It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the egyption pharo that worsiped one god

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
this thought just hit me sounded like something worth checking out.

lately tlc and the history chanel have run a bit on one pharo(sorry about spelling) ordering the worship of only one god. it seems that the later rulers and priests did quite a lot to remove any mention of him from history.

is this perhaps the pharo in power at the time of the great famine. when joseph was there? is the reason for worshiping one god due to the fact that it was one of this gods followers that helped him prepare for it? we are told in the bible that joseph was only second to the pharo dureing this time period.

might this also be why when originaly honered guests. the tribe of abraham's decendents were turned into slaves? there is no metion of why this happened in the bible. is there mention of this within any hebrew texts?

i realize i am putting things together with no proof but it is interesting that only one pharo even seems to have considered only one god. why? i also point out that it was stated in the above mentioned programs that the preists were powerfull and rich and this was how that they got rid of the one god thing. it is stated in genisis that due to the famine only pharo and the preists owned all the land and all the livestock indeed even the people as well as payment for the stored grain.




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You are thinking of the Pharoah named Akhnaten. He lived from 1375–1358 B.C. which was long after Joseph came to Egypt. I suppose that It's possible that Joseph had some influence on his religion, but since Joseph lived around 1800 and Moses led the Israelites out around 1450 BC we can tell that this wasn't the Paroah that was alive during Joseph's time.

[edit on 23-3-2005 by dbates]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Many believe that the heritic prince was in fact The "moses" of biblical lore that led the exodus out of Egypt or at least a relative.

www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
He was a little before Moses' time...

As a sidenote, he (Akenaton), was Tut's pop...and Nefertiti was Akenaton's wife...



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
He was a little before Moses' time...

As a sidenote, he (Akenaton), was Tut's pop...and Nefertiti was Akenaton's wife...


AS a matter of fact the exodus concerning Moses is purported to have taken place within a hundred years of Akhenatin's death.

In historical terms...That's a very fine line.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Many believe that the heritic prince was in fact The "moses" of biblical lore that led the exodus out of Egypt or at least a relative.

www.crystalinks.com...


I've become more interested in this theory over the last few years. One interesting similarity that lends credence to "some kind" of relationship can be found in Akhenaton's Hymn to the Aton and one of the Psalms of the bible. Anyway a couple of sites for drogo:

History and Philosophy of Ancient World
Akhenaten
One more just for fun

Enjoy - Bleys



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Many believe that the heritic prince was in fact The "moses" of biblical lore that led the exodus out of Egypt or at least a relative.

www.crystalinks.com...


I've become more interested in this theory over the last few years. One interesting similarity that lends credence to "some kind" of relationship can be found in Akhenaton's Hymn to the Aton and one of the Psalms of the bible. Anyway a couple of sites for drogo:

History and Philosophy of Ancient World
Akhenaten
One more just for fun

Enjoy - Bleys


Nice links, thanks.

I think it's more and more evident that Moses and Akhenatin were related somehow, besides ideologically.

Here's another nifty link.

dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu...



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
one problem with the moses-akhenaten connection is that, scripturally, Moses was never really a pharaoh and fled the country at age 40 after killing an Egyptian. Now, had he truly been a pharaoh at this time, he would have had not reason to fear for his life after killing one of his subjects.

however, i certainly think that the akhenaten has something to do with the hebrew presence in egypt.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
He was a little before Moses' time...

As a sidenote, he (Akenaton), was Tut's pop...and Nefertiti was Akenaton's wife...


If memory serves, wasn't Nerfertiti also Tutankhamen's sister? There was a lot of incest in the Egyptian royalty, and I seem to remember it occurring between those two.

Nefertiti also has the reputation of being 'the most beautiful woman in history' so maybe that influenced Tut's decision



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
If memory serves, wasn't Nerfertiti also Tutankhamen's sister? There was a lot of incest in the Egyptian royalty, and I seem to remember it occurring between those two.

Since it was practially law to marry your own, it was pretty hard to avoid (God couldnt marry a lowly human, could he? Nope, needed a goddess... And only one family to choose from
).



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
i would add that joseph was married to an egyption high preist's daugter.

also not sure of egyption marrige set up but if they were anything like most of that time almost everyone (includeing slaves), would be married and that at a young age? if this is the case:moses was "adopted by a princess therefore it would be a strong possibility he would have followed the royal marrage ways (say a lessor daughter)? if he left at an age of between 30-40 would there not be a strong possibility of both a marrage and offspring? keep in mind that monogamy is only farely recent. at that time (again i lack egyption knowlege and practices), but it was definatly not against hebrew teachings. that his wife married after he flees is not his first wife? nothing i have read has pointed that this was not the case nor does it hint that this may be the case.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
quite true, drogo.

while the scriptures are silent on the theories that you raise, it by no means renders them improbable, and we must merely turn to the studies of archaelogy and history to confirm this information.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Monogamy just like monotheism is fairly recent.

