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.

 

Moses was a Pharaoh

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Siren
 


I put lines like that one in all my posts for psychological warfare purposes. It has the tendency to agitate.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo

I think if God really did dwell once with Egypt
LV


IF God walked on the Earth, then he was one of the Angels, one of the Sons of God, and not actually God itself.
The Angels who came to Earth set themselves up as Gods...



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Tesla401
 


Tesla401:

I don't think that LeoVirgo was talking about God here in the litereal sense. She said that God was WITH them. Just like God is WITH me now, but I can't see him, but I know that he is there, just the same.

I am sorry that you really missed her other points that she posted. She really had some different ideas that should be explored further.


Peace to you
Grandma



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tesla401

Originally posted by LeoVirgo

I think if God really did dwell once with Egypt
LV


IF God walked on the Earth, then he was one of the Angels, one of the Sons of God, and not actually God itself.
The Angels who came to Earth set themselves up as Gods...


Hello Tesla,

Although you and I agree is a few things, I think we see the emanations of God different.

I see God as a consciousness, and sons of God as a lower realm of consciousness, which are emanated from the Most High, but only carry particular attributes of Thee Most High. The pureness of thee channel, from God to man, depends on mans heart. We are co creators, and in between us and the Most High, are different attributes of God, and we are a part of those attributes also.

For example, I see Yahweh as the attribute of power and rule, but not the fullness of Thee Most High.

If there was a time when angels or light beings, unlike ourselves walked the Earth, Egypt was likely one of those lands we see evidence of god like men. The men themselves, and the channel of god that came through to them, are two different things here. The beings on the earth were dwelling with the ONE consciousness that everthings ever manifested from, the source of life energy in all things, and yes, I think this could of been the purest form of the channel of this consciousness then what we are able to look back and take notice of (as well as other ancient cultures). This pure channel is still around and always has been, your heart has to be humble and the offering of your life to be for the will of Thee is what makes the difference.

Things like Satans or archeons or rulers and powers ONLY become these attributes through mens distortion, through distortion of man wanting rule, riches, pride or power, the channel of Thee becomes polluted, only able to come through in the ways that man desires. There are major karmic kickbacks in some very negative ways when we use the channel of the ONE for only our choice of attributes.

The beings in early Egypt or Sumeria or where ever that we hear of having god like powers, could very likely been angel like....and no, not God....but that doesnt mean God wasnt dwelling with them....through the consciousness of ONE. The more the distortion, the more man see's God human like, and the more the image of God becomes something it is not.

I have felt Thee dwell with me and the more I purify myself , body and mind, the closer I feel Thee and the better the consciousness can be seen with that eye of light and can hear with those ears to hear. God dwells here always, within all things....but through man, beings, whatever, through our consciousness, we pollute Thee.....and religions and wars and bloodshed become a part of gods demands for man, but its not really so, man is using only the power and rule of Thee.

I dont agree on all the names you mentioned in your posts, but I do agree that Egypt is more important then many think. If there was a time when beings different from us were here, Egypt was one of those lands, and I feel that there was a really good connection to Thee in the beginning....until man thought of himself as powerful as god, and worshiped objects as god.....then came distortion of what the consciousness was.

Where the heart is, your treasures will be also.

Later, we see men regain a better refined connection to this ONE consciousness....and it only makes sense that a pure heart would look back on the past distortions and powers and think man kind has surely fallen.

I dont see the biblical figures being the men then you mentioned exactly....but often, we see men try to be what was known as great men of the past....often trying to walk in footsteps of their ancestors.

Possibly all the way up till Noah, there is much confusion in thinking these biblical names and other names from Egypt or Sumerian are one in the same. But after Noah, I see the Biblical names as their own people, with a past Egyptian origin, trying to find a new land and place of their own to become a new nation. I dont think their true names are what we know of today....the reason I think this is not because similar men seem to of lived in Egypt....but yet their names are like titles, telling their life story wrapped up in a name. Did their mothers really have that great of intuition to name their child a name that would fit what their whole life would end up playing out to be?> I doubt that.

We see some things alike, like the connection to Egypt....but I dont see it as literal as you, with the names matching the people like what has been said. Some of the early names, mabey....

NOT ALL ANGELS set themselves up as God. There are ancient stories of Light Beings or Illuminated Ones that were very pure in their purpose....and stood for the purpose of the ONE>

Just my thoughts....Hope you could follow where Im coming from,
LV



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
all sitchen attests to doing is looking at myths and legends with the idea that when these legends and myths were written, the act of recording wasn't done for frivolous purposes. therefore, he attests that there is truth in the myths of ancient civilizations, and proceeds to make connections between each cultures myths. once together, he discovered it makes sense that aliens created man 130,000 years ago, etc etc.
i'm not going to get too deep into it unless i'm invited into another thread for the purpose of dissecting sitchen's beliefs.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I would suggest that you all look at the works of some of the Egyptologysts like Ahmed Osman and Ralph Ellis.

