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.

 

Conjecture vs Speculative Theory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Maybe it has become apparent, there seemingly are diverse and distinct impressions of subjects within this fourm.

Some have been based within the Secular Mainstream, Some are more Faith Based, Some are "Young Concepts" while others are Stubborn and Fixed in their ways.

I thought that this maybe a nice place to consider some of those debated thoughts, and allow each party to discuss those views, without loosing the Main theme of the Topic the newer discussion evolved from. (There is nothing worst than two people with apposing views, Hi-jacking a Topic and loosing the Main Thought to petty discussions.

As some maybe aware by Now, I have had some of these fun discussions with my friend Byrd, and we seem to be quite far apart on matters from the outlook, but this is due to Byrd's rightful opinions he has made and chosen, and my own similiar views which tend to look at things differently.

Who's right or wrong, thats may never be decided, but the Thoughts that get expressed do lead to understanding, and from my prespective, Knowledge is a Blessing.

So I hope the Topic gets used, and I look forward to having some fun and learning of other's opinions and expressions. Some of this may even lead to Unique topics of their own.

Ciao

Shane




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I'm a little unclear on what you mean, do you mean to have a discussion about the basic worldviews that other people bring to the table, likesay, how some people are skeptical about everything, others apply critical thinking to certain subjects, some people will accept paranormal communication, etc? Or am I misunderstanding?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Byrd Asked


WHICH Thoth?

There's the Egyptian version, the scribe of the gods but not the source of the knowledge.

There's the Thoth/Hermes-Trismegistus, which is actually a Greek kit-bashing of Hermes with Thoth, and who is kind of a very weird blend of the two deities:
www.answers.com...

This got further turned on its ear by the alchemists of the middle ages, where he became symbolic of many things.

Ah, but ARE they a historical record? They rather seem more aligned with the thinking of the alchemists (I'm not sure if this book was one of their foundation books.)

This link includes a link to the "book of Thoth", which is in Egyptian (but they present the translation)
touregypt.net...


So lets see where this leads Byrd.

I reviewed what you offered and I completely agree with what you supported your view with, but it was addressed only so slightly, exactly who Thoth / Hermes / Idris / Enoch truly was.

All these Names are Enoch in persona. They are one person.

In the Genesis (Gen Chapter 5) Account of the decendants of Adam, we have Enoch, who walked with God.

Enoch is this Scribe of God.

Thoth is this Scribe of God.

Hermes Trismegistus is again, a Scribe of God

In some of these offerings, a godlike status is afforded Enoch, but this is the reason for which the moniker "Trimegistus" was applied. His apparent longevity. Three or according to some, Five times great.

Why is this Byrd?

Does it have anything to do with Enoch, who walks with God, is one which Death did not come calling for? Is it because all of Enoch's Family lived from 600 to just under 1000 years old, and the New Populations following the Flood lived generally 120 Years? Would you, Byrd, "God forbid", be considered God Like if you lived 500 Years, while 4 generations passed away.

This is how the Greeks and the Egyptians speak to this. As being a god.

His origins are spelt out in Genesis 5, so we know he is not a god, but he was chosen to Walk with God, the God of Egypt, the God of the Assyrians, the God of Israel. Three Blessed Peoples, whom fall under God's Plans.

Egypt is God's People.
Assyria is the Work of God's hands
Israel is God's Inheritance
Sourced: Isaiah 19:25

What follows through, and is accounted for in secular speculation, is the Babel Spin placed on Enoch, and the manner inwhich he is brought into and becomes a part of the god worshipping practises that followed the days of Jared.

For reasons such as you noted in respects to the Alchemists and such, his meanings have been lost, under wieght of ignorance, and thus we have a historically suggestive theory that misplaces the importance of what Thoth or Hermes or Enoch brought to us.

And as for an Historical Text, there is no Historical text avialable today, that details the extent of the problem that inflicted this world more, than the account offered by Enoch in detailing the Fallen and the actions they took, leading upto Noah.

All of which is echoed throughout the known histories of the Egyptian's, Greeks, Babylonians, the Romans and Israel. It is without doubt, the true names are offered for the lessor gods and dieties that became worshipped around the globe.

Pick one, and Enoch will let you know exaclty who this was and what he did, and why he/it is no longer here, on earth.