One thing is certain , roughly around the same time of a "heritic" prince in Egypt (who championed monotheism) we also see the beginnings of judaism(the worlds oldest motheistic religion), who according to their own scriptures fled persecution out of egypt, and whose creation myth almost mirrors that of the ancient egyptians.

Sorry but there are just too many coincidences there for me (someone who doesn't believe in coincidences) to believe they aren't related somehow.

Unfortunately we will probably never really know . For me that's what makes this sort of thing interesting though.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
There's a pretty general consensus that the Pharoah of the Moses incident is Rameses II:
en.wikipedia.org...

Akenaten/Tutankahmen are too early for the Hebrews (there's mentions of kings and so forth in the scriptures that establish this timeline) en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Good point Byrd...I knew there was something that placed Moses around Ramses the Builder's time, just couldn't recall it offhand....



If memory serves, wasn't Nerfertiti also Tutankhamen's sister? There was a lot of incest in the Egyptian royalty, and I seem to remember it occurring between those two.


Some believe this may be true. Since their existence was all but rubbed out of their records, still a lot of mystery there. Many of the items in Tut's tomb were actually plundered from those of mom and pop (they weren't exactly expecting him to die so young).



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
People you should understand that bible is not history!!! There is absolutely nothing proven especially from the early times, until the jewish kings. Plus judaism was originally polyteistic religion, only later it became monoteistic. So no direct Achnaton influence, I fear.
Besides Achnaton created one god, only because the egyptian priests became too powerfull to control, not because he really believed it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
People you should understand that bible is not history!!! There is absolutely nothing proven especially from the early times, until the jewish kings. Plus judaism was originally polyteistic religion, only later it became monoteistic. So no direct Achnaton influence, I fear.
Besides Achnaton created one god, only because the egyptian priests became too powerfull to control, not because he really believed it.

by "polyteistic" what do you mean never heard this term before? if it means a pantheon then where is this written? not something i have ever heard before now. in fact it seems clear to me that there was only one god ever in judisim.

as for the bible not being history the old testiment is nothing but histery. of course it would be hard to prove because there is little written history at the time period. but it is amazing how some things seem to link every once in awhile.

i have heard of the thery that achnaton started the one god religion because of the power the preists held, he didn't do a good job then because only very few actualy followed it. if it was me i'm sure i would have found a way to kill off the preists i didn't want or compleatly abolish the other religion. as it is he just left things prety much as they were and moved. i must say not a very good way to kill off an old religion, or the preistly powers. so i have some reservations about that therory.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo

by "polyteistic" what do you mean never heard this term before? if it means a pantheon then where is this written? not something i have ever heard before now. in fact it seems clear to me that there was only one god ever in judisim.

as for the bible not being history the old testiment is nothing but histery. of course it would be hard to prove because there is little written history at the time period. but it is amazing how some things seem to link every once in awhile.

i have heard of the thery that achnaton started the one god religion because of the power the preists held, he didn't do a good job then because only very few actualy followed it. if it was me i'm sure i would have found a way to kill off the preists i didn't want or compleatly abolish the other religion. as it is he just left things prety much as they were and moved. i must say not a very good way to kill off an old religion, or the preistly powers. so i have some reservations about that therory.


I cannot give you exact quotes now, but there are some references to the "gods" in the old jewish bible texts. I'll look for it. It looks like at some point the priests consored all inapropriate informations. It is generally believed that except Jehova jews originally worshipped Baal and other phoenician gods - that's the reason why they are so demonized in jewish literature later (because many people continued to worship them after the bible reedition).

And Aknaton killed a lot of priests and oponents. It was just his problem that many people continued to believe in their old gods. And you cannot kill pople beliefs. It is also not certain if he was not killed after some rebelion.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by longbow]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
One could argue that early Judaism contained heirarchies of angels/demons, etc. that could be deemed polytheistic I suppose...



People you should understand that bible is not history!!!


It is in a sense, just a very biased viewpoint that perhaps also skews some facts. However, it's still got many historical records amongst it's spiritual decrees. We're even finding evidence of Old Testament settlements mentioned, etc. such as Soddam and Gamorha, etc.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

People you should understand that bible is not history!!!



Yes, it is, very much so! I do not believe that the bible is to be taken literally as many Christians do, and I think that they take meanings wrongly, but I do believe it holds truths and historical facts.....I also believe that mythology holds truths too and have always wondered why the bible is taken as fact and not mythology.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join