sustenance from food and drink, so it was believed that, to endure after death, the ka must continue to receive offerings of food, whose spiritual essence it could still consume. Each person also had a ba, the set of characteristics distinguishing one individual from another, similar to the concept of a personality. Unlike the ka, the ba remained attached to the body after death. Egyptian funeral rituals were intended to release the ba from the body so that it could move freely, and to rejoin it with the ka so that it could live on as an akh. However, it was also important that the body of the deceased be preserved, as the Egyptians believed that the ba returned to its body each night to receive new life, before emerging in the morning as an akh.
Originally, however, the Egyptians believed that only the pharaoh had a ba, and only he could become one with the gods; dead commoners remained dead. The nobles received tombs and the resources for their upkeep as gifts from the king, and their ability to enter the afterlife was believed to be dependent on these royal favors. In early times the deceased pharaoh was believed to dwell among the circumpolar stars, which never set in the Egyptian sky and were therefore regarded as eternal. Over the course of the Old Kingdom, he came to be more closely associated with the daily rebirth of the sun god Ra and with the cyclical death and resurrection of the fertility god Osiris as those deities grew more important.
During the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period, the possession of a ba and the possibility of a paradisiacal afterlife gradually extended to all Egyptians. To reach this pleasant afterlife, the soul had to avoid a variety of supernatural dangers, before undergoing a final judgment known as the “Weighing of the Heart”. In this judgment, the gods compared the actions of the deceased while alive (symbolized by the heart, the center of reason and emotion in Egyptian belief) to ma’at (symbolized by a feather), to determine whether he or she had behaved in accordance with ma’at. If the deceased had not done so in life, then he or she could not be expected to do so in the afterlife, and was thus destroyed by the demon Ammut. If the deceased was judged worthy, his or her ka and ba were united into an akh. Specific beliefs about the destination of the akh varied. The vindicated dead were often said to dwell in Osiris’ kingdom, a lush and pleasant land believed to exist somewhere beyond the western horizon, but kings, and sometimes commoners as well, were often said to travel with Ra across the sky. Over the course of the Middle and New Kingdoms, the notion that the akh could also travel in the world of the living, and to some degree magically affect events there, became increasingly prevalent.
href=”http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/?s=bum+ball”>
Red Bum Ball
(*)
(*)=LLoyd and Devon
Remember when we were in school…
You were my playmate
Teacher told the golden rule
To love one another like sister and brother
That is right
My bad
Dat Rasta Ozzy from up de hill Decide fi check ‘pon ‘im grocery bill An’ when him add up de t’ings him need De dunny done wha’ him save fi buy likkle weed Him han ‘pon him jaw, lord. Red him eye …
Dat
(*)
(*)=Pluto
Red Bum Ball
(*)
(*)=Lloyd and Devon
Egyptian myths were metaphorical stories intended to illustrate and explain the gods’ actions and roles in nature. The details of the events they recounted could change as long as they conveyed the same symbolic meaning, so many myths exist in different and conflicting versions. Mythical narratives were rarely written in full, and more often texts only contain episodes from or allusions to a larger myth. Partly this was because the Egyptians avoided explicitly describing or depicting negative events within myths, believing that this risked giving power to the forces of chaos. Much of what mythological information is known comes from papyri originally kept in temple libraries, from devotional writings, and from funerary texts. Surprisingly little comes from inscriptions in the temples themselves, as temples were meant to celebrate the eternal power and benevolence of the gods, and the turbulent events often found in myths conflicted with this purpose.
Among the most important Egyptian myths were the creation myths. While there were several different creation myths, they all shared common elements: an infinite, lifeless ocean which preceded the creation, and a pyramidal mound of land which was the first thing to emerge from this ocean. However, the creation accounts differ in focusing on different gods. One creation myth describes the Ogdoad, the group of eight gods who embodied the primeval waters, and how their meeting resulted in the creation and emergence of the mound. Another myth relates the actions of Atum, who was said to be the first god to appear on the mound, in creating the Ennead, nine gods representing the natural forces of the world. A third myth says that the god Ptah, who was associated with the mound, created the world simply by envisioning and naming all things in it, while a fourth claims that Amun was the hidden power that caused all the other creator gods to form. To some degree these myths represent competing theologies, but they can also be seen as representing different aspects of the process of creation. The convergence of the Ogdoad represented the transformation of the lifeless primordial chaos into the orderly, life-bearing world; the Ennead myth demonstrated how the world’s original, embryonic form (Atum) evolved into the multiplicity of elements it later contained. Amun was the ultimate cause of creation, who first developed a concept of what the world would be like, and Ptah was the power of creative speech, by which that initial vision was made reality, and which caused the evolution of Atum.
