Skip to main content

Words are used in several cultures to mean different things. That dude named Amen was probably named that way, similar to people naming their kids April (month of the year), or Kunte (a famous person).


The word "amen" is a Hebrew word. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence.

Source: Strongs


I like how it confirms God's promises to us...
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen. - Deuteronomy 27:18
divinejoy,

First, the second website that fine points us to doesn't always know what it's talking about:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fact that "Amen" came from Jewish sources into Christianity is acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 1 1907

"The word Amen is one of a small number of Hebrew words which have been imported unchanged into the liturgy of the Church ... 'So frequent was this Hebrew word in the mouth of Our Saviour', observes the catechism of the Council of Trent, "that it pleased the Holy Ghost to have it perpetuated in the Church of God."

It is ironical that the Holy Ghost (spiritual form of God) would ask to implement something after hearing it from The Saviour (Jesus Christ)!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you see anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia quote saying that teh Holy Spirit "asks" anything? How did that fellow read that into it?

Very sloppy scholarship.

Nothing like a false etymology to confirm a bias, right?

In fact, you and Strong's are right. The word "amen" in it's different forms is a quite common Hebrew word:

Esther 2:7 (translated, "brought up" in NIV)
Numbers 11:12 (transl. "carry them")
Ruth 4:16 ("cared for him")
2 Kings 18:16 ("doorposts")
2 Samuel 20:19 ("faithful ones")
Isaiah 22:25 ("firm place")

And a whole host of other places:

1 Chron. 17:24
Isa. 33:16
Jer. 15:18
Ho. 5:2
Dt. 28:59
Isa. 55:3
2 Sam. 7:16
1 Sam. 2:35; 3:20

and so it goes.

It is a common word for making something sure, certain, or secure. As used at the end of a Hebrew prayer, it could mean something like, "Absolutely," or "May it be so."

Pagan deity, indeed.

Fine, when it comes to what might support your biases, you are entirely too credulous.
It is ironical that the Holy Ghost (spiritual form of God) would ask to implement something after hearing it from The Saviour (Jesus Christ)!

You all must have never studied any metaphysics. How could God be spiritual, when every picture you see of him is white! God is the white man, and God ain't got no mystic power! Jesus Christ ain't never wielded mystic power because he's white. This universe was made by a black man so how could Jesus Christ wield mystic power. It is nothing but corruption and lies! There is nothing mystic about that damn bible. It is foul and ignoble! The mystical power exists and it is wielded by Olodumare and Shango, and all the other Orishas! I'll say it one more time and you white people on this board better start saying you are God and Goddesses and You all ain't Got no mystic power!
Johnny
Thank you for the mystical revelation. Your infinite mystic power is a true blessing to the board. I am almost to the point where I can see the height of your thinking power displayed in human (finite) terms in order to commune on this plane. Your metaphysical mumbo jumbo (I mean that in the african way!) is a source of greatness and elevation for me. Keep doing your thang man!
I am civil.

Thinking? No. You are repeating and declaiming, not engaging, and certainly not listening. You are demanding that we lisen to you while you give us no reason to do so.

Not listening? Here's an example:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
It is ironical that the Holy Ghost (spiritual form of God) would ask to implement something after hearing it from The Saviour (Jesus Christ)!
------------------------------

You all must have never studied any metaphysics. How could God be spiritual, when every picture you see of him is white! God is the white man,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You compoletely missed the point of the write that you quoted by ignoring it. The writer was not talking about color or creator, you had to inject it into the conversation because that's all you're thinking about. You bring in an irrelevant point (How can God...when every picture you see...) which you compound with the logical fallacy of the Complex Question. So what if pictures of God show him as white or black (I saw a made-for-TV movie that was originally made in the 1950s in which every character--angels, God, Jesus--were black, so "every picture that you see of" God is not white, and even if it were, it would not have any bearing on his reality. Every picture of him could be white and he'd still have power that you deny him.

Your denying him power doesn't make him any the less.

Tell you what: for the time being, I'll settle for your saying it in another way. Then you can give us some logical reasons for your statements, ok? But try putting them on your "Olodumare and Shango" thread.

And of course, you usually recommend that we buy your book.
Divine Joy
quote:
The word "amen" is a Hebrew word. The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence.


--the word Amen has an ancient African Egyptian origin.

--the word Hebrew did not come into fruition until these people arrived in Europe and were called thus by the Europeans, therefore--Hebrew is not 'dated' enough to even back up blaq antiquity...only strong enough to reflect/mirror what was brought [by them] out of Ancient African Egypt...
quote:
Posted December 15, 2005 02:43 PM; Melesi said: The fact that "Amen" came from Jewish sources into Christianity is acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 1 1907.


--the catholic church isn't even authentic!

So...now..let's see!

Hebrew has European origin
Catholism has Hebrew origin

--they both stem back to ancient African Egypt...

"100 Amazing Facts About The Negro, with Complete Proof--JA Rogers"
Last edited {1}
Isn't the oldest use of a word the origin? Especially considering the "Hebrews" didn't have a religion(by their own Sun Book/Helio Biblio) until they were in Egypt? hhmmmm...

It is KeMeTic... Amen... 'The hidden one'.(Sound familiar?)

Amen (Amon) and Amen-Ra, King of the Gods, and the Triad of Thebes
Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were Amen and his consort Ament, and their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem. It is evident that even in the remote period of the Vth Dynasty Amen and Ament were numbered among the primeval gods, if not as gods in chief certainly as subsidiary forms of some of them, and from the fact that they are mentioned immediately after the deities of primeval matter, Nau and Nen, who we may consider to be the equivalents of the watery abyss from which all things sprang, and immediately before Temt and Shu and Tefnut, it would seem that the writers or editors of the Pyramid Texts assigned great antiquity to their existence. Of the attributes ascribed to Amen in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it. The word or root amen, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like, and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods. In hymns to Amen we often read that he is "hidden to his children, "and "hidden to gods and men," and it has been stated that these expressions only refer to the "hiding," i.e., "setting" of the sun each evening, and that they are only to be understood in a physical sense, and to mean nothing more than the disappearance of the god Amen from the sight of men at the close of day. Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is "hidden," and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amen, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon," and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes, and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men. In the times approaching the Ptolemaic period the name Amen appears to have been connected with the root men, "to abide, to be permanent;" and one of the attributes which were applied to him was that of eternal. Amen is represented in five forms: 1. As a man, when he is seen seated on a throne, and holding in one hand the scepter, and in the other the symbol of "life." In this form he is one of the nine deities who compose the company of the gods of Amen-Ra, the other eight being Ament, Nu, Nut, Hehui, Hehet, Kekui, Keket, and Hathor. 2. As a man with the head of a frog, whilst his female counterpart Ament has the head of a uraeus. 3. As a man with the head of a uraeus, whilst his female counterpart has the head of a cat. 4. As an ape. 5. As a lion couching upon a pedestal.


http://www.touregypt.net/amen.htm

Not to be flippant, but this is BASIC Afro-Centric stuff folks.
But that is beside the point. The Hebrew word "amen" does not relate to divinity. It is a common word, used in everyday speech, preserved in such conversations and teachings as "amen, amen, I say to you that..." and he wasn't speaking to or of a god or of anything divine.

It is used commonly, not reserved for cultic speech.

The oldest use that we know of of a word is not necessarily the source. One could ask, for example, where the Egyptians got it. Unfortunately, that seems to be a fruitless search, for the records are not extant, and probably could not be. So we would have to be careful in saying that it is the source. It could be, but we do not know.

There are false etymologies aplenty, based on exactly the kind of thinking that this amen/Amen supposition has in it. "Semite" does not come from the Latin "semi" but form the Hebrew "Shem." Greek has two words spelled identically that mean two different things--"thumos" is "anger," and "thumos" is "lentil." The only difference is the accent. We have words that mean the opposite of themselves: "cleave" can mean to "cut in two" or "cling together as one."

So be careful when tracing the etymology of a word. If there is no relation between two similar-looking words in meaning, then it's most likely that there is no relation between them at all. Amen in Egyptian was a god. Amen in Hebrew is a common word meaning "absolutely," or "truly," or even "me, too," plus the meanings of security and firmness.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
But that is beside the point.
quote:


How wxactly, I could have sworn that 'Amen' was the topic at hand.

quote:
The Hebrew word "amen" does not relate to divinity. It is a common word, used in everyday speech, preserved in such conversations and teachings as "amen, amen, I say to you that..." and he wasn't speaking to or of a god or of anything divine.


It is used commonly, not reserved for cultic speech.


You have no idea how funny what you just said is. Look up the work 'cult' and others may get it...I doubt you will. BTW I could have sworn all Hebrew words have a mystic meaning, that the whole language has numerical corrolations ect. The entire speach is 'divine' to people that read Hebrew. Didn't your Jewish studies inform you of that melesi?

quote:
The oldest use that we know of of a word is not necessarily the source. One could ask, for example, where the Egyptians got it. Unfortunately, that seems to be a fruitless search, for the records are not extant, and probably could not be. So we would have to be careful in saying that it is the source. It could be, but we do not know.


Actually, the Egyptians say in many documents that they recieved their knowledge from 'up' the Nile from it's sounrce, a.k.a. the interior of Africa...Upper Egypt being "south" in our upside down world view. The Neteru/Netcher 'Bes' is the anthropomorphic phenotye made devine of the Twa people(Pygmies) that the Kemetic (Egyptians) scribes gave praise to as the source of their knowledge. This is documented in the Medu Neteru...a book you obviousely skipped. These people are found at the source of the Nile and in the Congo Basin. African either way it goes. I'm no tribalist/micronationalist.

Thanks for once again proving your lack of knowledge about ancient KMTic texts.

Why do you insist on speaking on things outside the Bible when you know you haven't studied them?

Let's infuse some logic here. The Hebrews of the Bible dwelt in KMT(Egypt) for how long by their own recoeds? And didn't have a religion mentioned in their own Holy Book until contact with Egypt. The same people(Egyptians) that had been worshipping one of the manifestations of God known as Amen. Moses(Moshe) was "learned in all the ways of Egypt" but some how, they just "happen" to use the same word and there is no connection.

