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.

 

All Abrahamic Religions Explained

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Wow.

This is an interview with Ralph Ellis. It is an account of the ancient Hebrews and who he thinks they are. If you disagree, please provide evidence that supports your argument. That being said; I hope it offends no one, and at the same time, I hope it opens some eyes.

Link to video

A summary of the video:


Abraham, Pharaoh of Egypt
This is an amazing tale of the history of the biblical patriarchs, they were nothing less than pharaohs of Egypt.




If I indicated that biblical Abraham was a pharaoh of Egypt, would it appear to be an utterly absurd figment of a deranged mind? Initially that may seem so, but this is only because we have grown so used to the orthodox ecclesiastical creed that we have forgotten that the Biblical Abraham was in fact a very powerful man. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian says of Abraham:

Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt at the time, descended on this land with
an immense army and seized Sarah the Princess, mother of our nation. And
what did our forefather Abraham do? Did he avenge the insult by force of arms?
Yet he had three hundred and eighteen officers under him, with unlimited manpower
at his disposal!

Three hundred and eighteen officers, not men, under his command, it was obviously quite a sizable army that Abraham had at his disposal - possibly running into the tens of thousands. In this case, the image I have portrayed above is not quite so absurd, at the most it is just an embellishment on what the texts say, for they do not explain from what lands and over what peoples Abraham was such a leader. Yet how many options do we really have, how many nations in this era would have such a powerful army? This simple observation, holds within it the key to the fundamentals of modern theology and these are far removed from the Christmas card images that we are so familiar with. It is somehow explained to us by the clergy that the whole of the Western world were suddenly transfixed by the philosophy of a family of nomadic sheep-herders wandering around the Negev desert, a family who had held their traditions through thousands of years - and all this at a time when most such individuals were illiterate. This is the fantasy!

The truth is rather different and rather more believable - Abraham, pharaoh of Egypt, master of all he surveyed, the most powerful man in the world. Now this would be a real story to set the scribes scribbling, the story of his sons, of his forefathers, of his mighty deeds and works. Like the tales of all kings, each and every schoolchild would be forced to learn by rote the names and accomplishments of the royal family, it would be ingrained into the national psyche. This is the kind of family that can trace their history back through 70 generations, as could Jesus, this is the kind of family that could spawn a billion books. Jesus' nation, the Jews, have always had an overriding fascination with genealogy, but why should this be so? The reason is now clear, with their aristocracy perhaps descended from a line of semi-divine kings and descended from the mighty Egyptian empire, I think we have all the explanations necessary. Royal dynasties to this day have the same fascination for their family history, for the family's entire existence depends solely on proving their legitimacy.



Shepherds
But if the biblical family were pharaohs of Egypt, should we not see them in the historical record? Indeed so, but first of all the precise era to study needs to be decided and the clue to this comes from the Bible. The patriarchs in the Bible are known as being shepherds, as I have just indicated, in fact the Bible is quite specific about this point. Joseph's family are asked by pharaoh:

What is your occupation? And they said ... Thy servants are
shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.

This point is not just interesting, it is fundamental to understanding what the Bible is trying to tell us. For it just so happens that a whole dynasty of pharaohs were known as shepherds! These were the pharaohs who, in the historical record, had 'invaded' northern Egypt during the 14th to 16th dynasties and these peoples were known as the Hyksos, a term which translates as 'Shepherd King'. Clearly we have a very obvious and very strong link here - in fact it is amazing that so little has been said about this coincidence. There is a great deal of synergy here, the Bible mentions a very special family line of Shepherds of which it says the "kings will come out of you" and likewise the historical record tells us that some of the pharaohs of northern Egypt were called Shepherd Kings. It was a similarity that was just crying out to be investigated and the results of this scrutiny were quite astounding.


