Did Osiris really die?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Here's one of my posts from the list where I ask a few questions and make a few comments about how the concepts are all jumbled up in his writings:


It concerns me that he is melding the Annunaki of Sumer with the Annunaki and Igigi of Babylon. What Babylonian texts refer to as the explanation of the beginnings of humanity, may be different than what the Sumerian texts say, and as you can see from reading his work, just a slight variation in those older languages could make a big difference in interpretation. It isn't that I don't believe he translated the Babylonian texts properly, but rather that he is using texts from a different time period to explain some pretty odd things that occured in the distant past of Sumer, and some of it might very well be incorrect or different because of the large expanse of time and the powers influencing the scribes of the day. By the time of Babylon, in biblical texts, there was already a huge separation of the powers of the "gods," if we are to follow the biblical verses and sumerian cylinder seals that make reference to the fallen angels/nephilim/an/ and the annunaki. They (the fallen angels) according to the biblical texts, were already heavily influencing mankind's affairs by the time of Babylon - this would include their influence on religion and the writing of the Babylonian historical texts. However, I have no doubt that they were indeed ETs that the bible refers to as Angelic Beings of a Fallen (descended) Nature.

Where the difference comes is the interpretation of how they were "Created" and by whom. Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian texts is very logical, yet it appears to mix together 2 different schools of thought and that's where the rub comes in. For example, according to the biblical and pseudopigraphical texts (book of enoch), the nephilim didn't arrive till the generation of Jared.

Enoch 6:6-7
And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.

At this point both the bible and the book of enoch, reinforce that the nephilim are not "gods," but rather angels (sons of God), whose act of mating with the human species actually caused massive upheaval. According to Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian texts, humans were already demi-"gods" if they were literally created from the genetic tissue of nephilim and homo sapiens. If the nephilim mated with them again after they were already demi-"gods," where was the problem? Yet both the bible and the book of enoch stress that such a mating was a very bad thing. Why would it be bad if they were already genetically compatible and, if we are to follow Sitchin's translations, already giving birth to demi-god children (they were afterall, half "god" themselves)? What was the difference between genetically altering a homo sapiens and having sex (genetically altering the offspring) of a homo sapiens, if the homo sapiens were already having sex themselves at that point and already creating genetically altered offspring?

Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian creation story says that when the nephilim (an) first found homo sapiens, he had long hair and was wild, "uncivilized" and carefree in nature. So they changed it. This sounds more like the biblical interpretation of the Garden, and how humans were originally free of worry and had no concern about their state of dress or undress, enjoyed the fruits of the land, hung out with the critters, were basically nomads and caretakers of the land, and didn't need the trappings of civilization to be blissfully happy. At this point, according to biblical tradition, homo sapiens had already been created by God. It was a nephilim named the "Serpent" who modified that state of being by introducing them to the concept of right and wrong. Right and wrong according to whom? According to the nephilim? According to Sitchin, the Serpent was symbollic of Adam's *ahem* manhood. These things don't jive. If procreation was the Serpent's legacy, then why are there 2 steps in the nephilim's intro to homo sapiens: Step 1: Gene Splice with them. Step 2: Procreate with them. (same thing). Either way, homo sapiens aren't created by the nephilim, as they already existed.

This is all very confusing.




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I've asked you this before and i'll probably ask you again
whens this sci fi movie coming out that you keep quoting from



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

It is very annoying for people who love and respect this subject to have some sideshow Jester making a mockery of the entire thing.

Grow up for Gods sake



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JOHNNYMURDER
Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

It is very annoying for people who love and respect this subject to have some sideshow Jester making a mockery of the entire thing.

Grow up for Gods sake



You said:
Undo & Byrd ...the J D Rockerfellas of misinformation and school Text book theory that never seem to sleep.

My response:
Did you notice this is actually my thread? I started it on the topic of Osiris, and whether, according to their ancient texts, he died or simply "entered the portals of the Lords of Eternity", which is what it says on the Shabaka stone. Byrd doesn't believe a word I say, most of the time. Marduk auto-assumes I'm full of it. And then you post on my thread as if I'm an official gankster. I dun get it. Have you read any of my theories?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Forgive me Undo...I was probably medicated at the time.

The old Shabaka Stone eh?

Commisioned by the first Nubian Pharoah ( allegedly) made up from tattered papyrus containing the beliefs of the mysterious Memphites

They based their beliefs around Ptah, the divine blacksmith who is accompanied by Sekhmet, the great lioness and Nefertum, 'the accomplishment of Atum'.