Even thought there are examples aplenty of how the Helio Biblio(Sun Book) has plagerized portions of scripture directly from the papyrus of ani? Which Moses and 'his' people were exposed to on a daily basis during most of their 'Old Testament' stay in Egypt. I have the texts if you want to read them.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

quote:
There are false etymologies aplenty, based on exactly the kind of thinking that this amen/Amen supposition has in it. "Semite" does not come from the Latin "semi" but form the Hebrew "Shem." Greek has two words spelled identically that mean two different things--"thumos" is "anger," and "thumos" is "lentil." The only difference is the accent. We have words that mean the opposite of themselves: "cleave" can mean to "cut in two" or "cling together as one."


So be careful when tracing the etymology of a word. If there is no relation between two similar-looking words in meaning, then it's most likely that there is no relation between them at all. Amen in Egyptian was a god. Amen in Hebrew is a common word meaning "absolutely," or "truly," or even "me, too," plus the meanings of security and firmness.


Now that's beside the point.

You have lost all credibility when you suggested Yeshua(Jesus) could have possibly been Germanic in another thread.

Awaiting another weak X-tian apologetic response...
oshun,

Oh, come--I did not say that Jesus could have been Germanic. That you would say so shows that you just might be deliberately misunderstanding me. I said that, since we do not know what he looked like--he is not described--then we have to hold open the possibility that he looked like anything, including that Germanic picture. I do not think that the possibility is great that he looked like that, but the point I made was not about his appearance but about our proud certainy in what we cannot be certain about. It was about us, not about him.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have no idea how funny what you just said is. Look up the work 'cult' and others may get it...I doubt you will. BTW I could have sworn all Hebrew words have a mystic meaning, that the whole language has numerical corrolations ect. The entire speach is 'divine' to people that read Hebrew. Didn't your Jewish studies inform you of that melesi?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am familiar with the word "cult." It's meaning is a bit larger than our modern popular definition of an incorrect worship or belief system. The term "cultus" (from which "cultic" comes) is a neutral term--a word without derogatory or positive meaning indicating a system of worship.

Not all words in Hebrew had cultic or mystic meanings. In fact, the majority of them did not. The fact that letters were used as numbers does not mean that the letters and therefore the words have numerological meanings. "Negeth" does not; "shamem" does not--or can you find some mystic meaning in the words for "before" and "appall"? It isn't the "speech" that is divine to speakers of Hebrew, it's the word of God.

And where the Egyptians received their knowledge is not the same as tracing an etymology. From where "up the Nile" did the word come? Which language? What did the word mean there and then? How was it used? Who used it? That's what I mean, and that information for the word "amen" is very likely not available. I notice that you did not provide it, despite your deep reading in Egyptian literature.

Ok, they did not use the same word with exactly the same meaning. I mean, "amen" to describe all sorts of things and conditions is clearly not the name of a god. I did reference a few of the uses of the word in a previous post in this thread. You might want to look them up. Everyday speech, not special, not divine, not referring to God. Just a common, everyday use of a common, everyday term. That is not proof of Egyptian gods in Hebrew.

As for Moses, yes, he was learned in the ways of Egypt, but from the time of his self-imposed exile from Egypt he learned things a bit different from things Egyptian. I'm sure that he could learn after he left Egypt?

You appear more certain about these things that you should be.
Excerpts From

The Christ Conspiracy:
The Greatest Story Ever Sold

by Acharya S


From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities. Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle-making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in "saving souls." Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanies its foundation, Christianity's history is rife with forgery and fraud. So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself. In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures....

We have seen that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Christian founder, that the earliest Christian proponents were as a whole either utterly credulous or astoundingly deceitful, and that said "defenders of the faith" were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions. It has also been demonstrated that the world into which Christianity was born was filled with assorted gods and goddesses, as opposed to a monotheistic vacuum. In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that "Jesus Christ" is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and whose dramas were regularly played out by ancient people long before the Christian era....

Horus of Egypt
"Egypt, the primeval seat of learning, was the high seat of Sun adoration. The Sphinx, with the face to the east, represents Harmmachus, young Horus, or the rising Sun. The orb is Osiris, the ruling god of day. In its descent it is the dying deity, going below to the land of Shades; but only to be resurrected as the victorious Horus, piercing the head of the dragon of darkness."

James Bonwick, Irish Druids & Old Irish Religions (190)

The Egyptian sun god Horus, who predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he..was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.

He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."
Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis--the original "Madonna and Child."
Ancient History Sourcebook:
The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, c. 2200 BCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precepts of the prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep,
under the Majesty of the King of the South and North,
Assa, living eternally forever.

The prefect, the feudal lord Ptah-hotep, says: O Ptah with the two crocodiles, my lord, the progress of age changes into senility. Decay falls upon man and decline takes the place of youth. A vexation weighs upon him every day; sight fails, the ear becomes deaf; his strength dissolves without ceasing. The mouth is silent, speech fails him; the mind decays, remembering not the day before. The whole body suffers. That which is good becomes evil; taste completely disappears. Old age makes a man altogether miserable; the nose is stopped up, breathing no more from exhaustion. Standing or sitting there is here a condition of . . . Who will cause me to have authority to speak, that I may declare to him the words of those who have heard the counsels of former days? And the counsels heard of the gods, who will give me authority to declare them? Cause that it be so and that evil be removed from those that are enlightened; send the double . . . The majesty of this god says: Instruct him in the sayings of former days. It is this which constitutes the merit of the children of the great. All that which makes the soul equal penetrates him who hears it, and that which it says produces no satiety.

Beginning of the arrangement of the good sayings, spoken by the noble lord, the divine father, beloved of Ptah, the son of the king, the first-born of his race, the prefect and feudal lord Ptah-hotep, so as to instruct the ignorant in the knowledge of the arguments of the good sayings. It is profitable for him who hears them, it is a loss to him who shall transgress them. He says to his son:

Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite.

If you find a disputant while he is hot, and if he is superior to you in ability, lower the hands, bend the back, do not get into a passion with him. As he will not let you destroy his words, it is utterly wrong to interrupt him; that proclaims that you are incapable of keeping yourself calm, when you are contradicted. If then you have to do with a disputant while he is hot, imitate one who does not stir. You have the advantage over him if you keep silence when he is uttering evil words. "The better of the two is he who is impassive," say the bystanders, and you are right in the opinion of the great.

If you find a disputant while he is hot, do not despise him because you are not of the same opinion. Be not angry against him when he is wrong; away with such a thing. He fights against himself; require him not further to flatter your feelings. Do not amuse yourself with the spectacle which you have before you; it is odious, it is mean, it is the part of a despicable soul so to do. As soon as you let yourself be moved by your feelings, combat this desire as a thing that is reproved by the great.

If you have, as leader, to decide on the conduct of a great number of men, seek the most perfect
manner of doing so that your own conduct may be without reproach. Justice is great, invariable, and assured; it has not been disturbed since the age of Ptah. To throw obstacles in the way of the laws is to open the way before violence. Shall that which is below gain the upper hand, if the unjust does not attain to the place of justice? Even he who says: I take for myself, of my own free-will; but says not: I take by virtue of my authority. The limitations of justice are invariable; such is the instruction which every man receives from his father.

Inspire not men with fear, else Ptah will fight against you in the same manner. If any one asserts that he lives by such means, Ptah will take away the bread from his mouth; if any one asserts that he enriches himself thereby, Ptah says: I may take those riches to myself. If any one asserts that he beats others, Ptah will end by reducing him to impotence. Let no one inspire men with fear; this is the will of Ptah. Let one provide sustenance for them in the lap of peace; it will then be that they will freely give what has been torn from them by terror.

If you are among the persons seated at meat in the house of a greater man than yourself, take that which he gives you, bowing to the ground. Regard that which is placed before you, but point not at it; regard it not frequently; he is a blameworthy person who departs from this rule. Speak not to the great man more than he requires, for one knows not what may be displeasing to him. Speak when he invites you and your worth will be pleasing. As for the great man who has plenty of means of existence, his conduct is as he himself wishes. He does that which pleases him; if he desires to repose, he realizes his intention. The great man stretching forth his hand does that to which other men do not attain. But as the means of existence are under the will of Ptah, one can not rebel against it.

If you are one of those who bring the messages of one great man to another, conform yourself exactly to that wherewith he has charged you; perform for him the commission as he has enjoined you. Beware of altering in speaking the offensive words which one great person addresses to another; he who perverts the trustfulness of his way, in order to repeat only what produces pleasure in the words of every man, great or small, is a detestable person.

If you are a farmer, gather the crops in the field which the great Ptah has given you, do not boast in the house of your neighbors; it is better to make oneself dreaded by one's deeds. As for him who, master of his own way of acting, being all-powerful, seizes the goods of others like a crocodile in the midst even of watchment, his children are an object of malediction, of scorn, and of hatred on account of it, while his father is grievously distressed, and as for the mother who has borne him, happy is another rather than herself. But a man becomes a god when he is chief of a tribe which has confidence in following him.

If you abase yourself in obeying a superior, your conduct is entirely good before Ptah. Knowing who you ought to obey and who you ought to command, do not lift up your heart against him. As you know that in him is authority, be respectful toward him as belonging to him. Wealth comes only at Ptah's own good-will, and his caprice only is the law; as for him who . . Ptah, who has created his superiority, turns himself from him and he is overthrown.

Be active during the time of your existence, do no more than is commanded. Do not spoil the time of your activity; he is a blameworthy person who makes a bad use of his moments. Do not lose the daily opportunity of increasing that which your house possesses. Activity produces riches, and riches do not endure when it slackens.

If you are a wise man, bring up a son who shall be pleasing to Ptah. If he conforms his conduct to your way and occupies himself with your affairs as is right, do to him all the good you can; he is your son, a person attached to you whom your own self has begotten. Separate not your heart from him.... But if he conducts himself ill and transgresses your wish, if he rejects all counsel, if his mouth goes according to the evil word, strike him on the mouth in return. Give orders without hesitation to those who do wrong, to him whose temper is turbulent; and he will not deviate from the straight path, and there will be no obstacle to interrupt the way.