To start this process is has to be assumed that the Bible contains a real historical record, yet many people may look at the Bible as something completely alien to the real world. We have the real history provided for us by the archaeologists and then there is the theological history of the Bible, Koran and Torah - yet it seems at times that the two records are mutually exclusive. Nothing in the theological record really ties in with the historical one, it is almost as if the biblical story occurred on another planet! Nothing could be further from the truth, in reality the Bible and the historical record continuously merge into one - if one knows how to interpret what is being said.

The key to this entire conundrum was the term shepherd, for why should an Egyptian pharaoh wish to be known as a shepherd? The answer lay in the Egyptian records and their fascination with astrology, this just had to be a stellar reference, these kings were being compared to the constellation of Aries. With this concept firmly in the back of the mind, the Bible suddenly started to release its long hidden secrets: for there are numerous references to sheep and cattle in the Bible and although the subject matter fitted the quaint pastoral image being plied by the clergy, none of them made any literal sense. But suitably translated, with the sheep becoming the constellation of Aries (or their followers) and the cattle as Taurus (and their followers), everything fitted into place.




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

As has been alluded to in previous books, the constellations move slowly with the millennia and each era has a ruling constellation, the current one being Pisces. But back in the 13th 14th dynasty, they were on the cusp of a change in the constellations, between Taurus and Aries. The era of Taurus lasted until about 1800 BC, when Aries came into ascendance, this date is not only very close to both the era of the first Hyksos pharaohs and the arrival of Abraham in the Bible, but I would also suggest that this change in the constellations caused a social rift between the Apis Bull worshippers in Egyptian Thebes (the Taureans) and the Hyksos Shepherd pharaohs in the north (the Arians). The country was divided, there was civil war - just as the historical records indicate happened at this exact time.



Evidence
The Bible has direct evidence that shows this to be true and in addition the following quote seems to be a verbatim conversation that has been preserved for some 3,500 years. The scene is set by the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho, who indicates (as does the Bible) that there were actually two exoduses from Egypt - one being a major migration and the other a much smaller exodus of priests. After the first exodus, the patriarch Joseph (he with the coat of many colours, ie a priests stole) goes back to Egypt and rises to become the most powerful man in Egypt, save from the pharaoh himself. Joseph asks his family to join him in Egypt, but he has a warning for them.

(Paraphrased) You are shepherds as you know, and your duty is to feed
the cattle... And it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call
you, and shall say what is your occupation. You must say in return that your
trade has been cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our
fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt,
for we shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians. Genesis 46:32

What could Joseph possibly mean by this statement? It is not as if the Egyptians had any prohibitions on the eating of sheep meat, so why was the pharaoh so interested in the occupation of the brothers and why was the lowly but honourable profession of shepherd so despised? The solution is simple, a couple of words have been altered by the scribes to give the conversation an agricultural bias, but in truth they were discussing the most important topic in Egypt - religion. Replacing the words with their original astrological counterparts, the full import of the statement becomes dramatically clear.

(Paraphrased) You are Hyksos/Arians as you know, and your duty is to
convert the followers of Taurus ... And it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call
you, and shall say what is your religion. You must say in return that your
religion has been Taurean from our youth even until now, both we and also our
fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt,
for we Hyksos/Arians are an abomination to the Egyptians.

Suddenly it becomes dramatically obvious why the Egyptians thought that shepherds were an abomination. This was not a reference to a profession, but to a religion and an entire nation - the Hyksos. Egypt had just been through a bitter and bloody civil war with these peoples, a war between southern and northern Egypt which resulted in the Exodus of the Hyksos peoples and the destruction of much of the northern delta lands. Of course the 'shepherds' were an abomination to the (southern) Egyptians - they were the Hyksos Shepherds!


Suddenly the Bible makes sense, there is valid historical data to be found if we know what to look for. Forget the picture postcard images of simple nomadic farmers - enter the tortuous dynastic alliances and political machinations of the most powerful people in the world in that era - the pharaohs of Egypt. Joseph was, by the admission of the Bible, the vizier to the pharaoh, the second most powerful man in the world. It is not a great extension of this biblical history to say that the other members of this important family were even more powerful, that they sat on the throne itself.

