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.

 

Abraham...Ancestor of the Brahmins?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 




It must be their decisions because they are black? You my friend are stating back handed racist things and you may not even know it.


laughing at your wanton desire to manipulate a post into something that suits you. If you read the post I stated black & white have their issues either through circumstance or choices both not just one side!. Which means if you are literate enough to comprehend there are many reasons individual people (all people not one race as you are implying) are where they are today. As for me being racist, I call you a racist on the grounds you have assumed I have a certain way of thinking because of my heritage & have manipulated words into something that is not true!



It's pretty main stream if soldiers use the term unmentionables.


No it is not. I call your bluff on that one. Names, dates & the context they were saying it in (even if they were saying it in reference to Aboriginals at all). It is not a mainstream term in Australia to refer to aboriginals that way! You have an extremely perverse, distorted and clearly wrong interpretation of Australia today & the situation!




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 




It must be their decisions because they are black? You my friend are stating back handed racist things and you may not even know it.


laughing at your wanton desire to manipulate a post into something that suits you. If you read the post I stated black & white have their issues either through circumstance or choices both not just one side!. Which means if you are literate enough to comprehend there are many reasons individual people (all people not one race as you are implying) are where they are today. As for me being racist, I call you a racist on the grounds you have assumed I have a certain way of thinking because of my heritage & have manipulated words into something that is not true!



It's pretty main stream if soldiers use the term unmentionables.


No it is not. I call your bluff on that one. Names, dates & the context they were saying it in (even if they were saying it in reference to Aboriginals at all). It is not a mainstream term in Australia to refer to aboriginals that way! You have an extremely perverse, distorted and clearly wrong interpretation of Australia today & the situation!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


John Howard was not long ago. He made detention camps for refugees. Its obvious to me or anyone reading your description it's passive racism. Passive clasism to say the least. Classism is part of castes after all.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


You would make a great fiction writer! As stated you are the one doing the assuming and clearly racist!. I'm still waiting for those names?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Interesting thread, lots of food for thought.

I thought I'd compare the etymology of the words "Abraham" and "Brahmin" to see how close or far apart they may really be. I came up with the following, for what it's worth:



1.Brahmin
Skt. brahmana-s, from brahman- "prayer," also "the universal soul, the Absolute," of uncertain origin.

2.Abraham
from Heb. Abraham "father of a multitude," from abh "father" + *raham (cognate with Arabic ruham "multitude"); the name he altered from Abram "high father," from second element ram "high, exalted."

Sources for both:
www.etymonline.com...


Here's something further on the word "Brahmin":


Sanskrit bráhman (an n-stem, nominative bráhmā) is from a root bṛh " to swell, grow, enlarge". brahmán is a masculine derivation of bráhman, denoting a person associated with bráhman. The further origin of bṛh is unclear. According to the Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (IEW, "Indo-European Etymological Dictionary") written by the Austrian-German comparative linguist and Celtic languages expert Julius Pokorny IE root bhreu-, bhreu-d- denotes to swell, sprout (cf Slovenian brsteti - to sprout.) 'It could be from PIE *bherg'h- "to rise, high, eminent", cognate to Old Norse Bragi. Some, including Georges Dumézil, have said that the Latin word flāmen "priest" may also be cognate. However, the standard Indo-Aryan etymological dictionary by M. Mayrhofer (1986–2000, vol. II, p. 236-8) derives brahman 'formulation (of truth) [in poetry], from Indo-Iranian *bhrajh-man < Indo-European *bhreg'h-men; cf. Old Persian brazman, Middle Persian brahm 'form', Nuristani (Ashkun) blamade 'a god' ( from *brahma-deva?), Old Norse bragr 'poetical art', etc., and argues against connection with Latin flamen.
Source:
en.wikipedia.org...


OK, so it seems there is some possible overlap in there, although its not as firm as one might like. I believe like others in this thread that the influences traveled both east and west from a very early date. Goods and ideas probably made their way indirectly among the Indian Harrapans, early Mesopotameans, and Egyptians from very ancient times. Whether "Abraham" and "Brahmin" are directly related is another story. If they are not, the etymological similaries could be explained as either coincidence or vestages of an earlier linguistic and/or religious paradigm that "broke both ways" and underpins both the Abrahamic and Vedic religions from an even earlier time. Either way, good food for thought.
edit on 12/18/10 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by snusfanatic
 

Are people like completely ignorant of mainstream academic views? The oldest known traces of civilization; and thus abstract religious thought is in SUMER. Mesopotamia. Not in India or the Indus Valley. They came around hundreds of years later.