If you are employed in the larit, stand or sit rather than walk about. Lay down rules for yourself from the first: not to absent yourself even when weariness overtakes you. Keep an eye on him who enters announcing that what he asks is secret; what is entrusted to you is above appreciation, and all contrary argument is a matter to be rejected. He is a god who penetrates into a place where no relaxation of the rules is made for the privileged.

If you are with people who display for you an extreme affection, saying: "Aspiration of my heart, aspiration of my heart, where there is no remedy! That which is said in your heart, let it be realized by springing up spontaneously. Sovereign master, I give myself to your opinion. Your name is approved without speaking. Your body is full of vigor, your face is above your neighbors." If then you are accustomed to this excess of flattery, and there be an obstacle to you in your desires, then your impulse is to obey your passion. But he who . . . according to his caprice, his soul is . . ., his body is . . . While the man who is master of his soul is superior to those whom Ptah has loaded with his gifts; the man who obeys his passion is under the power of his wife.

Declare your line of conduct without reticence; give your opinion in the council of your lord; while there are people who turn back upon their own words when they speak, so as not to offend him who has put forward a statement, and answer not in this fashion: "He is the great man who will recognize the error of another; and when he shall raise his voice to oppose the other about it he will keep silence after what I have said."

If you are a leader, setting forward your plans according to that which you decide, perform perfect actions which posterity may remember, without letting the words prevail with you which multiply flattery, which excite pride and produce vanity.

If you are a leader of peace, listen to the discourse of the petitioner. Be not abrupt with him; that would trouble him. Say not to him: "You have already recounted this." Indulgence will encourage him to accomplish the object of his coming. As for being abrupt with the complainant because he described what passed when the injury was done, instead of complaining of the injury itself let it not be! The way to obtain a clear explanation is to listen with kindness.

If you desire to excite respect within the house you enter, for example the house of a superior, a friend, or any person of consideration, in short everywhere where you enter, keep yourself from making advances to a woman, for there is nothing good in so doing. There is no prudence in taking part in it, and thousands of men destroy themselves in order to enjoy a moment, brief as a dream, while they gain death, so as to know it. It is a villainous intention, that of a man who thus excites himself; if he goes on to carry it out, his mind abandons him. For as for him who is without repugnance for such an act, there is no good sense at all in him.

If you desire that your conduct should be good and preserved from all evil, keep yourself from every attack of bad humor. It is a fatal malady which leads to discord, and there is no longer any existence for him who gives way to it. For it introduces discord between fathers and mothers, as well as between brothers and sisters; it causes the wife and the husband to hate each other; it contains all kinds of wickedness, it embodies all kinds of wrong. When a man has established his just equilibrium and walks in this path, there where he makes his dwelling, there is no room for bad humor.

Be not of an irritable temper as regards that which happens at your side; grumble not over your own affairs. Be not of an irritable temper in regard to your neighbors; better is a compliment to that which displeases than rudeness. It is wrong to get into a passion with one's neighbors, to be no longer master of one's words. When there is only a little irritation, one creates for oneself an affliction for the time when one will again be cool.

If you are wise, look after your house; love your wife without alloy. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; these are the cares to be bestowed on her person. Caress her, fulfil her desires during the time of her existence; it is a kindness which does honor to its possessor. Be not brutal; tact will influence her better than violence; her . . . behold to what she aspires, at what she aims, what she regards. It is that which fixes her in your house; if you repel her, it is an abyss. Open your arms for her, respond to her arms; call her, display to her your love.

Treat your dependents well, in so far as it belongs to you to do so; and it belongs to those whom Ptah has favored. If any one fails in treating his dependents well it is said: "He is a person . . ." As we do not know the events which may happen tomorrow, he is a wise person by whom one is well treated. When there comes the necessity of showing zeal, it will then be the dependents themselves who say: "Come on, come on," if good treatment has not quitted the place; if it has quitted it, the dependents are defaulters.

Do not repeat any extravagance of language; do not listen to it; it is a thing which has escaped from a hasty mouth. If it is repeated, look, without hearing it, toward the earth; say nothing in regard to it. Cause him who speaks to you to know what is just, even him who provokes to injustice; cause that which is just to be done, cause it to triumph. As for that which is hateful according to the law, condemn it by unveiling it.

If you are a wise man, sitting in the council of your lord, direct your thought toward that which is wise. Be silent rather than scatter your words. When you speak, know that which can be brought against you. To speak in the council is an art, and speech is criticized more than any other labor; it is contradiction which puts it to the proof.

If you are powerful, respect knowledge and calmness of language. Command only to direct; to be absolute is to run into evil. Let not your heart be haughty, neither let it be mean. Do not let your orders remain unsaid and cause your answers to penetrate; but speak without heat, assume a serious countenance. As for the vivacity of an ardent heart, temper it; the gentle man penetrates all obstacles. He who agitates himself all the day long has not a good moment; and he who amuses himself all the day long keeps not his fortune. Aim at fulness like pilots; once one is seated another works, and seeks to obey one's orders.

Disturb not a great man; weaken not the attention of him who is occupied. His care is to embrace his task, and he strips his person through the love which he puts into it. That transports men to Ptah, even the love for the work which they accomplish. Compose then your face even in trouble, that peace may be with you, when agitation is with . . .These are the people who succeed in what they desire.

Teach others to render homage to a great man. If you gather the crop for him among men, cause it to return fully to its owner, at whose hands is your subsistence. But the gift of affection is worth more than the provisions with which your back is covered. For that which the great man receives from you will enable your house to live, without speaking of the maintenance you enjoy, which you desire to preserve; it is thereby that he extends a beneficent hand, and that in your home good things are added to good things. Let your love pass into the heart of those who love you; cause those about you to be loving and obedient.

If you are a son of the guardians deputed to watch over the public tranquillity, execute your commission without knowing its meaning, and speak with firmness. Substitute not for that which the instructor has said what you believe to be his intention; the great use words as it suits them. Your part is to transmit rather than to comment upon.

If you are annoyed at a thing, if you are tormented by someone who is acting within his right, get out of his sight, and remember him no more when he has ceased to address you.

If you have become great after having been little, if you have become rich after having been poor, when you are at the head of the city, know how not to take advantage of the fact that you have reached the first rank, harden not your heart because of your elevation; you are become only the administrator, the prefect, of the provisions which belong to Ptah. Put not behind you the neighbor who is like you; be unto him as a companion.

Bend your back before your superior. You are attached to the palace of the king; your house is established in its fortune, and your profits are as is fitting. Yet a man is annoyed at having an authority above himself, and passes the period of life in being vexed thereat. Although that hurts not your . . . Do not plunder the house of your neighbors, seize not by force the goods which are beside you. Exclaim not then against that which you hear, and do not feel humiliated. It is necessary to reflect when one is hindered by it that the pressure of authority is felt also by one's neighbor.

Do not make . . . you know that there are obstacles to the water which comes to its hinder part, and that there is no trickling of that which is in its bosom. Let it not . . . after having corrupted his heart.

If you aim at polished manners, call not him whom you accost. Converse with him especially in such a way as not to annoy him. Enter on a discussion with him only after having left him time to saturate his mind with the subject of the conversation. If he lets his ignorance display itself, and if he gives you all opportunity to disgrace him, treat him with courtesy rather; proceed not to drive him into a corner; do not . . . the word to him; answer not in a crushing manner; crush him not; worry him not; in order that in his turn he may not return to the subject, but depart to the profit of your conversation.

Let your countenance be cheerful during the time of your existence. When we see one departing from the storehouse who has entered in order to bring his share of provision, with his face contracted, it shows that his stomach is empty and that authority is offensive to him. Let not that happen to you; it is . . .

Know those who are faithful to you when you are in low estate. Your merit then is worth more than those who did you honor. His . . ., behold that which a man possesses completely. That is of more importance than his high rank; for this is a matter which passes from one to another. The merit of one's son is advantageous to the father, and that which he really is, is worth more than the remembrance of his father's rank.

Distinguish the superintendent who directs from the workman, for manual labor is little elevated; the inaction of the hands is honorable. If a man is not in the evil way, that which places him there is the want of subordination to authority.

If you take a wife, do not . . . Let her be more contented than any of her fellow-citizens. She will be attached to you doubly, if her chain is pleasant. Do not repel her; grant that which pleases her; it is to her contentment that she appreciates your work.

If you hear those things which I have said to you, your wisdom will be fully advanced. Although they are the means which are suitable for arriving at the maat, and it is that which makes them precious, their memory would recede from the mouth of men. But thanks to the beauty of their arrangement in rhythm all their words will now be carried without alteration over this earth eternally. That will create a canvass to be embellished, whereof the great will speak, in order to instruct men in its sayings. After having listened to them the pupil will become a master, even he who shall have properly listened to the sayings because he shall have heard them. Let him win success by placing himself in the first rank; that is for him a position perfect and durable, and he has nothing further to desire forever. By knowledge his path is assured, and he is made happy by it on the earth. The wise man is satiated by knowledge; he is a great man through his own merits. His tongue is in accord with his mind; just are his lips when he speaks, his eyes when he gazes, his ears when he hears. The advantage of his son is to do that which is just without deceiving himself.

To attend therefore profits the son of him who has attended. To attend is the result of the fact that one has attended. A teachable auditor is formed, because I have attended. Good when he has attended, good when he speaks, he who has attended has profited, and it is profitable to attend to him who has attended. To attend is worth more than anything else, for it produces love, the good thing that is twice good. The son who accepts the instruction of his father will grow old on that account. What Ptah loves is that one should attend; if one attends not, it is abhorrent to Ptah. The heart makes itself its own master when it attends and when it does not attend; but if it attends, then his heart is a beneficent master to a man. In attending to instruction, a man loves what he attends to, and to do that which is prescribed is pleasant. When a son attends to his father, it is a twofold joy for both; when wise things are prescribed to him, the son is gentle toward his master. Attending to him who has attended when such things have been prescribed to him, he engraves upon his heart that which is approved by his father; and the recollection of it is preserved in the mouth of the living who exist upon this earth.

When a son receives the instruction of his father there is no error in all his plans. Train your son to be a teachable man whose wisdom is agreeable to the great. Let him direct his mouth according to that which has been said to him; in the docility of a son is discovered his wisdom. His conduct is perfect while error carries away the unteachable. Tomorrow knowledge will support him, while the ignorant will be destroyed.