And if you have taken the time to review the texts offered, it is not to surprising why it was not considered to be included in the Bible, for example. It is conflictive to the theology and doctrines of man. That's Religions biggest problem. It's now the Doctrines of man apposed to the Doctrines of God's Word.

www.sacred-texts.com...

Ciao

Shane

P.S. Does this make it clearer Nygdan? And thanks for your assistance this AM!!!
This does not need to be discussed in Nat's Topic



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
It's all about what you feel. We are BIASED to certain views as we grow up. The majority is raised with secular views because that's what the school systems teach practically all over the world. It's understandable that many, such as Byrd and Nygdan, always see it from a secular view. Then there are those that have the religious view trained into them, while at the same time are taught the secular view. The student who gets both religious and secular input decide for themselves which teaching superceeds the other. When they are taught in school, that Evolution is a fact, then they choose whether to believe it or not, based on their ealier childhood teachings. I bet there are a lot of teenagers out there that gave up their religious view when they were exposed to the secular view. The only ones who kept it were those that were deep rooted by their parents, of the religious view. There are probably some are that have it deep rooted, but give it up later because of an emotional situation in their life.

It's all about the Big Picture!



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
So lets see where this leads Byrd.

I reviewed what you offered and I completely agree with what you supported your view with, but it was addressed only so slightly, exactly who Thoth / Hermes / Idris / Enoch truly was.

All these Names are Enoch in persona. They are one person.





In the Genesis (Gen Chapter 5) Account of the decendants of Adam, we have Enoch, who walked with God.
Enoch is this Scribe of God.
Thoth is this Scribe of God.
Hermes Trismegistus is again, a Scribe of God


I hunted down the references, and see that this particular view (and the writings associated with it) come from Hellentistic Europe and Hellenistic Egypt (100 BC to 200 AD.) So it is a valid belief for that time.

Does this mean that it's accurate or tells a good truth about older things? No, it doesn't. Might it mean that someone "channeled" these texts for a group? Yes, it might.

So an honest question would be: How could you tell the difference between a channeled manuscript and a manuscript that represented a deity-given "truth and nothing but the truth"?




Does it have anything to do with Enoch, who walks with God, is one which Death did not come calling for? Is it because all of Enoch's Family lived from 600 to just under 1000 years old, and the New Populations following the Flood lived generally 120 Years? Would you, Byrd, "God forbid", be considered God Like if you lived 500 Years, while 4 generations passed away.


I don't think so, though I would have a wonderful chance to do a lot of amazing research and to learn so many things! I want someone to invent a serum so I can live that long!

I also suspect that if you look at the history of the time and people (who had it, who used it, who promoted it), that it (like "Acts 29") empowers some specific group.



This is how the Greeks and the Egyptians speak to this. As being a god.

Actually, no. Longevity did not mean closeness to gods in those cultures or as being godlike. Godhood occurred through lineage or through divine intervention, as with the half-god(demigod) Hercules. In the case of divine intervention, the beings are never raised to the level of gods, but are changed into immortal things like stars.

And they're all kind of pikers compared to the Sumerians, who recorded kings who lived 50,000 years. These kings were never elevated to godhood.

So in the area, there are concepts of extreme longevity, but that isn't equal to godhood (nor is immortality -- there are immortal humans in these cultures' legends.)


And as for an Historical Text, there is no Historical text avialable today, that details the extent of the problem that inflicted this world more, than the account offered by Enoch in detailing the Fallen and the actions they took, leading upto Noah.


So how can we tell the nonsense "channeled texts" from truth?



All of which is echoed throughout the known histories of the Egyptian's, Greeks, Babylonians, the Romans and Israel. It is without doubt, the true names are offered for the lessor gods and dieties that became worshipped around the globe.

Pick one, and Enoch will let you know exaclty who this was and what he did, and why he/it is no longer here, on earth.


How is this done? I can come up with a very nice test of that.



And if you have taken the time to review the texts offered, it is not to surprising why it was not considered to be included in the Bible, for example. It is conflictive to the theology and doctrines of man. That's Religions biggest problem. It's now the Doctrines of man apposed to the Doctrines of God's Word.