So please, enough of this pseudo "everything came from Hinduism" point.

This thread was meant to point out a connection, based on archeology and biblical chronology, between the biblical patriarch, abraham (who lived circa 1750 BCE) and the Hindu elite class, the brahmin. It may or may not be true, i dont know. But conventional archeology has proved definitively the roots of religious thought in the middlest east. From there, it flowed eastward and westeward, as far west and south as Egypt and Ethiopia, and as as far East and North as the Indus Valley and the Caucusus.

So, Hinduism, is derived from this more ancient source, in the middleeast. Until archeology can prove differently - which doesnt seem likely, than the argument that the vedas are 6000, 10,000 or a a hundred million years old, is complete hogwash.
edit on 18-12-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Its more so the the statement in Genesis which draws this comparison. The connection between the names Abraham, and Brahmin, furthers the argument.

But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.

This is meaningful because the word "Maton" is often used as a synonym for occult or esoteric knowledge.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


i dont' know anything about the vedas. but i'm pretty sure mainstream academic views are gonna have a tough run on this site. haha.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Ok I would never give you names and dates in the Internet for reasons you should be aware of. What's your name? Dont be a fool. You choose to not adress any factual info quite typical. I may be racist but maybe being a black curly haired man in Australia raised more eybows than you would understand. You can't deny prison camps by your last president so you choose diversion.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
double
edit on 19-12-2010 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


Firstly Mr knowledgeable one, we don't have a President. We have a Prime Minister ... Big difference. You are refering to John Howard. Well he was not the last we had Kevin Rudd & now have Julia Gillard. Get yourself an education before claiming to know it all!

Secondly there are no "Prison Camps" for aboriginals. They free to go anywhere the want. What you are probably meaning is the "immigration detention centres" where people who have Illegally entered the country are housed. There are Aboriginals in Jail for committing crimes but there are no "Prison Camps" for Aboriginals who have not committed a crime! Fact! So yes I can deny "prison camps" as you put it because there isn't any!

You really stuffed up there. Again I would like names. Stop diverting & post stupid replies about "What is your name" > You have been well & truly smashed on that one! Game Over!
edit on 19-12-2010 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


Firstly, I never said Howard was your last prime minister. I am pretty up to date on my foreign officials. Secondly I was a marine from 2002-2005. I took part in the first falujah campaign. I am definitely not going to expose myself or other servicemen on the Internet. If you have have a brain you would know that. Third. A prime minister and a president are not that different. Especially in a country like France. Sure they have to answer to parliament but the execution of power isn't "far different". I served in the military when Howard was your minister. Detention camps I was wrong. I don't think you can deny the history of aborigine abuse however it's been well documented. Anyhow the forum is about Brahman and being from Australia it is interesting to note the aborigine are the Dravidian ancestors of south India. The caste system was set up to separate Aryans and Dravidians. It's not far off from racial segregation.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

[
Anyhow the forum is about Brahman and being from Australia it is interesting to note the aborigine are the Dravidian ancestors of south India. The caste system was set up to separate Aryans and Dravidians. It's not far off from racial segregation.


Dravidian are the ancestor of south India ?? You find this out yourself or is there anything called "facts" to back that up because as far the rest of the world knows, Australia and India broke apart before mankind ever walked on either landmass and further most south Indians share the same cranial structures as Caucasoids.

The caste system was set up to divide the Aryan from the Dravidians ?? Where do you get this stuff ?? Are you saying that there are no "upper caste" people in South India ? Or that all the upper caste people are "aryans" and all the lower caste people are "dravidians" ? Is that your "racial" segregation ??


Your comments are equivalent to saying that the "clergy", the "Aristocrats" and the "commoners" in Europe were from different races and thus that was "Racial segregation" too! Guess there were three kinds of European races and nobody even knew about it huh ?


Please educate yourself about how utterly WRONG you are about the caste system before you spew such utter utter falsehoods. Don't try to conveniently fit the caste system into something you are familiar with like "racial segregation" and try to open your mind to comprehend new cultures.

Unlike racisim, force was never used to "subjugate" anybody, the caste system was fatalistic, if you were born a low birther, you lived as a low birther and you knew nothing better. People accepted it as fate and did their work. If they rebelled, society shunned them- simple. No chains, no slave ships and no buying and selling people like your imagination will try to conjure up. Western hyberbole about the caste system is quite absurd in most cases. Racisim that was practiced in the West is many thousands of times worse that the caste system ever was because at least the lower castes were left alone and considered human beings. Slaves however were not even considered human!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Are people like completely ignorant of mainstream academic views? The oldest known traces of civilization; and thus abstract religious thought is in SUMER. Mesopotamia. Not in India or the Indus Valley. They came around hundreds of years later.