As for the man without experience who listens not, he effects nothing whatsoever. He sees knowledge in ignorance, profit in loss; he commits all kinds of error, always accordingly choosing the contrary of what is praiseworthy. He lives on that which is mortal, in this fashion. His food is evil words, whereat he is filled with astonishment. That which the great know to be mortal he lives upon every day, flying from that which would be profitable to him, because of the multitude of errors which present themselves before him every day.

A son who attends is like a follower of Horus; he is happy after having attended. He becomes great, he arrives at dignity, he gives the same lesson to his children. Let none innovate upon the precepts of his father; let the same precepts form his lessons to his children. "Verily," will his children say to him, "to accomplish what you say works marvels." Cause therefore that to flourish which is just, in order to nourish your children with it. If the teachers allow themselves to be led toward evil principles, verily the people who understand them not will speak accordingly, and that being said to those who are docile they will act accordingly. Then all the world considers them as masters and they inspire confidence in the public; but their glory endures not so long as would please them. Take not away then a word from the ancient teaching, and add not one; put not one thing in place of another; beware of uncovering the rebellious ideas which arise in you; but teach according to the words of the wise. Attend if you wish to dwell in the mouth of those who shall attend to your words, when you have entered upon the office of master, that your words may be upon our lips . . . and that there may be a chair from which to deliver your arguments.

Let your thoughts be abundant, but let your mouth be under restraint, and you shall argue with the great. Put yourself in unison with the ways of your master; cause him to say: "He is my son," so that those who shall hear it shall say "Praise be to her who has borne him to him!" Apply yourself while you speak; speak only of perfect things; and let the great who shall hear you say: "Twice good is that which issues from his mouth!"

Do that which your master bids you. Twice good is the precept of his father, from whom he has issued, from his flesh. What he tells us, let it be fixed in our heart; to satisfy him greatly let us do for him more than he has prescribed. Verily a good son is one of the gifts of Ptah, a son who does even better than he has been told to do. For his master he does what is satisfactory, putting himself with all his heart on the part of right. So I shall bring it about that your body shall be healthful, that the Pharaoh shall be satisfied with you in all circumstances and that you shall obtain years of life without default. It has caused me on earth to obtain one hundred and ten years of life, along with the gift of the favor of the Pharoah among the first of those whom their works have ennobled, satisfying the Pharoah in a place of dignity.

It is finished, from its beginning to its end, according to that which is found in writing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine is questioning the origins of the word Amen. Above, is information about Horus. Horus has direct relation to the name AMEN. AMEN is supposedly HORUS' father and ISIS his virgin mother. I felt that it was important to point out this information as well. I have questioned why the word AMEN is in the bible myself. No reason really makes any sense.

Other factors.

The English KJ translation of the bible uses AMEN (which is not even an English term) The bible warns of worshiping the sun god. (AMEN RA= SUN GOD) And we go to church on SUN DAY and say AMEN. Everyone always wonders about those tombs in Egypt, and the symbols of Horus ISIS AMEN are all througout them. In the old testament of the bible it calls Lucifer the morning star. Above we show a similarity between HORUS and JESUS. And HORUS is also considered the morning star. Now in the NIV version of the bible, Jesus is called the morning star in the book of Acts. (I'll make sure and look it up)

I think its worth investigating. Especially because this belief was the originally held by the Romans, who converted to Christianity later:

DESCRIPTION OF AMEN
Amen's name means "The Hidden One." Amen was the patron deity of the city of Thebes from earliest times, and was viewed (along with his consort Amenet) as a primordial creation-deity by the priests of Hermopolis. His sacred animals were the goose and the ram.Up to the Middle Kingdom Amen was merely a local god in Thebes; but when the Thebans had established their sovereignty in Egypt, Amen became a prominent deity, and by Dynasty XVIII was termed the King of the Gods. His famous temple, Karnak, is the largest religious structure ever built by man. According to Budge, Amen by Dynasty XIX-XX was thought of as "an invisible creative power which was the source of all life in heaven, and on the earth, and in the great deep, and in the Underworld, and which made itself manifest under the form of Ra." Additionally, Amen appears to have been the protector of any pious devotee in need.

DESCRIPTION OF RA
Egyptian sun god and creator god. He was usually depicted in human form with a falcon head, crowned with the sun disc encircled by the uraeus (a stylized representation of the sacred cobra). The sun itself was taken to be either his body or his eye. He was said to traverse the sky each day in a solar barque and pass through the underworld each night on another solar barque to reappear in the east each morning. His principal cult centre was at Heliopolis ("sun city"), near modern Cairo. Re was also considered to be an underworld god, closely associated in this respect with Osiris. In this capacity he was depicted as a ram-headed figure.

DESCRIPTION OF ISIS
Throne". Egyptian mother goddess. Daughter of Geb and Nut according to the Heliopolitan genealogy. Sister and wife of Osiris. Mother of Horus. She was depicted in human form, crowned either by a throne or by cow horns enclosing a sun disk. A vulture was also sometimes incorporated in her crown. She is sometimes depicted as a kite above the mummified body of Osiris. As the personification of the throne, she was an important source of the pharaoh's power. Her cult was popular throughout Egypt, but the most important sanctuaries were at Giza and at Behbeit El-Hagar in the Nile delta. Isis later had an importan cult in the Greco-Roman world, with sanctuaries at Delos and Pompeii. Her Latin epithet was Stella Maris, or "star of the sea".
Just like Egyptians never called their King a pharoah, they never called their deities Gods. The Metu teaches that the Kamitian (system) is just AS monotheistic AS Christianity. I cringe because everything you posted about the Kamitian deities is riddled with GREEK misinterpretation, and misunderstanding. It is a European attempt at comprehending African thought. I cringe because they(Europeans) get to write the history books and portray these misconceptions as fact/truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
oshun,

Oh, come--I did not say that Jesus could have been Germanic. That you would say so shows that you just might be deliberately misunderstanding me. I said that, since we do not know what he looked like--he is not described--then we have to hold open the possibility that he looked like anything, including that Germanic picture. I do not think that the possibility is great that he looked like that, but the point I made was not about his appearance but about our proud certainy in what we cannot be certain about. It was about us, not about him.


This is why I say you lost all credibilty... There is no way Jesus looksed Germanic...He was not German! He wasn't even European!

The fact that you defend the possibility of the racist White supremacist renduring of Jesus that is shoved down the Brown and Black masses(by the way MAJORITY) of the world as being even 'possible'... While completely dismissing the idea(fact IMO) that the Egyptian spiritual system, which the Hebrews spent the majority of the Old Testament living with/under around(via their own psuedo history which you seem to take quite literally) couldn't have influenced their 'new' religion, even though the freaking word is the same, even further discredits you.

quote:
I am familiar with the word "cult." It's meaning is a bit larger than our modern popular definition of an incorrect worship or belief system. The term "cultus" (from which "cultic" comes) is a neutral term--a word without derogatory or positive meaning indicating a system of worship.


Pardon my French but, no shit. Cult of Jesus is what I was laughing at.

quote:
Not all words in Hebrew had cultic or mystic meanings. In fact, the majority of them did not. The fact that letters were used as numbers does not mean that the letters and therefore the words have numerological meanings. "Negeth" does not; "shamem" does not--or can you find some mystic meaning in the words for "before" and "appall"? It isn't the "speech" that is divine to speakers of Hebrew, [b]it's the word of God.[/]


Tell that one to the Cabalists...or actually your local Rabbi... All Hebrew words in the BIBLE are divine...So Amen isn't in the Bible?

quote:
And where the Egyptians received their knowledge is not the same as tracing an etymology. From where "up the Nile" did the word come? Which language? What did the word mean there and then? How was it used? Who used it? That's what I mean, and that information for the word "amen" is very likely not available. I notice that you did not provide it, despite your deep reading in Egyptian literature.


The first written words in Africa were the Medu Neteru(hierogyphs) therefore the etymology cannot be traced further back than the KMTic people... It isn't possible because of the passage of time, it is impossible because there are NO earlier writing period. So, instead of etymology, I was giving you what the Egyptians recorded in the Medu Neteru as the origin of ALL their beliefs/knowledge.

quote:
Ok, they did not use the same word with exactly the same meaning. I mean, "amen" to describe all sorts of things and conditions is clearly not the name of a god. I did reference a few of the uses of the word in a previous post in this thread. You might want to look them up.;


You might want to look up how those are further titles of the god Amen...I forgot to mention that BTW.

quote:
Everyday speech, not special, not divine, not referring to God. Just a common, everyday use of a common, everyday term. That is not proof of Egyptian gods in Hebrew.


Only someone with complete blinders, or completely ignorant of the information, would refute the Kemetic(Egyptian) origins of a large portion of Judeo-Christianity and the Helio Biblo.

quote:
As for Moses, yes, he was learned in the ways of Egypt, but from the time of his self-imposed exile from Egypt he learned things a bit different from things Egyptian. I'm sure that he could learn after he left Egypt?


Exactly, with the expulsion of the foreign invader(Hyksos) from Egypt...The only recorded exodus...They changed the Egyptian spiritual system...hence the differences but OBVIOUS similarities.

quote:
You appear more certain about these things that you should be.


No, I'm just not in denial because I have no vested interest to blindly hold onto the lies 'massa' told.
off

All the males here who are in direct dispute against one another are "all" off topic and into your own sniper world's of throwing venomous darts back and forth at one another between apologies... ek

This trend shows up on other subjects as well.... ek

I don't get it I just don't get it lol
Last edited {1}
I've also researched AmenhotepIV/Akhennaten and found a close association with this word....Amen
----------------
Texas Star said:
quote:
The English KJ translation of the bible uses AMEN (which is not even an English term) The bible warns of worshiping the sun god. (AMEN RA= SUN GOD) And we go to church on SUN DAY and say AMEN. Everyone always wonders about those tombs in Egypt, and the symbols of Horus ISIS AMEN are all througout them. In the old testament of the bible it calls Lucifer the morning star. Above we show a similarity between HORUS and JESUS. And HORUS is also considered the morning star. Now in the NIV version of the bible, Jesus is called the morning star in the book of Acts. (I'll make sure and look it up)


I confirm that morning star is used in reference to Ayesu (original Akan name--not Jesus, Greek corruption) and also that the name was used to describe Lucifer, as well.