Another story central to Egyptian belief was the myth of Osiris and Isis. It tells of the god Osiris, who had inherited his rule over the world from his ancestor Ra. Osiris was murdered and dismembered by his jealous brother Set, a god often associated with chaos. Osiris’ sister and wife Isis reassembled Osiris’ body and resurrected him so that he could conceive an heir to take back the throne from Set. Osiris then entered the underworld and became the ruler of the dead, while Isis eventually gave birth to his son Horus. Once grown, Horus fought and defeated Set to become king himself. Set’s association with chaos, and the identification of Osiris and Horus as the rightful rulers, provided a rationale for pharaonic succession and portrayed the pharaohs as the upholders of order. At the same time, Osiris’ death and rebirth were related to the Egyptian agricultural cycle, in which crops grew in the wake of the Nile inundation, and provided a template for the resurrection of human souls after death.
The sun god Ra was essential to life on earth, and was thus among the most important gods. In myth, the movement of the sun across the sky was explained as Ra traveling in a barque, and the setting of the sun was regarded as Ra’s entry into the underworld, through which he journeyed during the night. While in the underworld, Ra met with Osiris, who again acted as a god of resurrection, so that his life was renewed. He also fought each night with Apep, a serpentine god representing chaos. The defeat of Apep and the meeting with Osiris ensured the rising of the sun the next morning, an event that represented rebirth and the victory of order over chaos. Devotional Writings
Like many cultures, the Egyptians prayed to their gods for help, although there are few written prayers that predate the Nineteenth Dynasty. There are also many formal hymns praising particular deities or the pharaoh. These poems consist of short lines organized into couplets or triplets, and were probably recited, or possibly even sung, during religious ceremonies. They often included mention of many different aspects of the deity whom they addressed, and expounded on his or her nature and mythological function. Thus, they are important sources of information on Egyptian theology.
Onlookers:
Observe that ROK is failing to address the principal challenge on the table that he faces. namely, that by his own confession, 30 years ago, he padlocked his mind form all correction, and int hat contexct persists in a lying slander against Zoe, GP and the undersigned on worshipping a blondy, blue eyed god.
1] Coming out the start-gates . ..
And, coming out the starting gates, ROK stumbles badly:
Egypt was so great that all the Greek philosophers went to school there. Even Alaxander the Great went to school in Egypt.
Socrates copied all his plagiarised wisdom from the writings on the temples of Egypt . . .
Let us start with Alex, and fry a red herring for breakfast.
What history records is that when he was a youth, Philip sought a tutor for him, and ended up sending him to Mieza, a village in Macedon; where he and his companions — soon to be his all-conquering generals and elite cavalry — were tutored under Aristotle. In part payment, Philip restored Ari’s hometown, which he had razed. And as the capstone of his cultural education, Ari gave Alex an annotated copy of the Iliad; which Alex took with him when he marched. main subjects of study — reflecting what Aristotle’s Lycaeum developed — were “medicine, philosophy, morals, religion, logic, and art.” (We must not forget that Ari was a great synthesiser of learning across a wide range of fields, and built systematic structures out of what had previously been largely ad hoc elements, often adding his own insights, e.g. in his synthesis of logic.)
Did Alex get his “real” education in Egypt?
Not likely: the dominant power in that part of the word then was Persia, mortal enemy of Alex’s father and the Greeks generally. Philip was far too smart a general to send his star son to where he could easily have been assassinated or taken hostage. That’s why he founded his own King’s Academy in a village site safe in the heart of his home territory, and then hired the best tutor he could find, paying him handsomely.
And, as one of his early achievements, Alex conquered Egypt from the Persians, as the first phase of his grand campaign. (That is how the Ptolemaic Dynasty came to rule Egypt from the Greek-founded Delta capital on the sea, Alexandria. The same, where the royal library became a great centre of knowledge from across the known world.)