Further evidence that this is the correct interpretation to be placed upon the Old Testament writings is provided by the later works in the New Testament. Jesus, who was descended from the same family as the patriarchs, was born as a Lamb of God. In other words he was a young Shepherd (Hyksos) prince in exile, he was just a lamb for the time being. As Jesus matured to become a Shepherd, another momentous event was happening in the skies above; at just this precise era the constellation of Aries started to wane in the heavens and Pisces came into the ascendance. Accordingly Jesus changed his title according to the age-old tradition, the young shepherd became a Fisher of Men, a king of Pisces. The first of the Grail romance "Fisher Kings" had been crowned.



Jacoba
So if the biblical patriarchs were indeed pharaohs of Egypt, why are they not to be found in the historical record? One of the simplest ways of looking for evidence for this biblical pharaonic family, would be among the all important and diligently recorded family names of the patriarchs.

Unfortunately, however, the very line of kings that we wish to research is the most fragmentary in the historical record, but nevertheless, some progress can be made. As a starting point in this search, take a look at an encyclopaedia of the pharaohs of Egypt and flick through the pages until you reach the sixteenth dynasty, the period that covers the last of the Hyksos pharaohs. The last pharaoh listed is Yacobaam, a name not unrelated to that of the patriarch Jacob. Many deliberations on this similarity are made within the book "Jesus Last of the Pharaohs", including the removal of the 'm' at the end of the name, which is likely to be a 'determinative' glyph. The resulting conclusion has to be that there is a direct connection here.




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   


Suddenly the Biblical Jacob, father of Joseph, becomes the historical Jacoba, a Hyksos Egyptian pharaoh. This is a revolution in theology, but it is only a small step in a long process of uncovering the truth. The Biblical family is about to be transformed in terms of its political and secular importance. We have found the first bunch of grapes on this ancient royal vine.

This is the radical theory that underpins the whole of the book "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs". It is a real story, constantly backed up by the ancient text themselves. The first step towards this transformation is to readjust our perceptions of the past. Throw out the years of established dogma that clouds our normally rational and critical analysis of the world and look at history anew. See the incredible tale of a ruling dynasty that has managed to cling to the greasy pole of history, despite the millennia of misunderstandings and persecutions, a family that is not even recognised by the faithful that worship them to this day. The Torah and Old Testament were never intended to be simple tales of Asiatic tribes and sheep herders. The true story is a complete history of the ruling family of Egypt, the 'Royal Bloodline'. It is a history that can both solve the mysteries of man's dim and distant past and also tell us something of our future destiny.

Using this simple technique of name comparison, suddenly the texts come alive with historical kings:

Biblical name New pharaonic name Old pharaonic name
Peleg (Phaleg)
Arphaxad
Cain
Heber
Ragu
Jacob
Joseph
(n.b. Joseph was also called Sothom Fanech in the Bible.) Fa-weg
Arphaxad
Kain
Eekber
Raqu
Jacoba
Sobemsaf Weg-af

Kyan
Yakhuber
Raaquenen
Jacobam
Sobekemsaf


Abraham
Finally we come to another pharaoh, Nechosy Aasahra, the pharaoh mentioned earlier who was in a military dispute with the Biblical Abraham. The equivalent names in the Bible seem to be the father and grandfather of Abraham - Nachor and Thara. The pharaonic name Aasahra seems to equate very nicely with the Biblical Thara; it looks as if the Bible has simply dropped the initial 'A' in the name. The fact that there was an original 'A' attached to this Biblical name is confirmed by the same stories that occur in the Koran, where the same individual (the father of Abraham) is called Azar. The Koran, however, seems to have lost the suffix, the 'A' at the end of the name. But if we conjoin the two patriarchal names of Azar and Thara, we either derive the name Aathara or Azara. All in all, it would appear that the pharaonic name of Aasahra has been preserved rather well over the years in these religious texts.