-----------------

My point in presenting this topic is to question the christian meaning--christianity is not authentic, and literally/virtual came direct from the walls of the pyramids--the word therefore has origin that pre-dates the bible, Christianity and Judaism.

Understand that "christianity" tauts its weigh around like it knows what its talking about while clutching the bible in its claws. But the truth be told "christianity" hasn't even translated any of the names correctly.

Since I know Black Africans dominated Egypt--in the beginning the word--the word "Amen" has roots with them and their gods in blaq antiquity.

-----------------
The 2-page information you presented is useful and I still think it is very interesting under a new, and different topic, that's all...

There are times when I respond to a post and look at what I added again and wind up making a new topic.

I didn't create the mean face on the off topic icon, Texas Star....!

Side Thought--here is an interesting link -- http://sobek.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/amen.html
Last edited {1}
quote:
christianity is not authentic, and literally/virtual came direct from the walls of the pyramids



Not authentic? What religion would you consider to be authentic? How does the authenticity of the word Amen invalidate a whole religion? The language you are typing in right now is not authentic to your true orgins, does that fact detract from the messages that you convey in your day to day intercourses... does it?


Based upon your reasoning and much of the community here, Christianity should be abandoned because it was forced upon us by our slavemasters, but should we abandon english as well? What language would we speak? Swahili? Ethiopian(forgot the real term)? Egyptian?

What Christianity does for the Black American community is create a foundation for solidarity. Much like the english language. We all speak english, and the vast majority of us identify (not claim) with Christian principles. Once we begin to disect in community into different African sects of religous preferences, we lose the God-given advantage of moral, intellectual, and spiritual communication.

This is shaky ground for me because the Bible warns against believing by default. But I think the community needs to not take for granted the connections we have with eachother. And if Christianity, the English language(sub-point), and our cultural preferences grants us the priviledge of that connection, then we should be more grateful.
Last edited {1}
HeruStar said--I cringe every time I seek Greek names in place of the original Kamitian names.

--You are correct to question the names as well as the information outside of the context of a Europeanized thought process, however the origin is "Akan" not Kamitian!

IMHO my views are my own. You do not have to agree.

IMHO your views are you own I don't have to agree.

Do not take my comments personal, nor personally--do the research as I have done and find out just how little you know 'specifically' about your religion or 'generally' about man made religion...

This forum is for intellectual/enlightenment pursuits...!
I am...
Last edited {1}
Would you be refering that to me?

If so, I'll be the first to tell you that I've read plenty about the paganism of Christianity. I'm not a trapped in the closet Christian, I've explored, and have found the inconsistencies and imperfections that could be said to be found in Christianity. Honestly, I could care less, mainly because I've found Jesus Christ to be true and consistent. The Bible may be inconclusive, but Christ and His teachings are indisputable.
quote:
Would you be refering that to me?

If so, I'll be the first to tell you that I've read plenty about the paganism of Christianity. I'm not a trapped in the closet Christian, I've explored, and have found the inconsistencies and imperfections that could be said to be found in Christianity. Honestly, I could care less, mainly because I've found Jesus Christ to be true and consistent. The Bible may be inconclusive, but Christ and His teachings are indisputable.


Yesth, I am addressing my remarks to you and in 3D I'd look you square in the eye....!

though off I must reply to your comment: "...I could care less, mainly because I've found Jesus Christ to be true and consistent. The Bible may be inconclusive, but Christ and His teachings are indisputable..."

1. The 'lying lore of christianity' 'still' has the man named Christ depicted in white imagery.

2. The gospels are 'all' in direct contradiction with one another. The names are even bogus: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are all English names and not their original African Names.

3. This link provides great enlightenment:
http://www.awitness.org/essays/torahrf.html

4. Paul never even met Jesus yet Christianity embraces his claims and assertions...
quote:
This makes NOOOO sense whatsoever

The ONLY direct source of information about Jesus and his teachings is the Bible. So if the source is tainted then what does that say about what flows from it?



lets say the Bible is tainted...

How does that view detract from Jesus' message? Is there any evidence that proves that Jesus is a liar? Shall the meek not inherit the earth? if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, and you go with him two, will this measure of love prove to be useless? Is that message tainted with lies and deceit? Help me out Brotha, because I'm trying to understand where your confusion lies?
quote:
1. The 'lying lore of christianity' 'still' has the man named Christ depicted in white imagery.

Does this mean that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will NOT be filled?

2. The gospels are 'all' in direct contradiction with one another. The names are even bogus: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are all English names and not their original African Names.

Is that a fact? could you list just one MESSAGE that bears any resemblance at all toa a contradiction between Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? If I told you that the white man coined the name sugar, would that make it any less sweet?

3. This link provides great enlightenment:
http://www.awitness.org/essays/torahrf.html

wasn't enlightened, more like bored out of my mind

4. Paul never even met Jesus yet Christianity embraces his claims and assertions...

You are just too cute Smile


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
lets say the Bible is tainted...

How does that view detract from Jesus' message? Is there any evidence that proves that Jesus is a liar? Shall the meek not inherit the earth? if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, and you go with him two, will this measure of love prove to be useless? Is that message tainted with lies and deceit? Help me out Brotha, because I'm trying to understand where your confusion lies?


OK. It's a known fact that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were NOT in fact written by Jesus. They were instead written down by people who themselves probably never heard Jesus speak but got them second, maybe even third or fourth hand - written down decades after the words were initially spoken.

It's also a known fact that there are indeed discrepancies between the different Gospel texts. The list is well-known and available to anyone who cares to look for it and was noticed by Christians themselves as early as the 3rd century.

It's been well argued that these differences were sometimes due to the political aims of the writer. For example, John famously differs from the other 3 Gospels in MANY ways. I'll only list 2:

(1) He places the purging of the temple at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke place it at the end (even implying it was the reason for his crucifixion: "When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him"). In John here is no connection at all drawn between Jesus' driving money changers out of the Temple and his death. Why? Probably because John wanted to emphasize different things about who he THOUGHT Jesus was. John's INTERPRETATION was that it was Jesus' mission to purify religious practice and so he puts it at the beginning of the story. And obviously you can't crucify him at the start of the story and so John erases the connection.

(2) John is the ONLY Gospel which contains the "Doubting Thomas" stories. Why? Because John wanted to discredit the Gnostic Christians who claimed the Gospel of Thomas as their primary authority. This text was suppressed by the early Christian authorities and was only rediscovered 60 years ago.

The list goes on and on and on

* The point is that these texts are NOT simply the work of eye-witnesses who were just writing down the facts as they occurred like many Christians naively try to believe. *
Who cares who wrote it, or whether it's 4th or 5th hand, is it a FACT that there is a DISCREPANCY in Jesus's (or whoever you would like the author to be) teachings?

quote:
posted by HonestBrotha:
It's also a known fact that there are indeed discrepancies between the different Gospel texts. The list is well-known and available to anyone who cares to look for them and were noticed by Christians themselves as early as the 3rd century


alleged Discrepancy or blatant Contradiction, please pick one...

quote:
1 He places the purging of the temple at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke place it at the end (even implying it was the reason for his crucifixion: "When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him"). in John here is no connection at all drawn between Jesus's driving money changers out of the Temple and his death. Why? Probably because John wanted to emphasize different tings about who he THOUGHT Jesus was. John's INTERPRETATION was that it was Jesus' mission to purify religious practice and so he puts it at the beginning of the story. And obviously you can't crucify him at the start of the story and so John erases the connection.


surely this is the only logical explanation.... um.. ok...
It's funny how we are expected to be so open-minded about other beliefs, but we can't expect the same open-mindedness and logical deductive reasoning from said religous whiners Roll Eyes
Finally, it is a COMMON experience of religious people (including those of other Faiths) that when they apply the principles of their religion they seem to work.

I'm a practicing Buddhist. I'm always amazed about how Buddhist principles work when they're applied.

* Is that proof that "Buddha and His teachings are indisputable"? *
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
alleged Discrepancy or blatant Contradiction, please pick one...

quote:
1 He places the purging of the temple at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke place it at the end (even implying it was the reason for his crucifixion: "When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him"). in John here is no connection at all drawn between Jesus's driving money changers out of the Temple and his death. Why? Probably because John wanted to emphasize different tings about who he THOUGHT Jesus was. John's INTERPRETATION was that it was Jesus' mission to purify religious practice and so he puts it at the beginning of the story. And obviously you can't crucify him at the start of the story and so John erases the connection.




Personally, I'd classify this example as a "blatant contradiction"
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
don't flatter yourself


I do apologize for that display of cockiness - it was too cute and I couldn't help myself. But it was rude. So I'm sorry.

But I took great exception to the suggestion that I'm not open-minded. Afterall, I usually find it to be the case that I'm far more knowledgeable of Christianity than Christians are of my religion.

* What most Christians seem to mean when they accuse others of not being open minded is that we won't cave in and confess that Jesus is the WAY and there is no other *

But isn't that a strange way of being "open-minded"?? By concluding that everyone except one group is wrong???

Isn't that like the KKK saying that we're bigoted because we don't want them marching in our neighborhood?? Frown
Last edited {1}
I can't speak for most Christians, heck I probably can't speak for any Christians. The Bible isn't my sole source of spiritual information. I've read numerous pieces, and books that have strong arguments against the Bible, and the History of Christianity, even when I read the Metu, I can sense that Ra Un Nefer Amen isn't overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the sage-hood/god-hood of Christ. I think I'm unique because I feel like the Bible was white-washed, however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


quote:
What most Christians seem to mean when they accuse others of not being open minded is that we won't cave in and confess that Jesus is the WAY and there is no other *


Again, I can't speak for 'most' Christians, what I notice about the double-standard of anti-fundamentalists is that they go into the religous debate with a strong bias, and accept any argument in their favor, credible or not, logical or illogical, for instance:

quote:
He places the purging of the temple at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke place it at the end (even implying it was the reason for his crucifixion: "When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him").
in John here is no connection at all drawn between Jesus's driving money changers out of the Temple and his death. Why? Probably because John wanted to emphasize different tings about who he THOUGHT Jesus was. John's INTERPRETATION was that it was Jesus' mission to purify religious practice and so he puts it at the beginning of the story. And obviously you can't crucify him at the start of the story and so John erases the connection.