Of course, after a dynastic falling-out with his father, Alex fled for six months to Illyria — modern Albania.
Beyond that, ROK goes on and on about how Europeans “stole” their learning from Egypt. (As if it has never occurred to him that one can learn from someone without robbing hem of what they know.)
2] getting around to the real target . . .
The christians stole monotheism, baptism, the trinity and nearly all its religious principles. After all, the Jews were a tribe that came out of Egyptians.
of course, all of this is repetition of baseless assertions roted in reading back into the Egyptian materials concepts and ideas that were Christian and rooted in the hebraic, Monotheistic tradition — not just in something like Atemnakhen’s promotion of the sun to the status of supreme god which on earth he was the divine representative. And, when ROK speaks about how tot he Egyptians the Pharaoh was “a force of nature” he inadvertently exactly captures the problem.
As Paul put it ever so ably:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people39 who suppress the truth by their40 unrighteousness,41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,42 because God has made it plain to them.
1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes โ his eternal power and divine nature โ have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse.
1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened.
1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles.
1:24 Therefore God gave them over48 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor49 their bodies among themselves.50 1:25 They51 exchanged the truth of God for a lie52 and worshiped and served the creation53 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Between the no-image understanding and reverencing and seeking repentance before the Absolute Creator-God, and the worshipping of demon-backed “gods” represenated by idols — images made to look like aspects of inanimate or animate creation — there is an utterly impassable gulf. For instance, observe how even for Akhenaten [here transformed into a Sphinx figure . . . ], the sun suddenly has its rays sprouting tickling and cuddling hands.
One that ROK, sadly, refuses to see, because his mind is locked on the subject.
D
@Dictionary
“As if it has never occurred to him that one can learn from someone without robbing hem of what they know.”
Yes, but not when you learn from somebody and then claim the knowledge as yours.
Egyptian Funerary Texts
Among the most significant and extensively preserved Egyptian writings are funerary texts designed to insure that deceased souls reached a pleasant afterlife. The earliest of these are the Pyramid Texts, the oldest religious writings in the world. They are a loose collection of hundreds of spells inscribed on the walls of royal pyramids during the Old Kingdom, intended to magically provide the king with the means to join the company of the gods in the afterlife. The spells appear in differing arrangements and combinations, and few of them appear in all of the pyramids.
At the end of the Old Kingdom a new body of funerary spells, which included material from the Pyramid Texts, began appearing in tombs, inscribed primarily on coffins, but also found on tomb walls and on other funerary objects. This collection of writings is known as the Coffin Texts, and was not reserved for royalty, but appeared in the tombs of nonroyal officials. In the New Kingdom, several new funerary texts emerged, of which the best-known is the Book of the Dead. Unlike the earlier books, it often contains extensive illustrations, or vignettes. The book was copied on papyrus and sold to commoners to be placed in their tombs.
The Coffin Texts included sections with detailed descriptions of the underworld and instructions on how to overcome its hazards. In the New Kingdom, this material gave rise to several “books of the netherworld”, including the Book of Gates, the Book of Caverns, and the Amduat. Unlike the loose collections of spells, these netherworld books are structured depictions of Ra’s passage through the Duat, and by analogy, the journey of the deceased person’s soul through the realm of the dead. They were originally restricted to pharaonic tombs, but in the Third Intermediate Period they came to be used more widely.
Temples
Temples existed from the earliest periods of Egyptian history, and at the height of the civilization were present in almost every town. These included both mortuary temples to serve the spirits of deceased pharaohs and temples dedicated to patron gods, although the distinction was blurred because divinity and kingship were so closely intertwined. Not all gods had temples dedicated to them, as there were many cosmic deities that did not receive widespread worship, and many household gods who were the focus of popular veneration rather than temple worship.
Temples served as “houses” for the gods, in which physical images which served as their intermediaries were cared for and provided with offerings. This service was believed to be necessary to sustain the gods, so that they could in turn maintain the universe itself. Thus, temples were central to Egyptian society, and vast resources were devoted to their upkeep. Pharaohs often added to them as part of their obligation to honor the gods, so that many temples grew to be hugeโthe Temple of Amun at Karnak, for instance, is the largest religious structure in the world.