What we now have is the father and grand-father of Abraham being joined into just one individual in the Egyptian historical record, where he is listed under the two names of the pharaoh Nechosy:

The historical Pharaoh: Nechosy (Aasahra)
The Biblical Patriarch: Nachor (Azarah)

This is a very satisfying arrangement. However the whole edifice we have just built up, seems to fall down on the count of one glaring error - the son of Nechosy. The Biblical Nachor (Azarah) fathered Abraham himself. Yet if we look at the historical record, the son of Nechosy (Aasarah) is a pharaoh called Sheshi, this is truly unsatisfactory and it seems to undermine all the progress that has been made so far.

Actually this is not so, it was just the result that was needed to finally convince me, and perhaps the reader, that this was not all wishful thinking, that this line of Biblical pharaohs is a historical reality. Why? Because the throne name of the pharaoh Sheshi is none other than Mayebre or Mamayebra. This name not only sounds like Abram or Abraham, with the 'M' (or Mam) displaced to the end, it is quite possibly another very simple and possibly deliberate mis-translation of it. The cartouche of Mamayebra looks like this:



Fig. 2 Cartouche of Mayebra
Mam-aye-bra ~ Ay-bra-ham

What better way to hide the name of a pharaoh, than simply moving the first syllable to the end of the name. So subtle and yet so effective was the ploy, that the truth lay hidden for thousands of years - Abraham was a pharaoh of Egypt. The Bible seems to admit this possibility, even if theologians will not; of Abraham it says:

For a father of many nations I have made thee. And I shall make
thee exceedingly fruitful ... and kings shall come out of thee.

The true royal status of Abraham can be seen once more, it is just as the biblical texts tell us, "... and kings shall come out of thee." Now the ma'at, the truth, can be told; the Biblical patriarchs were indeed powerful people, they were pharaohs of Egypt.



Jesus
This line of Biblical pharaohs is the baton that the title Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs takes up and runs with. Here we have the outline for an entirely new history of Egypt and Palestine. The great Exodus can be seen in an entirely new light, with the causes and ramifications of this historic event falling on the shoulders of Egypt herself, it was nothing more or less than an internal dispute - a civil war. The book Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs runs with this theme through thick and thin, for the results of this new theological interpretation can sometimes be both shocking and profound. But this is not an idea born in a vacuum, every step of the way the ancient texts assure us that this was the true history - one just needs to know the key to unlock these long forgotten secrets and the will to embrace them.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Yep. They were possessed of the complimentary strengths of the two separate species from which they came, and their gift was a benefit of "hybrid vigor".

In subsequent generations, venal and predictable human prejudices expressed themselves through sexual selection, weeding out undesirable physical characteristics. But not all characteristics.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Thank you for sharing and posting this.
Is it coincidental that how we move toward great understanding in science we also take great path to understand old scripture and also reinterpretation of them make more sense?
I was looking for a book to buy on this subject, now I know which one to buy.
Kacou.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Exactly! I almost am willing to think it is not even a coincidence! The recent discoveries in such little time seems almost uncanny. It is like the info is being trickled down for some broad awakening.

What do you think will happen if the heads of these religions are called out and are forced to explain these seemingly solved mysteries?

All the bloodshed over the years seems to be a huge waste!

Sad.

Can we get a Christian/ Jewish perspective? There must be some counter to this argument, but I cant seem to find anyone willing to debate it (not looking to debate it myself, as i am not the one who came out with the information...just one of the many messengers as this has been posted on ATS a few times before). I just want to hear the otherside of the story.