I don't know what book of John this guy was reading but...
This is frustrating to me because when I read John, I can sense his kindheartedness and his passion for getting across Jesus' message, moreso than a chronological history of his sermons. Most people don't THINK when they read the Bible soo...

John 2
...And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables(there goes that theory): And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (retrospective validation)... DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP...

(this next part is significant, because clearly the author of the conspiracy ignored this part)

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.(more retrospective validation) (we're still in Ch2!!!)


John displays his purpose loud and clear, to show you how Jesus' words don't fall in vain, and how the life of His words was made real to him. I connect with John, because I can feel how he misses Christ even while writing this letter, I relate this to words that play over and over in my mind that a late loved one may have said to me, and the feeling I get when I can see/taste/touch/and feel, those words walk and breathe. I imagine John getting chills down his spine while writing his letter, because Christ' mission and His realness couldn't be any clearer in his life.
Does John's use of foreshadow invalidate his book?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Again, I can't speak for 'most' Christians, what I notice about the double-standard of anti-fundamentalists is that they go into the religous debate with a strong bias, and accept any argument in their favor, credible or not, logical or illogical


Oh I was PERFECTLY logical. Keep reading.

quote:

I don't know what book of John this guy was reading but...This is frustrating to me because when I read John, I can sense his kindheartedness and his passion for getting across Jesus' message, moreso than a chronological history of his sermons. Most people don't THINK when they read the Bible soo...


The "this guy" in question was me. And the book I was reading was The Gospel According to John. And I think plenty. Even when I read the Bible. Thank you very much.

You seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make. Maybe I wasn't clear enough:

The other 3 Gospels assert a CAUSAL CONNECTION between the events in the temple and the crucifixion. By changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.

quote:

he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables

(there goes that theory): And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (retrospective validation)... DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP...

(this next part is significant, because clearly the author of the conspiracy ignored this part)


First thing is I never claimed a 'conspiracy'. Second thing is, and I repeat, although you're right that John does make some sort of a connection between this event and the crucifixion, by changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.

That is: Event A causing Event B.

The other three Gospels portray the event in the temple as directly bringing about the crucifixion. I.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke assert that there was a CAUSAL connection between these events ("When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him")

While John does make a connection it is NOT a causal one. The alteration in the chronology in effect is a denial of a causal connection.

That is a factual conflict between the Gospels.

Case closed. That is, unless you have a real argument against the actual point I'm making.

quote:

Does John's use of foreshadow invalidate his book?


* I never said that John's use of foreshadow "invalidated" the book. What I said was that John's alteration of the chronology introduces a factual conflict with the other 3 Gospels. I continue to stand by this claim because NOTHING you've said here addresses my real point. *
quote:

however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


Heru, if you really mean this then maybe my last post is more nitpicky than it needed to be. Because I too can read the Bible (including John) and get a lot of spiritual significance out of it.

I chose to pick on John because, for all of its virtues, that particular book has been historically one of the main sources for Christian exclusivism and intolerance.

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me John 14:6

It's the ONLY Gospel which claims Jesus was Divine ("Son of God" is used in the other 3 Gospels but that title was not a claim to Divinity as it was used by several Jewish sects of the time)

If you want a really spiritual book, check out the Gospel of Thomas. There are a lot of similarities between this Gnostic text and John. But Thomas takes a less exclusive point of view. It's the view of some prominent Biblical scholars that John was trying to discredit Thomas (which was written FIRST, by the way).
I like Thomas too...

Causal Theory

And Why I like John...

Cause: Jesus healed on the Sabbath

Effect: Jews saught to kill Him.

I wouldn't put so much weight on the incident at the temple, because they tried to capture/kill Jesus several times before and after that event, unless you're implying that this is the straw that broke the camels back, but even that's speculation.

Honestly I don't see a conflict between the Gospels

I see three JEWS trying to spoonfeed the scribes/pharisees, and other Jews a New Doctrine. John doesn't care to hold the Jews hands nor to be a Christ apologists (one of the reasons He is my favorite). The conflict is not amongst the disciples.


Here is the difference between the three.

Matthew says they plotted to kill Jesus after He heeled a sick man(Matthew 12) chronologically before the temple incident

Mark concurs(Mark 3)

So does Luke(Luke 6)

So does John(John 5)

(You probably missed these)

oh yeah, and if you read the chapters you'll see that there are no "implications", just straight "chronologically causal" facts.



However John, taking a stance, was the only one not to omit this important bit:

16And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God



Matthew held it down too, but He chose the more diplomatic route

6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.



Now I don't see any contradictions at all
I see omissions, but if each of them attempted to include everything Christ said and did...
whew...
u get the picture
I see four people sharing one story to dissimilar audiences
I still stand firm in believing that there are no laws against literary appeal and foreshadow

also I hold that John was writing to a much different audience, one of the first rules of writing is to 'KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE'


as far as Chronology goes, what "motive" do you have for the different things each Disciple chose to point out about the Birth and adolescence of Christ....

this ought to be interesting.
Last edited {1}
OK. I'll cry uncle (but only on this one issue: i.e., John's treatment of the temple incident and whether it truly conflicts with the other 3 Gospels).

That was a worthy comeback bow

But I stand by the comment that initiated this whole discussion. It makes no sense to me to say that the Bible is inconclusive but Jesus and his message are beyond dispute. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Call it like you see is Oshun, but Ima stand mine regardless...


Standing by a lack of understanding is egotistical Heru, it will only prevent you from learning about anything that may contradict your pre-existing beleifs, which isn't good, considering that most of our pre-existing beliefs were spooon fed to us by our oppressor in our youth.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:

however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


Heru, if you really mean this then maybe my last post is more nitpicky than it needed to be. Because I too can read the Bible (including John) and get a lot of spiritual significance out of it.

I chose to pick on John because, for all of its virtues, that particular book has been historically one of the main sources for Christian exclusivism and intolerance.

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me John 14:6

It's the ONLY Gospel which claims Jesus was Divine ("Son of God" is used in the other 3 Gospels but that title was not a claim to Divinity as it was used by several Jewish sects of the time)

If you want a really spiritual book, check out the Gospel of Thomas. There are a lot of similarities between this Gnostic text and John. But Thomas takes a less exclusive point of view. It's the view of some prominent Biblical scholars that John was trying to discredit Thomas (which was written FIRST, by the way).


Actually, John 14:6 is not even a good verse to use to justify exclusivism and intolerance.

In the Aramaic text, the word used for "I" (the first word in the sentence), is "ena-ena". "Ena-ena" literally means "I-I" in Aramaic. The term "ena" is an impersonal, third-person "I" that is used for when one wants to describe an impersonal object alluding to personalism.

In Aramaic, Jesus' words are literally, "I-I am the Path, the Truth, and the Existence: no person comes to the Father-Mother/Parent, but by My." More finely translated, this means: "Absoluteness is the Path, the Truth, and the Existence: no person comes to It but my ways."

Now this is ALOT more universal than the corrupted English/Latin translation (which was purposely mistranslated by Augustine and the Roman goverment to promote "Son of God" Emperor worship for Jesus to promote authoritarianism and exclusivism mentality).
quote:
December 15, 2005 02:43PM--Melesi said: First, the second website that fine points us to doesn't always know what it's talking about


--and you Melesi are a written authority and are always right Roll Eyes ek

quote:
Posted December 20, 2005 06:11PM Oshun Auset said--Isn't the oldest use of a word the origin? Especially considering the "Hebrews" didn't have a religion(by their own Sun Book/Helio Biblio) until they were in Egypt? hhmmmm...

It is KeMeTic... Amen... 'The hidden one'.(Sound familiar?)


--makes sense to me. Hebrew is not the oldest use of anything and represents a copy of everything before it evolved into pseudo-reality.

--I feel more comfortable referencing for an ancient source [i.e. Egyptian] or as you say KeMeTic.

--IMHO Egypt is a tender subject for most people because it has been shrouded in lies and false attacks [i.e the catholic church did a wonderful job concealing the truth in order to tout its own copied/false accolades]. In reality, everything we practice today came from this era [i.e from the bible thru modern civilization].
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
"A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways".


Mr. Fagunwa, brotha that I have the utmost respect for...

I don't think James was referring to people like me.

I admit to not being 'like-minded', but I am in know way, shape, form, or fashion, 'double-minded'.




The stone deaf do not listen, for there are no sounds for them to hear.
I may come off sounding cocky or condescending here, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you read, the Bible and how much of "Jewish" history takes place in Eastern Africa, how much influence Eastern African culture has in "Jewish" culture it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the word Amen is in fact Aharmaic (sp?)and is the name is that of a great Pharoah. Even a child can surmise this is presented with the facts.
I wonder what people would do if they knew that everytime they say "Amen" they were giving praise to a black man who was the embodiment of God?? Those racist white neo-con Christians folks would have a fit! lol I'm going to go post some information on this on another site. I want to see their reactions...
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
Do your homework, Melesi!

Hebrew is an off spring of the Akan language...

He has done his homework. It is the use of etymology in this way which shows a lack of understanding of linguistic, semiotic, and hermeneutical theory as it relates to language and meaning.

Fine,
Do you ever read anything that challenges your assumptions/conceptions about reality or do you only look for material that bolsters your worldview? Serious scholars do the former. Real learning is an agonistic process.
May I ask?

Has not the system of agnostic learning been set up by a European bias?

Is not it in our (non-European) interest to seek out alternative ways of looking at things that have been overlooked out of bias or hatred?

Is it not true that many of the historical and "official" documents most scholars use to base their work presently based off the "recognized" scholarship of those in the past with a consistent bias?

If I am wrong forgive me..... I do earnestly seek truth......

However, it is a little troubling to me that bias is often used against anyone that questions (even with hubris) the status quo.... and the status quo happens to maintain a history that is biased..... against us.....

I see nothing wrong with investigating..... sincerely..... and questioning..... and re-evaluating..... but we all bring biases to whatever we do..... that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective research.......

it simply means that as far as I can tell, historically many new theories were challenged as crackpot, having ulterior motives, or plain unscientific (or un-whatever the standard measuring bearer was at the time)--especially in European history........