In the New Kingdom, a basic temple layout emerged, which had evolved from common elements in Old and Middle Kingdom temples. With variations, this plan was used for most of the temples built from then on, and most of those that survive today adhere to it. In this standard plan, the temple was aligned along a central axis oriented relative to some significant location; most commonly, temples were built along the Nile with an axis running roughly eastโwest. The major entrance to such temples was usually the nearby landing quay on the Nile, from which a processional way ran through the walls of the temple enclosure. Beyond this, there were usually one or more pylon gateways, followed by a courtyard enclosed by a colonnade. This courtyard was likely where commoners delivered offerings and met with the priests. Further in was the covered hypostyle hall, and beyond this was the sanctuary, surrounded by subsidiary rooms related to the daily business of temple ritual.
The entire journey from the temple entrance to the sanctuary was seen as a journey from the human world to the divine realm; thus, the sanctuary was the most sacred part of the temple, and contained a shrine with a statue of the temple’s god. Access to the sanctuary was usually restricted to the pharaoh and the highest-ranking priests. Ritual offerings were typically performed in the morning and evening, either by the pharaoh or, more commonly, the priest acting as his surrogate. In these rituals, the god’s statue was washed, anointed, and elaborately dressed, and food offerings were placed before or near it. Afterward, when the god had consumed the spiritual essence of the offerings, the items themselves were taken to be distributed among the priests. In addition to these daily offerings, there were other rituals performed at certain times of year for particular festivals, and infrequent rituals performed under special circumstances. Many of these rituals involved the transportation of the god’s image to visit another significant site, the symbolic destruction of the forces of disorder, or the reenactment of particular myths.
Temples were supported by donations from the monarchy and by estates of their own. These estates could include vast areas of land, with farms, gardens, mines, quarries, and workshops devoted to supplying the temple’s needs. Large temples were therefore very important centers of economic activity, sometimes employing thousands of people.
to Dictionary:
I wrote on Jan 04 at 9:04
“So other than the scientific method, what other approaches cause an increase in useful and morally responsible knowledge? Will you accept say Buddhist teachings?
Please clarify but you seem to trying to cast โscienceโ into a negative light. [I am aware that there are those seeking acceptance of their views by claiming that these are “scientific” when anything but scientific. However the same scientific community and its apparently deprecated methods usually exposes the sham.]”
this was the totality of my post.
Dictionary replied on Jan 04 at 9:38 a.m.
“Anonymous:
You know or should know by simply following an already given link
( http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/toolkit.htm) โ see the pattern of discourtesy and strawmanising, onlookers? โ that I have laid out a framework for evaluating warrant, at comparative worldviews level.”
He continued in his post to make comments on Buddhism and I think copy and pasted words from the mentioned link. Any clarification with regard to science was not evident to me.
On Jan 04 at 2:46 p.m.
I responded as follows
“Dictionary
I believe that I asked for clarification following your comments on science. It appears that you have taken offense given your comment โsee the pattern of discourtesy and strawmanising, onlookers?โ. You posit that having posted a link and assuming that I have not read it, I am being discourteous.
My simple response is that:
(1) I generally find your writing tedious to read ( probably above my intellectual level).
(2) So given that any request for clarification is regarded as discourtesy or some other nefarious action, I will refrain from directing any enquiry or other comments to you from now on.”
On Jan 08 at 12:48 p.m. on the thread on racial profiling I wrote:
“I must break a promise to myself and make a response to Dictionary.
I asked him for clarification on his post regarding โscienceโ. His response was to write that I was uncivil (because he believed that I had not read a link posted by him when in fact I had) and further that I was attempting to introduce a โstrawmanโ (although what the โstrawmanโ was, I do not know).
He did not provide any clarification on his post. He is entitled to respond to the posts of others how ever he wishes but it is my assertion that his criticism of Hallsall re his post of Jan 7, @4:32 is dishonest.”