Here is Osman's take onMoses/Akhenaton

This from the site of Ralph Ellis:
"One of the primary problems for Judaeo-Christian theologians is the disturbing reality that both King David and King Solomon, the most celebrated kings of Judaic history, cannot be found in the historical record. So how can this be so? How could a wealthy and influential empire suddenly disappear from the archaeological record? The physical evidence, or rather the lack of it, has long been deeply troubling."

**emphasis mine.

Solomon & David

And lest you think that Abraham was a mere sheep herder you should consider this:

quote from Josephus: "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!"

To which Ralph Ellis has this to say:
"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.
Abraham, pharaoh of Egypt, master of all he surveyed, the most powerful man in the world.

Abraham

The articles make their point.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
"Moses" is ancient Egyptian for "born of".

Ramesses (Ra-moses - Born of Ra)
Thutmose (Born of Thut (thoth probably)

etc.

The ancient Hebrews were not very inventive, and simply removed the name of the pagan god from before their favourite prophet.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
"Moses" is ancient Egyptian for "born of".

Ramesses (Ra-moses - Born of Ra)
Thutmose (Born of Thut (thoth probably)

etc.

The ancient Hebrews were not very inventive, and simply removed the name of the pagan god from before their favourite prophet.


Except the name in Hebrew is "mosheh" not "moses" or "mose." In the original Hebrew texts, the Pharaoh's daughter says "I drew him out of the water" and the word used for "drew him out" is "mashah".

"mss" means "Is born" and not "born of".

None of the Thutmoses could be Moses... their mummies all were found at Deir el Bahri :en.wikipedia.org... . That's a very long way from Israel. Deuteronomy 3:6 says that Moses is buried on the border of Israel, near a place called Bethpeor.

Either the Bible is wrong -- or the idea that Moses is one of the Thutmoses is wrong. I personally feel that the Bible is right and the "Moses is a pharaoh" is wrong (because so many of the comparisons (including the children of the pharaohs) are not correct.)



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I have also read of the Jesus/Cleopatra connection. As I understand it, Cleopatra was 3 months pregnant with Julius Caesar's daughter when he was assassinated, and Cleopatra fled Rome. Their son, Caesarion, was killed by Octavius, who felt Ceasarion threatened his claim to be Emperor. But Octavius let their daughter, Cleopatra, live, because she was not a threat, and she was subsequently married to an "eastern Prince." This prince was a Hebrew - some say Hasmonean, others say Nasi - father of Joseph the Carpenter... making Cleopatra the grandmother of Jesus, and Julius Ceasar the grandfather of Jesus. Perhaps I should say "foster grandmother and grandfather."

Politically, this would make Jesus the heir to three empires/kingdoms: The Roman, the Egyptian, and the Hebrew. If one also believes that Anna, mother of Mary, was a British/Druid princess (descendants of the lost tribes of Israel), then Jesus would be heir to another kingdom as well. If true, adds a whole new layer to the history contained in the Bible.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TrixieBelden
 


Julius Caesar died in 44 BC, on the famous ides of march. This would put the age of Mary at 43 years old at the time of the birth of Jesus, assuming the 0BC/AD deal. Which is no where near being a "young woman".

Personally, I find the thought that God would choose someone who is rich and powerful as such to be more of a play to saying elites are somehow more special than others, and that from only elites could such a thing happen. Puts importance on the bloodlines, even though in the end, all come from the same bloodline, and this is the worship of flesh, not spirit.

But I don't normally get involved in these threads, because I think the message is more important than the messenger.


[edit on 31-1-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I must have misspoke somewhere, and I apologize. I was not saying that Mary is the daughter of Julius and Cleopatra. Rather, their daughter would have been Mary's mother-in-law. Let me try to clarify. The daughter of Julius and Cleopatra, known as Cleopatra of Jerusalem, would have been born later the same year that her father died, 44 BC. We know that Joseph the carpenter and father of Jesus was older than Mary, mother of Jesus. It's reasonable to believe that Cleopatra of Jerusalem would have been about 14 to 20 years old when she gave birth to Joseph, so roughly between 30 and 24 BC. If we assume Mary was also between 14 and 20 when she gave birth to Jesus, and again assuming 0 BC/AD, Mary would have been born between 14 AD and 20 AD (or would that be 15 AD and 21 AD? That always confuses me). Accordingly, Joseph could have been as much as 16 years older than Mary.