I guess...... I find it interesting that a word like Amen that has been translated in different languages....... to be spoken today as ....... "Amen"........ is used with frequency in many spiritual fields.... with some importance.....

I think it warrants investigation........

The motive for investigation may be biased.....

however, the method of scholarship does not have to be..... nor does it have to be shut down because of another bias.....

the bias of keeping the status quo....

Please advise....



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determining if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determing if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
I know nothing of etymology.... what is the method? And why if the same word pops up in major religions around the world as well as translated from ancient texts as such is this not cause for serious investigation?


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determing if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
I know nothing of etymology.... what is the method? And why if the same word pops up in major religions around the world as well as translated from ancient texts as such is this not cause for serious investigation?


Peace,
Virtue


Let's take English as a case study. English has borrowed extensively from other languages:

theology, logic, skeptic (are all from Greek)

paternity, ad hoc, ad hominem (come from Latin)

kindergarten (from German)

Yenta (from Russian)

smorgasbord (Swedish)

The tendency to borrow from Greek and Latin is most intense in the areas of scholarship and higher learning.

Whereas things like "smorgasbord" seem to have been retained almost randomly (and reflect our immigrant history).

But in all cases conscious borrowing shows similarity (or at least analogy) of usage between the source language and the corresponding English term. In the case of 'smorgasbord', for example, the English term denotes something like a meal in which there is a large variety of dishes to choose from (like a buffet). But the Swedish source (if I remember correctly) denotes the buffet table itself.

There has also been a very heavy French influence in English since the Norman invasion. But we still say that English is a Germanic language. So on what basis do we make that determination? Look at basic items of vocabulary (words that even children know):

English:German

mother:mutter

father:vater

daughter:tochter

son:sohn

maid:madchen

wife:weib

house:haus

word:wort

say:sag

drink:trinken

good:gut

thank:danke

morning:morgen

red:rot

water:wasser

bread:brot

hound:hund

brother:bruder

sister:schwester

stone:stein

dream:traum

sleep:schlaffen

Point? You see an extensive system of similarity between terms which have more or less the same meaning - and English and German are separated by a few thousand years. There are in addition fairly predictable rules governing the way pronunciations have diverged over time.

Sister Fine, I love you (and usually admire your intentions) ... I'm no expert but if Hebrew were an offspring of Akan it would not be such a well kept secret.

I'll be back to finish.....
Last edited {1}
OK etymologists, what is the meaning of Amen-Ra as it relates to the language spoken by the Egyptians and their former "Jewish" slaves?? How was it used in context at that time so that at least I can get an understanding of the difference between "Amen" and "ammam".
Again I'd like to raise the issue of the "Jewish" people being enslaved in Egypt for many generations and adopting their habits and language, which is evident even today.
Please post a link if you all can find one.
You might want to look at

Language Families

In particular, Akan is considered to be in the Niger-Congo family of languages and Hebrew is in the Afro-Asiatic family...

I'll add that it does seem to be generally accepted (but debated) that Semitic (from which we get Arabic and Hebrew) emerged from Africa some time in the 4th millenium bc. But from Ethiopia/Eritrea and not from Egypt. So it is true that Amharic, Hebrew, and Arabic are at least descended from the same mother tongue.
Last edited {1}
Here's an interesting link on Amen-Ra including something about the etymology (or history) of the name. This god was the "hidden one".

Here's a link on the Biblical Amen. Here a second one: Amen: that more or less agrees with the first. The word means "it is settled", "truly", or "verily".

These seem to be two different words which just so happen to be spelled the same (in English).
Last edited {1}
quote:
Yemaya--OK etymologists, what is the meaning of Amen-Ra as it relates to the language spoken by the Egyptians and their former "Jewish" slaves?? How was it used in context at that time so that at least I can get an understanding of the difference between "Amen" and "ammam".
Again I'd like to raise the issue of the "Jewish" people being enslaved in Egypt for many generations and adopting their habits and language, which is evident even today.
Please post a link if you all can find one.


The "Afrim" people who became the "Ivrim" people who became the "Jewish/Hebrews" when they migrated to Europe were never really under any type of "harsh" slavery via the Egyptians. They were "all" black tribes that lived and flourished amongst one another.

In order to tweek the story that they claimed they wrote but did not--the European Jewish/Hebrew people left Egypt willingly and came back willingly...

"The Africans Who Wrote the Bible" by Dr. Darkwah
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
You do not intimidate me, Kresge...

You and Melesi make quite a pair of ostriches...!

I am not attempting to intimidate anyone. It was clear to me, however, that you had limited knowledge of semiotic, linguistic, and hermeneutical theory. If you are really interested in how language works in relation to meaning, I can recommend an excellent reading list for you. It would include folks like Saussure, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and Hirsch. Their theories differ, but as I said before, part of being intellectually honest means taking into consideration a diversity of serious scholarship.Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
May I ask?

Has not the system of agnostic learning been set up by a European bias?

Is not it in our (non-European) interest to seek out alternative ways of looking at things that have been overlooked out of bias or hatred?

Is it not true that many of the historical and "official" documents most scholars use to base their work presently based off the "recognized" scholarship of those in the past with a consistent bias?

If I am wrong forgive me..... I do earnestly seek truth......

However, it is a little troubling to me that bias is often used against anyone that questions (even with hubris) the status quo.... and the status quo happens to maintain a history that is biased..... against us.....

I see nothing wrong with investigating..... sincerely..... and questioning..... and re-evaluating..... but we all bring biases to whatever we do..... that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective research.......

it simply means that as far as I can tell, historically many new theories were challenged as crackpot, having ulterior motives, or plain unscientific (or un-whatever the standard measuring bearer was at the time)--especially in European history........

I guess...... I find it interesting that a word like Amen that has been translated in different languages....... to be spoken today as ....... "Amen"........ is used with frequency in many spiritual fields.... with some importance.....

I think it warrants investigation........

The motive for investigation may be biased.....

however, the method of scholarship does not have to be..... nor does it have to be shut down because of another bias.....

the bias of keeping the status quo....

Please advise....



Peace,
Virtue


appl appl appl

But I would have to add that the his-story so many people refer to has been all out FALSIFIED to bolster the worldview of our oppressor. Not so long ago the same intellectual community tried to say that great Zimbabwe was created by a semetic people that came to South Africa in search of King Soloman's mines... this BS was actually taught and believed by the same people that are considered 'scholars' today. The European view of history and even the catagorizations used for the world's people and languages is ALL highly suspect.
Why are we "intellectuals" welcome only when we say things people like?

Do you really believe that we are all so dumb that we only unquestioningly take the training we're given in school out into the world like good programmed droids?

One day African America is going to get enough of assassinating its own brightest - we're the only damned people in the world that do this - leaving the leadership roles to the enthusiastic but often less than capable.
Last edited {1}
Doesn't it work both ways?

I mean, to you who, believe for example, that the Greeks borrowed all their best ideas from Egypt, and are believed by history to be great on account of it:

Wouldn't it be in our best interest to welcome all the best ideas from Europe? I mean let's ABSOLUTELY plunder Europe for the best ideas it has to offer ... Not just Europe... But Asia.... Africa.... Let's dig good ideas from everywhere...including our own

And then use them to help us do * our own thing *?

Instead of shooting down our own thinkers with the tired charge of "it can't be right just because it came from European scholars" ?

Wouldn't your black intellectuals tend to be among the best judges of what the best ideas from Europe or other places are?

We just keep going nowhere with this knee jerk anti-intellectual reaction...
Last edited {1}
I mean it really doesn't do us a damned bit of good to believe everything came from Egypt (even if it's true) if we're not doing anything now... If we're interminably paralyzed in the present... and we're NOT going to do anything great now if our first reaction is to always shoot down our most advanced thinkers...

Personally, believing I was at one time great doesn't do a damned thing for me now...

In fact, dwelling on the belief of "at-one-point-in-time-great" is one of the first signs of a has-been...

These are the balding pot bellied twice divorced alcoholics at high school reunions who never tire of repeating the story of that great touch down run in the Big Game of their Senior year...
Peace....

I do not think that scholars deny the connection between the proto semitic language and kemetic influences. The idea that the two are distinct is a fallacy. It is quite probable that Amen of ancient KMT is the origin of the use by the people of Shem. Shem according to the Tenahk, is the brother of Ham, according to many african scholars, including the illustrious Cheihk Anta Diop, Ham is derived from Kham, which is within the original name Khamit or KMT. If this is correct the proto semitic language is tied to the ancient believers of Amen.

Many Habiru cults such as the Nazarenes adopted Kemetic deities in secret. John the baptist was notoriously associated with the Essene, and Nazarene communities. these Jewish sects worshipped God as "Aumen" "The hidden one"...

Amen in ancient KMT is referred to as the "Hidden Light". Amen is the Son of the Earth, and the King of Men. Amen is used in the New testament as a name for Jesus... Laodicea: "These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation" Rev. (3, 14)

According to many scholars the Nazarene sect was a remnant of the religious order established by Moses, (the Kemetic heirogrammat according to George GM James) This would clearly establish the bibilical use to the kemetic use.

I agree with those in this thread who assert the racist agenda of past scholarship as it relates to this subject. This must be taken into consideration. Cheikh Anta Diop, JA Rogers. Van Sertima, etc, all have offered the public a view which would never climb over the requirement of peer acceptance in a world dominated by the idea of white supemacy. A strong gravitational field will bend light..A strong agenda toward an idea will bend the truth...The truth must be stronger than the whims of those who would keep the truth buried.

Sometimes you must stand on that which makes the most sense..even when the rest of your field rejects the idea..this is the root of all ingenuity.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Doesn't it work both ways?

I mean, to you who, believe for example, that the Greeks borrowed all their best ideas from Egypt, and are believed by history to be great on account of it:

Wouldn't it be in our best interest to welcome all the best ideas from Europe? I mean let's ABSOLUTELY plunder Europe for the best ideas it has to offer ... Not just Europe... But Asia.... Africa.... Let's dig good ideas from everywhere...including our own

And then use them to help us do * our own thing *?

Instead of shooting down our own thinkers with the tired charge of "it can't be right just because it came from European scholars" ?