On Jan 10 at 5:24 Dictionary in a post on that thread writes:
“(And, Anonymous, would you kindly give us the link so we can see why it is that I raised the issue of incivility and strawman misrepresentation and triumphalistic knocking over of a scarecrow opponent as opposed to addressing the real thing fairly on the merits? At this point, where slander by mocking objectors is an issue, you cannot just make an intended damaging assertion without providing good evidence, or you open yourself to the rebuttal that you are piling on in the slander game. And if you have a serious case on the merits, just let me know over in the next thread and I will address it on the science thread.)”
This is much too much space wasted for this matter but I believe it necessary to establish why I assert that Dictionary is dishonest.
@Anonymous
“Please clarify but you seem to trying to cast โscienceโ into a negative light.”
Anything that does not agree with their interpretation of the bible and god will be cast in that negative light and these three will go to the ends of the world to discredit, rather than try to reconcile.
When it comes to them, their “faith” is more important than knowledge. What is that called?
Anonymous:
pardon, but it is plain even from the excerpts above, that you need to actually look at the comparative difficulties approach [the proper technical level approach to worldviews analysis which is what you imply on raising Buddhism, not otherwise then in the thread save as a distractive objection], and that your context in the thread suggested that you were taking a simplistic approach to what is needed.
Your onward remarks above give no indication that you have seriously engaged the comparative difficulty approach. Rhetorical points scoring — the usual level of argument in the region, sadly — is wholly inadequate to address the questions you have raised. So, whether or no they seem tedious –as does mathematical proof in its own context. [By analogy: Did you do classical, theorem proving geometry or calculus in School? Did you find it boring and frustrating? Did that make it any less important or sound?]
Why not look above as already linked and insert issues and themes from Buddhism into the framework? (E.g. cf here for an objection on Buddhism and logic, by what seems to be a Jewish thinker. Is this a serious question, why or why not?)
D
PS: Onlookers: ROK continues in the same sadly padlocked vein. Apparently he fails to notice that for instance the Greeks were often at great pains to trace their learning to Egypt — whose antiquity and priority in the business of learning they openly acknowledge, and indeed as say Lefkowitz — a relevant academic researcher — summarised recently, in certain cases, it seems their seeking of prestigious roots actually attributed to Egyptian progenitors what was their own innovation. Taking up just one point, the Pythagorean theorem proved per axioms of geometry is a characteristically Greek product: previous peoples used practical results but did not embark on a theoretical synthetic project to bring together the province of learning in geometry into one integrated logically rigorous deductive system. the Euclidean synthesis — while he was serving at the Library in Alex BTW — was so dominant that for over a thousand years it became the model of analysis. It is only some 200 years ago that it was understood that non-Euclidean geometries are possible and that there were significant unrecognised gaps in the classical system. ROK et al need to read more widely than an unreliable fringe of polarised and polarising Afrocentrist advocates.
PPS: Even on the roots of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, we may cf. Wiki — without wholly endorsing. For, to be credible today, we need to at least surmount the Wikipedia level. Article on Akenaten:
The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism has been considered by various scholars.[41][42][43][44][45][46] One of the first to mention this was Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism.[47] Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten’s death. Freud argued that Akhenaten was striving to promote monotheism, something that the biblical Moses was able to achieve.[41] Following his book, the concept entered popular consciousness and serious research.
Other scholars and mainstream Egyptologists point out that there are direct connections between early Judaism and other Semitic religious traditions.[48] They also state that two of the three principal Judaic terms for God, Yahweh, Elohim (meaning roughly “the lofty one”, morphologically plural), and Adonai (meaning “our lord”, also morphologically plural) have no connection to Aten. Freud commented on the connection between Adonai, the Egyptian Aten and the Syrian divine name of Adonis as a primeval unity of language between the factions;[41] in this he was following the argument of Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, but the argument was groundless as ‘Aten’ and ‘Adonai’ are not, in fact, linguistically related.[49]
Anonymous:
You plainly do not understand that I am a scientist in my own right; and I point out that science has its definite limits on epistemology considerations, as I pointed out in the phil toolkit you link but plainly have not seriously engaged.
To point that limitation out is to be philosophically accurate, not to denigrate science. (And the denigrating science slogan sounds all too familiar, as I had to answer it already.)
What I do strongly object to is the imposition of evolutionary materialism as a censoring narrative on science of origins and mind etc.