I think that the real reason is more political, if you look at the total actions of the various councils of Archbishops and Popes. You'll see the power struggles going back and forth between groups until one finally grabs control.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I did just a little more research on this after the last post:


Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Shane
And if you have taken the time to review the texts offered, it is not to surprising why it was not considered to be included in the Bible, for example. It is conflictive to the theology and doctrines of man. That's Religions biggest problem. It's now the Doctrines of man apposed to the Doctrines of God's Word.


I think that the real reason is more political, if you look at the total actions of the various councils of Archbishops and Popes. You'll see the power struggles going back and forth between groups until one finally grabs control.


The real reason is (apparently) NOT as much political as it not fitting with the Bible.

When the councils met to form the Bible, it was determined that it would be composed of important Jewish writings and writings about Jesus by the disciples only (Revelations is the contested last book that many did not want in the Bible.)

The Book of Enoch was rejected because it was not an ancient Jewish book, but rather a modern (to the Council of Nicea) Hellenic Mystery School book. So it could not have been written by the original Enoch and therefore was not to be placed in the Bible.

How do we know it's not ancient Jewish writings? Because the "all gods are one god" concept comes from the Greek philosophies. Jewish theology is not inclusive (unlike the Roman theology and other philsophies) -- in those times (so I have read) the only way to become Jewish is to marry a Jew or to be born a Jew.

So they didn't ask people to convert. The Jews were the chosen people (according to their theology) and this was tied in with a lineage; a geneaology. Hence the writing is not reflective of Jewish thought.

They weren't passing judgement on the manuscript in any other way -- but it simply wasn't written by a Jewish prophet and therefore wasn't a candidate for a chapter of the Bible.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd



How could you tell the difference between a channeled manuscript and a manuscript that represented a deity-given "truth and nothing but the truth"?


I guess that is the crux of things Byrd. That is something that, I presume, would be the realm of one's own decision. This "Channeled" aspect is quite an accurate assessment of several items that have been produced. I admit, like the Flakey Lady's contribution, with my question on Hephaistos elsewhere, it can be a bit confusing all in all.

But exactly what is this Channeling Concern.

Is it then, to the reviewer or reader, to decide, Yep, God gave that message to her, or this is looney works from a nutter?

Then the basis could be carried forward to include the Bible, for that matter, and the decision again is upto the Reader. Devine or Nutter Babel?

But the only test that can apply is the Review of the Historical and Prophetic. Are the persons and locations fictious or not, and has the prophetic aspect been fulfilled as noted in the Original text.


I don't think so, though I would have a wonderful chance to do a lot of amazing research and to learn so many things! I want someone to invent a serum so I can live that long!

Again God forbid!



I also suspect that if you look at the history of the time and people (who had it, who used it, who promoted it), that it (like "Acts 29") empowers some specific group.


Although it is difficult not to agree that the Act 29 Chapter has been misused with twisted attempts by select groups to align themselves with glory, I would suggest, like any religion, the text has been used and abused for those intents. I found the message was that Christianity was already in England when Paul visited, and while meeting Druids, he observed them as following traditional rites, and they indicated they originated out of Egypt. But yes, you are correct in how things get used to serve alternative purposes.


So in the area, there are concepts of extreme longevity, but that isn't equal to godhood (nor is immortality -- there are immortal humans in these cultures' legends.)


But the point is, Enoch is human, and the Scribe of God, and is represented as Thoth (as god) and Hermes (a god)


Both Thoth and Hermes were gods of writing and of magic in their respective cultures. Thus the Greek god of interpretive communication was combined with the Egyptian god of wisdom as a patron of astrology and alchemy. In addition, both gods were psychopomps, guiding souls to the afterlife.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is what I am meaning. The 'label' of god or diety is a cheap one, and used by any to describe things. Enoch was no god. Just a man, chosen by God to scribe his message, and teach his peoples.

You put it 'godhood occurred through lineage or through divine intervention,' as a response, but it is the impressions of mere man, that elevated and accepted what is foreign to him, as a god, based on what? What the Fallen Angel had told him? What Azazel whispered into Tubal Cain's ear, while he crafted the Spear of Destiny.

You bring up Hecules, who was a Nephilium. That's plain and simple. These enities that are glorified and worshipped as gods never where gods.

But the Spin is, they are gods and much of the belief systems today are, and have been, inspired through the knowledge and wisdoms these wannebees gave man.