Wouldn't your black intellectuals tend to be among the best judges of what the best ideas from Europe or other places are?

We just keep going nowhere with this knee jerk anti-intellectual reaction...


HonestBro, you keep it honest like always! appl tfro

I like the quote that someone (his name escapes me at the moment) once said, "There is no White or Black or Yellow knowledge. Only knowledge."
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
A strong gravitational field will bend light..A strong agenda toward an idea will bend the truth...The truth must be stronger than the whims of those who would keep the truth buried.


And which WHITE, GERMAN, AND JEWISH scholar first suggested that gravitational fields could influence the path of a light beam?

ALBERT EINSTEIN

for those who don't know..

quote:

Sometimes you must stand on that which makes the most sense..even when the rest of your field rejects the idea..this is the root of all ingenuity.


I won't pretend to be an authority... I only double majored in math and linguistics and extensively studied 10 languages... but sometimes - in fact, often times - words can resemble one another and still be completely unrelated...
Peace....


quote:
I won't pretend to be an authority... I only double majored in Linguistics and studied 10 langauges... but sometimes - in fact, often times - words can resemble one another and still be completely unrelated...


Okay...But in this case...the root use of Amen is Kemetic. The root of anything Semitic is African. If you accept the biblical version of history then Shem(Semites) is the brother of Ham(Kam).

If the two are sons of Noah, they spoke a common language. the languages are not cousins, they are brothers.

Both the Tanahk, and the Gospel, are products of students out of the Egyptian mysteries...I would consider this as a Prima facie evidence.

Now we can argue the validity of the Bible's origin and it's connection to the Ausarian drama...



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Peace....

Okay...But in this case...the root use of Amen is Kemetic. The root of anything Semitic is African. If you accept the biblical version of history then Shem(Semites) is the brother of Ham(Kam).



Yes I accept that the Semitic languages probably arose in Africa and yes ancient Egyptian and Hebrew are perhaps brothers (probably more like cousins - certainly in the same family)... By the way, this is not a controversial statement (debated but not controversial). It's commonly accepted. These languages are both in the Afro-Asiatic group (according to European scholars). Amharic, by the way, is also a Semitic language.

But even in brother languages, coincidences arise. Even in languages spoken by peoples with a great deal of historical contact, coincidences arise...

The final test is: Where's the evidence?

In the end, with no evidence, it's just speculation.

Anyway, why is it so important? Personally, I don't care or even consider the question particularly relevant...

PS: I'm not too attached to Biblical history - certainly not to the point of considering it authoritative or citing it in isolation to prove a point.
Last edited {1}
I am new to this forum and find it very interesting. Something to ponder; How is it that a word of "hebrew" origin has an antiquity of at least 5,000 years, possibly to 10,000 years? How is it that the same word can be incorporated into an Afrikan country and civilization prior to the origins of the word Hebrew? We find Afrikans in the Nile Valley using the word "amen" in names of pharoahs i.e., Amen-Hotep, Amen-ophis I, II, III, and IV, Amen-kare. The question of Greece and its supposed antiquity can only be answered after we deal with anything prior to this, documentation of this can be found in nominal works such as Stolen Legacy, Black Man of the Nile, and other works by Afrikan authors. We can also not dismiss the statement of Dr. John Henrik Clarke, "... the argument against Afrikan historians is irrelevant in as much as many of the historical facts were retrieved from european historians who had the resources to travel to the Nile Valley..." Note that these white historians were discounted by the schools of thought controlled by Euro-psuedo scholars because these brave men and women verified the existence of Afrikan dominance in the Nile Valley and mediterranean world. Just as now Afrikan historians are done the same. Any argument made anti-afrikan historians must be made against the few (very few) Euro-historians who claimed Afrikan power in Ancient Nile Valley culture that gave birth to Greek philisophical concepts.
As have I, and at no time did I ever mean a "slave" or a "worker," which the Czech word meant originally, which is why it appeared in a science-fiction work in the early Twenties and has been with us ever since.

When we use the word "debonair," we don't mean someone who smells good, though that is what the word meant originally.

And "malaria," no longer means "bad air," but rather a mosquito-borne disease.

One who is "dextrous" is able, not "right-handed," which is what the Latin term meant.

This whole discussion about the origin of "Amen" is silly since no one uses the word to mean an Egyptian god. The origin of a word is not the present meaning. Words slide and shift their meanings all the time. That's the nature of language. Meanings are taken from one word and given to another and the original word falls out of usage (the word "nice" has had about four meanings in its history), words are borrowed from other languages all the time. Most Spanish word with a "z" are taken from Arabic, and--speaking of Arabic--"alcohol" is from an old Arabic word meaning a powder used in eye-makeup, but I'll bet no one expects to drink powdered antimony in a tavern these days.

So it really doesn't matter where the word comes from, Egypt or Persia. It doesn't mean a god's name in common parlance today.

When Fine wears "beads," does she wear "prayers"? And if something is "genuine" is it on her "knees"? Is her "humor" a liquid? Is she a "pagan" if she comes from a rural area?

Anyway, that's my point. This whole thread is to no purpose.
When the French say 'Oui' they mean 'yes' but they sound (more) like they're saying 'We'... Are the words 'oui' and 'we' related in any significant way because they sound alike? The answer is NO.

Note: The Norman French once conquered England. The English lived for a time under French rule and the English language still bears many obvious French influences. But this is not one of them.

If you've spent a lot of time studying languages you'd realize that it's extremely easy to come up with examples like this... coincidences happen.... without more evidence it makes no sense whatsoever to dwell on the fact that the Hebrews have a word that looks similar to a Kemetic word... even if they have a common origin, they have different meanings... And it's entirely possible that they even have completely different origins as is the case with 'We' and 'Oui' ... even inspite of the close historical ties between France and England AND the fact that the languages are both Indo-European.
Last edited {1}
I don't see how fat men re-living their high school days equates with a people correcting their distorted history. I always find it interesting how some justfiy quoting their bigoted oppressors opinions calling it "scholarship" as if these entities are the final authority.

Your "massa" is a liar and if you are a xtian you have bought a fraudulent world view not just a religion. If you really believe that your world wide oppressor has been truthful about his history, let alone yours, you are not an intellectual, you are a fool.

Your oppressor is an occultist at the highest levels and he seperates you from your past and your ancestors in order to keep you bound. This is the basis for everything he does to you around the world. As long as you are bound he controls all of your resources, intellectual and otherwise. If you cannot accept that so be it, but your lack of acceptance does not make it untrue.

Sis Fine
Keep searching and beating that drum some people hear you.
quote:
Originally posted by Fagunwa:
I don't see how fat men re-living their high school days equates with a people correcting their distorted history. I always find it interesting how some justfiy quoting their bigoted oppressors opinions calling it "scholarship" as if these entities are the final authority.



I don't mind correcting the historical record in places where it has been either distorted or neglected altogether... I'm all for it...

What I don't care for is fabricating history...

And my analogy is perfectly apt when it's applied to those who are SO determined to see our history in the BEST possible light (no matter how much one must lie to do so) that they're willing to abandon EVEN those who are normally allies if they disagree with them on a point here or there.

That's a sign that one has more energy invested in the past than in fighting the battles of the present... certainly more than in dreaming the boundless possibilities of the future...

I'd say, in this instance, perhaps you are under the spell of the oppressor...
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
I'm not an X-tian...

Anybody whose been paying even a bit of attention would know that... I tend to be quite vocal on the subject... Remember me?

Melesi and I agree on PRACTICALLY NOTHING ELSE...

But we agree on this... WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU???? sck


That doesn't tell me anything at all and I never called you a xtian. My entire post is not for you. I can also assure you that I am under no spell whatsoever, but then you wouldn't know that would you?
Kai,

Great post. I wish you would post more often.

Speaking of Cheik Anti Diop(I thought about this thread last night and you stole my thunder by mentioning him.) I could have sworn he proved the linguisitic relations beyond a shadow of a doubt, even to the Euro-racist Egyptology 'board'...in fact I have that speach on CD...the actual one he presented to the 'established' intellectual community with a French interpretor, where they couldn't do anything but accept his findings.

Honest brother, have you read his work? What do you think about his ACCEPTED findings on linguistics and words like Amen in particular? We aren't arguing this point on some half assed non intellectual basis. Our African ancestoral scholars have done this work for us already. Folks like Melesi haven't read any of their work. If he has, he doesn't accept it because it counteracts the Western distortion of African(and world) history. That's my point and problem.

BTW, I think you took my remark about trusting Euro-racist intellectuals a little to personally. If the hat doesn't fit don't worry about it. Our people in general do that too often. I hope you aren't asserting you are the only 'intellectual' on the board... I'm definately not claiming I am one(I'm far from it) and I personally embrase our African intellectuals, but when an argument comes up like this about the word Amen...something I have read extensive material on and had put to rest when I was around 19 yrs. old, based on the findings of intellectuals... I must question who or what anyone who doesn't know this info is looking towards as the 'final word' on intellectualsism. Especially when there is no mention of the African scholors who have already argued the point to it's conclusion.

BTW, just because someone argues about African history, doesn't mean they aren't simultaneousely putting effot into our liberation... which our 'self knowledge' is a huge part of. To insinuate otherwise is ridiculous, especially considering you are posting on this same thread/argument.

What organizations concerned with moving are people forward are you a part of?... If you aren't a part of an organization, that's not a good sign. And this statement is meant for EVERYONE on the entire board. Africans get organized!

Just because someone isn't X-tian doesn't mean they have discarded the Western world view, although that is the first and sometimes last major leap we need to take. As much as I'd like to have thought I had discarded this twisted worldview at different points in my life, there have been, and continue to be daily reminders that I have not. Constructive criticism is always welcome. And it will always be given.

I don't look at African history through rose coloured glasses. Every society and people have their contradictions. But the fact that Greek society and Judeo-X-tianity are built on/plagerizations of Kemetic principles is old news to me.

We can and should learn from all people's but to adopt a warped worldview that is destructive from our oppressor is the antithesis of what needs to happen to move HUMANITY forward IMO.

And yes, I am in the avatar.

Fagunwa. I must agree with your post, of course. Nicely summed up. As usual.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×