For science at its best should be an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world based on observation, measurement, and reasoned analysis among the informed.
the imposition of Lewontinian evolutionary materialism as an a priori subverts science to service to ideologies.
And so you have simply fed ROKs prejudices and sadly slanderous points scoring by again making a point that I corrected in the previous thread as I recall. (If I were looking from a debate tactics perspective, I could say this is a calculated thread hijack attempt, probably coordinated. But I assume that on charity you simply have not realised the distractive, strawmannising and slander-feeding effect of raising the issue as you did here. Note, I requested that you notify me here and address mattes in the relevant thread, the science thread.)
Such recycling of already adequately answered distractive — note O/T of this thread and I suggested we take back up the science thread where the context would be plainer — and strawmannish points does not suggest that you are seeking to participate in responsible dialogue, if you pardon a direct remark.
G’day.
D
PS: ROK you still have not corrected your demonstrable slander. THAT shows that you are not being an honest participant in fair-minded dialogue, which fits in with your announcement yesterday of having padlocked your mind 30 years ago. Please, think again and do better.
Priests
The pharaoh was Egypt’s official representative to the gods, so in theory, temple priests merely acted on his behalf. In fact, during the Old and Middle Kingdoms, there was no separate class of priests; instead, many government officials served in this capacity for several months out of the year before returning to their secular duties. Only in the New Kingdom did professional priesthood become widespread, although most lower-ranking priests were still part-time. The pharaoh theoretically retained the right to make all priestly appointments, although he often delegated this duty. However, as the wealth of the temples grew, the influence of their priesthoods increased, until it rivaled that of the pharaoh. In the political fragmentation of the Third Intermediate Period, the high priests of Amun even became the effective rulers of Upper Egypt.
There were several different varieties of priests and temple personnel. One class of priests worked outside temples: those who served in the mortuary cults of private individuals. The lector priests, who recited the incantations during temple rituals and were versed in many magical texts, also performed outside duties, such as officiating at funerals. The priests serving in each temple were divided into several ranks and specialized roles. At the top of this hierarchy was the high priest, or “first servant of the god.” This office was frequently passed from father to son and tended to become hereditary. Temples also employed many people outside the priesthood, including farmers and artisans to supply their needs, and musicians and chanters who assisted in temple rituals. All were paid with portions of the temple’s income.
Priests were usually male. During the Old Kingdom, many women from wealthy families held important priestly roles, mainly in temples to female deities. However, during the Middle Kingdom women became less prominent in public life, and afterward most of the women involved in temple activities seem to have been in more minor roles. There was an exception to this during the Third Intermediate Period, when important female roles emerged in the cults of several deities, most notably the “god’s wives” of Amun.
While actively serving the temple, priests adhered to strict standards of purity. They were required to shave their heads and bodies, wash several times a day, and wear only clean linen clothing. In the service of some specific gods, there were also particular behaviors, such as eating certain foods, from which priests had to refrain. They were not required to be celibate, but sexual intercourse rendered them unclean until they underwent further ritual purification.
Festivals
The Egyptians celebrated a variety of religious festivals. Most were annual, tied to one or more specific days of the year, but some took place at longer intervals or on irregular occasions. Some, such as the celebration of the new year, took place across the country, but most were celebrated only locally, at a specific temple. Temple festivals usually involved a procession carrying the god’s image out of the sanctuary in a model barque to visit other significant sites, such as the temple of a related deity. Commoners celebrated these events along with the priesthood, gathering to watch the procession and sometimes receiving portions of the unusually large offerings given to the gods on these occasions. Other festivals were part of the rituals of kingship rather than the cult of a deity; these included coronation ceremonies and the sed festival, a ritual renewal of the pharaoh’s strength which took place periodically during his reign.
Magic
The word “magic” is used to translate the Egyptian term heka, which meant “the ability to make things happen by indirect means”. Heka was believed to be a natural phenomenon, the force which was used to create the universe and which the gods employed to work their will. Humans could also use it, however, and magical practices were closely intertwined with religion. In fact, even the regular rituals performed in temples were counted as magic. Individuals also frequently employed magical techniques for personal ends. Although these ends could be harmful to other people, no form of magic was considered inimical in itself. Instead, magic was seen primarily as a way for humans to prevent or overcome negative events.