Hope that makes more sense.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrixieBelden
 


IC, so you are saying it is the line of Joseph that is from her. I dunno, as I said I don't normally get into these topics because they aren't that important to me. I suppose that is possible.

But small note, you used AD rather than BC on the birth time of Mary at the end, and I'm pretty sure you meant BC.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Yes, I did mean to use BC after Mary's DOBs. Sloppy, I know, and I'm sorry.

I forgot to mention before, you may be right that the message is more important than the messenger. "God is no respecter of persons." On the other hand, it may be a package deal, meant to unify many cultures and religions and philosophies in one fell swoop. And it may not be true at all!

Such is the intrigue within the history of politics and religion.

Blessings



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
"Moses" is ancient Egyptian for "born of".

Ramesses (Ra-moses - Born of Ra)
Thutmose (Born of Thut (thoth probably)

etc.

The ancient Hebrews were not very inventive, and simply removed the name of the pagan god from before their favourite prophet.


Except the name in Hebrew is "mosheh" not "moses" or "mose." In the original Hebrew texts, the Pharaoh's daughter says "I drew him out of the water" and the word used for "drew him out" is "mashah".

"mss" means "Is born" and not "born of".

None of the Thutmoses could be Moses... their mummies all were found at Deir el Bahri :en.wikipedia.org... . That's a very long way from Israel. Deuteronomy 3:6 says that Moses is buried on the border of Israel, near a place called Bethpeor.

Either the Bible is wrong -- or the idea that Moses is one of the Thutmoses is wrong. I personally feel that the Bible is right and the "Moses is a pharaoh" is wrong (because so many of the comparisons (including the children of the pharaohs) are not correct.)



I'm sorry, you take what I said incorrectly. I'm not saying Moses was Thutmose, I'm saying that the name "Moses" was derived from Egyptian root. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it.

Thutmose and Ramases, and any other Egyptian name with any kind of derivative of "mose" in naming conventions was common.

And given the supposed relationship between the ancient Hebrews and the Egyptians, I don't believe they came to any of these conclusions on their own; they were clearly influenced by the Egyptians heavily, even so much as to adopt Ahkenaten's strange monotheistic religion as their own.

And if it comes down to believing the bible or believing any other text, ever, the bible loses every time. It's a total bunch of cobblers.

I doubt Moses was a pharaoh, but he may have been someone important to Ahkenaten - a general or high priest-type, perhaps.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

...
"One of the primary problems for Judaeo-Christian theologians is the disturbing reality that both King David and King Solomon, the most celebrated kings of Judaic history, cannot be found in the historical record. So how can this be so? How could a wealthy and influential empire suddenly disappear from the archaeological record? The physical evidence, or rather the lack of it, has long been deeply troubling."
by force of arms? Yet he had three hundred and eighteen officers under him, with unlimited manpower at his disposal!"

Abraham, pharaoh of Egypt, master of all he surveyed, the most powerful man in the world.



I had made this point earlier in the post. Thank you for elaborating. I have a bad habit for overstanting the obvious and thinking others know what I am talking about.





posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Crabmeat
 


Excuse me, this is a lie. Moses was a Prophet and a Prophet for the L-rd G-D Adonai. Sounds like a lot of ppl are reading false doctrine such as the Quran maybe.
And the correct spelling of Amen is Amein in Hebrew lingo.
I advise you to read Holy Scriptures and especially the law of Moses of which the L-rd G-D gave to Moses for the Congregation of Israel and there were also Gentiles among the People.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deutoronomy,Numbers, Judges.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Grandma
 


Look up the order of Melchizdel.
I suggest you people start reading the Holy Bible for the L-rd appeared in human flesh many times. And no he is not an Angel either. Though there are Angels for the L-rd.
And by the way G-D was incarnated in human flesh as our Messiah Yeshua ( Jesus Christ). I suggest people read the book Isaiah from start to finish.
The truth is in there.
Wake Up People! For the time is at hand.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SueHam2
 


Excuse Avbraham was not a Pharoh. Avbraham is a Patriach for the true living G-D. This garbage is out of the Quran which a lie.
And just to let you all know that the law of Moses has been around for almost 6,000 years and the Quran only came into being in 695 AD/CE.
The Muslims borrowed from the Torah, however the Torah was in place long before the Quran.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Im sure many here in this thread would not be posting unless they had read the Bible and therfor see another picture then what the main stream sees.