Anyone????

edit: punctuation


[edit on 8-7-2008 by abelievingskeptic]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I will pick up the glove.
POINT 1:
I assume that when he speaks of Josephus - Josephus Flavius is meant. Well, here is link to his "Antiquities of the Jews".
sacred-texts.com...
Scroll down to chapter 8.
Please show me where it is 350 "officers" or mighty army or him being pharaoh. So something is taken completely out of context.
There is in chapter 10 , when Abram is already not in Egypt following passage:


while he got the victory over so great an army with no more than three hundred and eighteen of his servants, and three of his friends

Talk about pulling the facts. Good thing that he did not said that Abram had 350 legions in Egypt. And Necho...Please!
POINT 2:
Hyksos dynasty. Number of pharaohs - 6. Number of patriarchs - 3. Oops. But never mind that. What someone would expect a nomad tribe from Canaan to be? Astronauts? Read Josephus story - they indeed were shepherds. However this issue at least has some ground, unlike previous one. It is funny though that it is shown as the complete truth, without all the facts pointing otherwise.
POINT 3
Two exoduses. This is also new invention. Origin, please? Paraphrasing also is very shaky business. Where are borders when paraphrasing becomes substituting?
POINT 4
Yakobaam. Maybe you can clarify what dynasty is he in? I saw everything - from 14 to 17. Not much known. But if Yakobaam was 14 dynasty then he should be before all the other Hyksos pharaohs? Origin for 16th dynasty? Not to mention, that name proves nothing. How many pharaohs had the name Ramses?
And in general - all this "similar name" usage is a little pathetic. Yosef. should be son of Yaakov. So Sobekemsaf should be son of Yakobaam. Is he?
And how author knows what was the name of pharaoh who argued with Avraham? He choose name fitting to Nahor and Terah?

My conclusion - the only possible connection is Hyksos, but it is not proved so far, and author makes it even more ridiculous by trying to find fitting names disregarding generations, dynasties and determining who lived when only by what he sees fit to his theory. I do not think that it is serious research.
P.S. Josephus, Manetho and Bible disagree with author on much much more occasions then agree with him (if there is such agreement at all) and it does not interfere with his theory??? Oh, of course "paraphrasing" helps.
Edit: point 3 thingy.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Thanks for your input!

Please remember, although what the author is saying makes much more sense to me than the traditional pastoral interpretation of the Bible, I am not the author, nor a researcher. Though, my mind remains open to both sides; if there are errors in M. Ellis's translations and facts I certainly want to know about them.

I read your whole post and thought you had some interesting points.
Then I went to your link. I wouldn't have figured the script was written in English. I don't know who translated it there, but I believe the Mr. Ellis analyzed the original text, not ones that have already been translated.

That doesn't mean he may not be incorrect.

I am currently looking for other historians that share his views. I will post them if I find them.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by abelievingskeptic
 


I am not so surprised that your thread as not regenerated so much debats.
Like you I am not a scientist or scholar but never the less I have a mind and I ten to use it freely despite all this arrogant “I know it all”.
It is paramount to all of use, religious or not, to always seeks the truth behind any given dogma. This is not gods given right but a branded impulse that is inside all of us.
In refuting any alternative we pot our self in great danger of never advancing to this untraceable road that will call life.
You see I come like millions of people from a Abrahamic religious background, my rational mind which always struggle with my emotional side, never accept the truth inscribe in all the old scriptures.
They never made sense and always contradicted themselves.
I have an opinion why people at large will not accept Ralph Ellis review of history:
Did you ever watch the movie A Few Good Men? In the court scene Jack Nicholson retort this to Tome Cruise: “You can’t handle the truth!”
This is at the core of spiritual knowledge, one have to understand that the truth may be very disturbing and unconditional. Do we really want to know what lays behind our mind that give us time to time instant of lucidity that is not inscribe in any books?
Some Asian esoteric teachers have tolled us that we have a “Monkey mind”. Oriental philosophers urge you to awaken from the egotistic dream where we human have entrapped ourselves into, to erase the illusion of been detached or superior of the natural order of the universe. In the same time those Oriental philosophers tells us that it is unlikely that a human can achieve this form of liberation because we are born “machine” and we cant expect too much from a “machine“ hence they compassion philosophy. This is a half truth as much as the Western philosophers tell us that we are free and conscientious and do not have to awaken from this fanciful idea that we are the chosen one of god or science, brought to us courtesy of all the “singulus” spiritual or not view point, hence the western revengeful philosophy.
Squeeze between this 2 dogmatic ideas, people have no much choice then to surrender they free will to the status co. consequently any new development or ideas about any thing in this world will be dealt with ferocious oppositions and denial of the obvious.
Would the future save us from this way of thinking? I like to believe that some how some thing will happen to free every one from this narrow minded aspect of our society. The same processes that have brought us all this religious and political lies will in time release the same energy for facts to be known.
What we will do with them is another issue.