This traid of beliefs can be found in a couple of other places...Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu of the Hindu and of course the Old father , son & holy ghost...and who knows if these ideas come form difussion or archetypal convergence.

According to the Shabaka Stone, the founders of Memphis subordinated and assimilated all aspects of the Osiris Cosmology in favour of Ptah and the new Memphite Cosmology.

Why the sudden shift?

Speculate away..as you know the Shabbaka was used as a mill stone and is incomplete and defaced.

Amazing how many things are lost, incomplete or defaced...but thats what happens when big fat powerful greedy men try and erase history and fabricate the facts to fit in with their own beliefs...from year zero to George Bush.

It's like I always say..if there is or was a truth someone has either burnt it, hidden it, buried it or sold it.

But to answer the question...the Mephites need to be researched further



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

It is very annoying for people who love and respect this subject to have some sideshow Jester making a mockery of the entire thing.

Grow up for Gods sake


did you want to declare War Johnny
are you sure



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


did you want to declare War Johnny
are you sure


You're gonna look silly arguing with yourself.


[edit on 20-11-2006 by undo]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
well thats just it Beth
I don't argue
i point out the inconsistencies in peoples theories until they start screaming at me and draw in the wrath of the mod team
its far more effective and ensures that people reading either love me or hate me depending on their view of the other person arguing
and you know I don't think I've seen anyone support Johnnys attempts at derailing anything yet at all
I don't think hes that popular

I expect at this point though that someones not telling me something eh



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
I expect at this point though that someones not telling me something eh


Huh?!?

oh...erm...harrumph...let's stay on-topic and, um...be civil to each other, OK?

And no 1-liners either, eh?

Now, back to Osiris who was killed, cut up into many many pieces and the only thing found after was his...thing...which was used to make him whole again.

Great thread



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Marduk
I expect at this point though that someones not telling me something eh


Huh?!?

oh...erm...harrumph...let's stay on-topic and, um...be civil to each other, OK?

And no 1-liners either, eh?

Now, back to Osiris who was killed, cut up into many many pieces and the only thing found after was his...thing...which was used to make him whole again.

Great thread


masqua,

sorry. i forget. sometimes though, there's just not enough info in marduk's post to respond to. he's tricky too. he does this:

oh really.
well i don't think so
so there.

now that's the equivalent of one sentence posted on three lines. loophole. that's my new nickname for him. but he's so thoughtful to try to straighten me out all the time, that i just can't be mean to him. ya know? we need one of those smilies with a bouquet of flowers, cause i know he means well, even if it does sound like he spits everytime he reads my posts.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   


sorry. i forget. sometimes though, there's just not enough info in marduk's post to respond to. he's tricky too. he does this:

ok then try this
heres a quick breakdown
1) Osiris god of the underworld has a false beard and is beloved of Isis who brings him back from the dead
2) Dumuzid god of the underworld has a false beard and is beloved of Inanna who brings him back from the dead

Dumuzid predates Osiris by at least 1000 years
all the stories in which he appears predates the stories of Osiris by at least 500 years

so the question really is
Is Dumuzid dead and why haven't any of you self proclaimed Egyptology experts from Hawass to Lehner ever heard of him ?



[edit on 21-11-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
you know, marduk, i forgot all about him being resurrected once. kinda proves my theory. he drowns, they save him in time, rescucitate him, and he enters the portals of the lords of eternity. cool. thanks, forgot all about the whole resurrection thing.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
do you think Jesus really died
how about Tammuz
how about Dionysus
or Lazarus
or Captain Kirk



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Did Osiris die? Yes, he was Nimrod of Babylon. He definitely died.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
had a time machine did he



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Did Osiris die? Yes, he was Nimrod of Babylon. He definitely died.


Well he died, was resurrected, then died again, for all intents and purposes. Rather, he drowned, was resuscitated, and then died again.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
had a time machine did he


Nope...........Nimrod died and was cut up. That's where the story came form. Osiris is a myth, a myth about Nimrod.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
and what evidence do you have that supports the reality of either Nimrod or Osiris ?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Osiris, Ra, Isis and Horus is merely Nimrod, Baal, Semiramis and Tammuz.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
ah well seeing as two of those are entirely fictional characters I'll take that as a no then





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join