You may find a Most High Almighty above and within all things to be a God of wrath, who therfor uses wrath through his followers for them to gain land and power. I myself, find this OT a story of a rebelious people who would not conform to the Egyptian or Cannon pantheon of Gods (which is about the only good thing I have to say about them)....therefor we see them make a way for their Lord, Yahweh, the ruler who received them through an inheritence by El, and the people and Yahweh gain rule over the other lands that were occupied by other rulers, sons of El.....Yahweh being greedy and wanting to be Lord not only over his inheritence but also Lord over all the lands. Its really just a battle of which son of El is going to become the King of Heaven. We see the dissolving of Yahweh having female counterparts in old texts and having battles with the other sons of El, becoming a loner lord over all. Older traditions took on a new meaning, old holidays took on new meaning, old rituals are reclaimed as being orders of the lord Yahweh.

The tales of Yam and Baal from Cannon help one see the religious struggles between the habitats of the lands. Similar stories with names that reflect these 'lords' or 'sons' run all throughout the Mediterranean lands.

I accepted these tales as literal for a long time and went along with the idea that Yahweh was the God, the spirit within all things. But I accepted this blindly, for it is what I grew up learning.

When I began to mature in my own being, studying the Bible more seriously and seeking a personal relation to Thee Holy Spirit, I found the nature of Thee to not be the same nature as of what I read in the wrathful god of the OT. I feel that through humble seeking of my maker and offering myself for the will of Thee Holy Spirit I learned things no book could show me. I dont think the Bible is errored in its being called Holy, I actually study it more then any material. I feel that we are not suppossed to be told exactly what God is, but seek what the nature is, through living a humble life, one can find that Gods nature is humble aswell. Not wrathful, not forcesful and not prideful for rule.

There have been many emanations of Thee Holy Spirit, some called these aeons, some called them sons of god, some called them lords. I believe that seeking a nature is a purpose of this life of seperations....so all the answers to lay black and white defeat the purpose of seeking....you can only find this nature through a personal relation. This is a process that is done alone...not before others or with others. Thee sees those who seek with a humble heart and sees those that seek for gratification from others or for comfort to dissolve the fears of afterlife or death in this life (these are wrong reasons to seek Thee). Many sons, lords have brought messages of fear to gain the faith of man, in which man does not continue this path of seeking a nature, but places faith in a lord for fear that he might burn in hell or be eternally punished.

When one weighs the vines in the Bible, there are two different seeds. One is loving and one is vengeful. One promotes growth and needs us to seek, the other promotes fear, causing people to not seek further.

I dont believe humans are to learn from one book because the history of the Holy Spirit shines forth through many materials. But again, the fear of Yahweh causes people to not search these things or immediately debunk them without thought because again, fear that they would go against the true god whose revenge is wrath.

Out of all the times I have humbly seeked Thee, rather it be for guilt, comfort, praise and thanks....I have never sensed a wrathful nature. Always Thee shines love and helps me see how to be better, and how to live more for others then myself. I can deeply relate to the love stories of men who claimed they found a personal relation to the Holy Spirit. This nature is so loving and nurturing that often it is referred to as a 'she'.

Many can say I following wrongly or even follow Satan...this is something that one is prepared for when they turn down that narrow path realizing they are not following the crowds.

This is only a personal view, in which I share to explain why I dont except everything as what the crowds do when people tell me to go read the Bible. I have read it, and I dont see it the way you do.

Best intentions,
LV



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TrixieBelden
 



This prince was a Hebrew - some say Hasmonean, others say Nasi - father of Joseph the Carpenter... making Cleopatra the grandmother of Jesus, and Julius Ceasar the grandfather of Jesus.


Do you have any documentation for this claim.

See below:


Lineage of Jesus of Nazareth

www.wespatterson.com...

There are discrepancies:


Who was Jesus' grandfather on his father's side?

Jacob
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Heli
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Because of the Jewish Levirite laws, both are correct, but in different ways. In Jewish law, if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow, and the first son born would legally be the dead man's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). In the story of Ruth, we see that this was not limited to brothers; the nearest male relative willing to take on the responsibility would marry the widow.

The logical (and traditional Roman Catholic and Orthodox) understanding is that Joseph's mother was originally the wife of Heli, but that he died without offspring. His kinsman Jacob then took the widow as his wife, and she bore Joseph. So, while "Jacob begat Joseph", legally Joseph was the son of Heli. Both were descendants of Zerubabel, and apparently Jacob was the nearest kinsman to Heli willing to fulfill the Levirite duty. Matthew follows the natural line of descent, while Luke follows the legal line of descent.


wiki.answers.com...'s_father_in_Luke_3_verse_23_because_Jacob_did_not_live_up_to_godly_standards_when_Jacob_was_liste d_as_the_father_of_Joseph_and_the_husband_of_Mary_in_Matthew_1_verse_sixteen



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join