Magic was closely associated with the priesthood. Temple libraries contained numerous magical spells, and many of the spells found in other contexts seem to derive from temple books; thus, great magical knowledge was ascribed to the lector priests who studied these books. These priests often worked outside their temples, hiring out their magical services to laymen. Other professions also commonly employed magic as part of their work, including doctors, scorpion-charmers, and makers of magical amulets. It is also likely that the peasantry used simple magic for their own purposes, but because this magical knowledge would have been passed down orally, there is limited evidence of it.
Language was closely linked with heka, to such a degree that Thoth, the god of writing, was sometimes said to be the inventor of heka. Therefore, magic frequently involved written or spoken incantations, although these were usually accompanied by ritual actions. Often these rituals invoked the power of an appropriate deity to perform the desired action, using the power of heka to compel it to act. Sometimes this entailed casting the practitioner or subject of a ritual in the role of a character in mythology, thus inducing the god to act toward that person as it had in the myth. Rituals also employed sympathetic magic, using objects believed to have a magically significant resemblance to the subject of the rite. The Egyptians also commonly used objects believed to be imbued with heka of their own, such as the magically protective amulets worn in great numbers by ordinary Egyptians.
Onlookers:
This is the teaching of the law on magic, divination and the like [bearign in mind how Pharaoh’s magicians were plainly insrtrumets of demonic oppression, and were bested by YHWH.
Both magicians who appear int eh NT, Simon Magus and Elymas, were Cursed under the inspiration of God, the latter being struck blind in a miracle of judgment as he was poisoning the atmosphere against hearing the gospel:
___________
>>Deut 13:1 Suppose a prophet or one who foretells by dreams4 should appear among you and show you a sign or wonder,5 13:2 and the sign or wonder should come to pass concerning what he said to you, namely, โLet us follow other godsโ โ gods whom you have not previously known โ โand let us serve them.โ 13:3 You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer,6 for the Lord your God will be testing you to see if you love him7 with all your mind and being.8 13:4 You must follow the Lord your God and revere only him; and you must observe his commandments, obey him, serve him, and remain loyal to him. 13:5 As for that prophet or dreamer,9 he must be executed because he encouraged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt, redeeming you from that place of slavery, and because he has tried to entice you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to go. In this way you must purge out evil from within.10
Deut 18:9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, you must not learn the abhorrent practices of those nations. 18:10 There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire,12 anyone who practices divination,13 an omen reader,14 a soothsayer,15 a sorcerer,16 18:11 one who casts spells,17 one who conjures up spirits,18 a practitioner of the occult,19 or a necromancer.20 18:12 Whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord and because of these detestable things21 the Lord your God is about to drive them out22 from before you. 18:13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God. 18:14 Those nations that you are about to dispossess listen to omen readers and diviners, but the Lord your God has not given you permission to do such things.
18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you โ from your fellow Israelites;23 you must listen to him. 18:16 This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly. You asked the Lord your God: โPlease do not make us hear the voice of the Lord our24 God any more or see this great fire any more lest we die.โ 18:17 The Lord then said to me, โWhat they have said is good. 18:18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. 18:19 I will personally hold responsible25 anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet26 speaks in my name.
18:20 โBut if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized27 him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 18:21 Now if you say to yourselves,28 โHow can we tell that a message is not from the Lord?โ29 โ 18:22 whenever a prophet speaks in my30 name and the prediction31 is not fulfilled,32 then I have33 not spoken it;34 the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.โ >>
______________
Observe too the list of those reserved with seats in the hootest night club in town:
Rev 21:5 And the one seated on the throne said: โLook! I am making all things new!โ Then9 he said to me, โWrite it down,10 because these words are reliable11 and true.โ 21:6 He also said to me, โIt is done!12 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the one who is thirsty I will give water13 free of charge14 from the spring of the water of life. 21:7 The one who conquers15 will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
21:8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells,16 idol worshipers,17 and all those who lie, their place18 will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur.19 That20 is the second death.โ
The value placed on magic in Egypt and in Babylon both show that these systems are utterly antithetical to the revelation from YHWH through Moshe and the gospel through Christ, and are energised by an utterly different spirit.
G’day.
D
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.