But running out of space, so thats enough for now. I saw you added some reply to the Enoch matter, and will pickup there

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
But exactly what is this Channeling Concern. Is it then, to the reviewer or reader, to decide, Yep, God gave that message to her, or this is looney works from a nutter?

Then the basis could be carried forward to include the Bible, for that matter, and the decision again is upto the Reader. Devine or Nutter Babel? But the only test that can apply is the Review of the Historical and Prophetic. Are the persons and locations fictious or not, and has the prophetic aspect been fulfilled as noted in the Original text.


Which can be difficult to prove. Channeled texts with vague sweeping statements ("the mighty shall be overthowwn") can be applied to anything and the propehcy can be "proven" to be true. Reshape a term like "hours" to mean "cosmic hours, which means...ah...centuries!" and you can make an even obviously failed prophecy to be accurate.

I tend to draw the line at "is this ancient (does it really represent what a person of that time thought) or is it something Supposedly Ancient ("channeled" from someone.) I give a lot of weight to the ancient texts (as truly telling what someone of that time and place thought and none at all to "channeled ancient texts.")


Although it is difficult not to agree that the Act 29 Chapter has been misused with twisted attempts by select groups to align themselves with glory, I would suggest, like any religion, the text has been used and abused for those intents. I found the message was that Christianity was already in England when Paul visited, and while meeting Druids, he observed them as following traditional rites, and they indicated they originated out of Egypt. But yes, you are correct in how things get used to serve alternative purposes.


But the text is, as I said, of recent origin and the sum of it is very wrong (Christianity was not there (no signs of it until after the missionaries show up -- folklore talks of conversions being made by saints (missionaries) who come much later than Paul and none of the folklore talks about Jesus showing up and teaching directly.) While it's quite probable that some Christians moved there fairly early on, they certainly didn't convert the druids.




So in the area, there are concepts of extreme longevity, but that isn't equal to godhood (nor is immortality -- there are immortal humans in these cultures' legends.)


But the point is, Enoch is human, and the Scribe of God, and is represented as Thoth (as god) and Hermes (a god)

In the Greek mystery school tradition, yes. Not in older Greek or Egyptian traditions. And not in Jewish traditions.


You put it 'godhood occurred through lineage or through divine intervention,' as a response, but it is the impressions of mere man, that elevated and accepted what is foreign to him, as a god, based on what? What the Fallen Angel had told him? What Azazel whispered into Tubal Cain's ear, while he crafted the Spear of Destiny.


Erm, you're mixing a lot of relatively modern information in here, and this is a bit confusing.


You bring up Hecules, who was a Nephilium.

Which Hercules? The one I know (Herakles) is the ancient Greek one, mentioned in the odes and the plays, who has temples dedicated to him, who is a demigod and has no relationship to anything Jewish or Biblical.
gogreece.about.com...

www.perseus.tufts.edu...

The only sources that link Hercules to the Nephilim are those within the past century or so. I haven't seen older sources, so I'd view that link as unreliable and speculative.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

You bring up Hecules, who was a Nephilium.

Which Hercules? The one I know (Herakles) is the ancient Greek one, mentioned in the odes and the plays, who has temples dedicated to him, who is a demigod and has no relationship to anything Jewish or Biblical.


Nice Byrd.

You know, we really are not all that far apart, but seem just to have different views on the topics. That was a nice response which I honestly expected, in the general sense.

About what I've quoted above. This maybe where we are not mixing well, but I offer this for your consideration.

It means very little, that any of these gods or deities are originally sourced thru alternative opinions expressed by this or that group or association that have no connection with the Jewish or Christian Faiths. That has nothing to do with what these gods and dieites are. They are the Fallen, and their offspring are the Nephilium.

I understand your point, and I know what it is you are suggesting my Friend, but the context is slightly out of place in respects to this.

Previous to the Flood, many gods and dieties walked on this earth and claimed to be many things to many peoples. They still were the Fallen, and their offspring still were Nephilium. Okay, for sake of agreement, which I have no problem with, we could refer to them as gods and dieites. Call them whatever any wish to for that matter. They are all still one and the same.

But since that time (the flood), NONE have walked this earth, and the legend and lore, are based upon these apsects various culture string together, case in point the links you suggested.