kacou



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by kacou
 


I agree with everything you say here (although it was a little hard to follow), but I think another reason people write off this theory (hence the minimal responses) is because of fear.

I admit myself, knowing or believing there is not an eye in the sky watching over us or preventing some kind of atrocity to myself or my loved ones or my fellow man....is quite scary.

In other words, someone who believes in a monothestic religion has the "Grand Design" layed out in front of them. They will be saved, they will go to heaven and spend the rest of eternity with their "Father"/ or God. It is much much easier and much more appealing to believe this than to believe the after life may not be there, or there is no real "Grand Design" or destiny for each and everyone of our lives.

For this reason I say believe in what you want, if this ideology keeps you a sane person and lets you live a good life, then so be it.

Not until it is ingrained in society (talking about America here) will it be ok for a "way of life" religion (such as Buddhism or Hinduism) to replace a theological one. Point being (and presuming R. Ellis is correct), if America came to the understanding over night that there really is no God, I think you would see moral integrity unravel immediately. I think you would see many people saying to themselves "what is the point?" You get married under God, you pay for things in the "trust of God", you serve in the military and fight under the moral standard and help of God and you swear on Gods "word" when you are to tell the truth, even in court.

For now, I wish for America to stay under the wing of the religions. It has to powerful a grasp on the minds of the average Christian. I am certainly not saying that Americans are dumb, or bad people, but until America develops some patience and becomes open minded to the possibility that the way we percieve God just may not be accurate, the understanding of God will remain a superficial tale with no real spiritual significance.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by abelievingskeptic
 


I can't access the video, it requires login.
Got any other link?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Just subscribe to it. I never received any spam from them.
It is free and well designed.
You will also find much more good interview.

kacou



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by abelievingskeptic
 


I have no problem with you posting this, and i am not attacking you in any way. You asked for "perspective", no one answered it so i added my zero cents.
As for "original" of Antiquities of the Jews - it is in Greek. And guess what - i found on-line Greek version with translation!!!

Not officers in the original text, by far.
www.perseus.tufts.edu...
Go to (176) paragraph, in the end word - oiketais. If this is how he called his officers....
I am not suggesting that official versions is 100% correct (could be though
) but it is much more closer to truth then one discussed in this thread.
However if you find other historians - i would like to read it. From what i know Manetho is somewhat close and certain Greek/Roman historians connected to Hyksos, but no one had such a vivid imagination!
Edit:
Link is not always opens, so if you would like to see - you probably will need to click several times and waite a little.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by abelievingskeptic


For now, I wish for America to stay under the wing of the religions. It has to powerful a grasp on the minds of the average Christian. I am certainly not saying that Americans are dumb, or bad people, but until America develops some patience and becomes open minded to the possibility that the way we percieve God just may not be accurate, the understanding of God will remain a superficial tale with no real spiritual significance.



I agree.

The Age of Reason, part II courtesy of the world wide web (the web of Maya?), will help deliver us from evil.

The Torah is filled with archetypal prose and hidden code.
These archetypes were turned into ARKetypes because of their 'quantum' ability to effect 'action at a distance'.

Imagine a puppet theatre with invisible strings is the theory.
Strings they use to hog tie the sheeple and seegullibles.

I dare the believers to digest what I offer...and then discuss it.

kachina2012.wordpress.com...

The end is near and the TIME has arrived to let the genie out of the bottle.
Come and git it...bible thumpers...
I have been waiting for ewe.

namaste

Raphael



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join