So for the Greeks or Romans to say they where this and they were that, doesn't really matter all that much. Certainly temples and shrines for the adoration of these beings where constructed, but they (the gods and dieties) never walked the Globe when the Greeks or Romans did.

Do you undertand what I mean at all here Byrd?

I will admit, it is difficult for me to explain, but all I can do is keep trying.

Ciao

Shane

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Shane]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Previous to the Flood, many gods and dieties walked on this earth and claimed to be many things to many peoples.

But there wasn't a Great Flood. There were local great floods, but no global flood.


But since that time (the flood), NONE have walked this earth, and the legend and lore, are based upon these apsects various culture string together, case in point the links you suggested.

I think you'll find a lot of disagreement on this. The Greeks and Romans both believed their deities walked on Earth, and there are many recorded instances of people seeing them or talking to them in dreams.

Similar to Christian visions of Jesus/the apostles/saints/Virgin Mary.

Vaudon/Santeria practitioners (to name two I'm familiar with) have their gods walk among them today (a form of divine possession). This also happens in some Christian traditions in Africa. And of course there are the various Christian traditions where they speak in tongues or their deity speaks to them.

Urf. I could go on and on and on with lists of these things (and very tiresomely, too, I might add.) The deities are not a single deity (they have different practices; some demand sacrifices (the Vaudon ones, for instance)) and different mores, teachings, and beliefs.


Do you undertand what I mean at all here Byrd?


Ah, Shane, yes and no. You are from a mystic Christian/Gnostic tradition and frame your world in those teachings. But the world is a wide and intriguing place, and much of what those teachings would offer to you are not the things that the real people of those places and times would have taught you or would have said to you.

There's our difference, I think. You believe what has come to you from a source. I listen to the source, and then I go to read the ancient writings themselves (or as close as I can; even if it's only to piece out a word here or a phrase there) and look at the art and look at the writing. And I believe what they tell me is what they believed at the time.

But I do not necessarily believe anyone else who proclaims to interpret the knowledge of these ancients.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Byrd

Thanks for your thoughts.

I have been called lots of things over time, but that was never one of them.

WASP works, if the P is changed to Pentecostal!!


But you may have noted, I am not a stauch supporter, of Religion, since it is manipulated to the aims and goals of the denomination. I have heard many assinine thoughts, coming from pulpits of various sects of Christiandom, but I am more than comfortable with the King James Text since Strong was nice enough to produce a tool to research and review the book against it's Original Texts in the Greek and Hebrew/Chaldean.

In the currently dormant Flood Topic, I thought we concluded that matter, so I just wish to confirm, I agree. There have been many floods during many periods. I'm just seeing what a collective bunch of knowledgable people can offer inorder to see if we can decide or calculate when the Great Flood, (used solely for reference, since it was a localized event) may have occured.

In all actuality, it maybe you, with your knowledge of Egpyt that will 'break' the matter, since I would suggest the same event washed clean the delta region and the is responsible for the disappearance of many Ancient sites in that region. But thats the other topic.

But I will agree, due to my background, I ALWAYS look at the matter at hand, and compare that to the Word of God. The Bible confirms much more than the silly idea this earth is 14000 years old. It confirms Dinosaurs. It confirms gods and dieties walk on this planet. It confirms many things these Sects deny.

Of course, the Hell Fire and Brimstone Sects would disagree, as they are entitled to, but I will rely on the word of God, apposed to the doctrine of man anyday.

And in conclusion, I offer this.

The mindset of this planet today leads me to believe I will NEVER post a topic of My views that will gain anything near a majority of support. I would be alarmed, if what I presented found 10% of the responders agreeing. But I am certain, about 5%, which seems to be accurate here in the ATS Forum, will.

You see, I am used to the premise that I am wrong. In several other forums, many have been quite vocal about this and I am happy to see, they are here as well. As You and Harte (most of the time) have shown, that despite differences in outlooks, civility and discussion, is never a complete waste of time and exchnaging views only allow everyone reviewing it the opportunity to have access to details they may not have had the chance to review or consider previously.

I am only seeking to inspire thought. If those that review these posts, even indicate some curiousity, then I am pleased to have taken the time. Seeds my friend. I am just planting seeds. If they take root is upto the reviewer and God.

Always enjoy you comments and views Byrd.

Ciao

Shane




top topics



 
0

log in

join