So please, enough of this pseudo "everything came from Hinduism" point.

First Sumer was the earliest known "Ancient Near Eastern civilization" that doesn't mean it was the "origin" of all civilization. Civilization propped up simultaneously from many nomadic cultures that settled down during the Neolithic Revolution, surely you must know the "Academic view" ?. Are you claiming that they all "received" civilization from Sumer ?? IF you consider ONLY writing then yes, Sumer was the earliest. But the three oldest civilizations recognized academically are the Mesopotamian, the Nile and the Indus. The Indus civilization were the first to have domesticated many crops and conducted organized farming, not to mention were one of the first civilizations to have potter at 5000BC. Civilization cropped up in the Agean, along the Yangtze and even in Meso Americas, all independently.
Further, to make a definitive statement like Sumer was the first, you have to be pretty audacious because even the most renowned archeologists haven't found definitive proofs to the earliest settlements of civilization by man because only the very large structures of few civilizations have remained to tell of their legacy.


Originally posted by dontreally
This thread was meant to point out a connection, based on archeology and biblical chronology, between the biblical patriarch, abraham (who lived circa 1750 BCE) and the Hindu elite class, the brahmin. It may or may not be true, i dont know. But conventional archeology has proved definitively the roots of religious thought in the middlest east. From there, it flowed eastward and westeward, as far west and south as Egypt and Ethiopia, and as as far East and North as the Indus Valley and the Caucusus.

Archeology and "biblical chronology" ?? Thats like comparing Superman's chronology with Cosmological history! One is a book of faith that was "decided by committee" and the other is factual truth. Your premise itself is sketchy to begin with.
Also, archeology has NEVER proved that the "roots of religious thought" was from the middle east. Because, it clearly isnt as it is plain to see/read from the various cultures that existed at that time and that exist now. One of the most important religious icons is the divine trinity that exists in ALL proto-Indo-European cultures, all the way from Thor, to the Romans through the Baltics through Asia Minor to India. This is demonstrated both by language which has a distinct Indo-European heritage and the cultural symbolizes that are shared through out the Indo-European civilizations prior to their Christianization. . Further, Chinese spiritual faiths, the African faiths, the religious thought of the Meso-Americans were all distinct and disparate.
In fact, Hinduism and Ancient biblical thought are utterly antithetical to each other on so many levels. Where one defines a concrete structure of faith based on mythology and parables, the other denotes a relaxed amalgamation of religious codes and cultural ethics into a philosophy. The trinity of god is absent in early Biblical theology, while it is prominent through out ALL Indo-European and even early Middle Eastern religions like those of AKKAD or Mittani.
The possibility you have to consider is that early biblical thought was a disparate and unique religious thought that originated in North Africa or from the influences of early Egyptian religious doctrine or maybe even in contrary to early Egyptian religious philosophy in isolation from contemporary Eurasian theologies and then spread to the Middle East where it spread through conquest and proselytism undergoing successive evolutions to form a consistent faith that was codified in the books of the Torah.


Originally posted by dontreally
So, Hinduism, is derived from this more ancient source, in the middleeast. Until archeology can prove differently - which doesnt seem likely, than the argument that the vedas are 6000, 10,000 or a a hundred million years old, is complete hogwash.
edit on 18-12-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Er, nobody but YOU claim that Hinduism has evolved from the middle east because it clearly hasn't as it is plain to see for anybody with even a cursory understanding of Hinduism. Further, being older in origin, it would impossible for it to be a derivative of something that was written down much much later considering that by the time of the Rigveda was written, the Hindus were fussing over the syntax of their hyms and proper ritual sacrifices instead of what writing down a mythology or a rule book like the early biblical scholars did.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread641666/pg3#pid10200994]post by IAF101[/
edit on 28-12-2010 by Movescamp because: Wrong reply



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 




First off forgive me. I thought you read Hindu theology or Indian history. It is a known fact Dravidians settled in south India. They are ancestors to Native Australians. Read an anthropology book on the subject. Is DNA enough proof? How about language similarities? Secondly the hindu empire ran to Bali not very far from Australia. So obviously boats can be used to travel. It is also a FACT the caste system was used to separate Aryans and Dravidians read anthropology again read Indian history. The Aryans created the caste system to seperate themselves drom dravidians. Do you own homework but sure i can provide plenty of facts from anthropologists. I can recommend a couple factual books. And yes force was used to separate races in Europe America and Australia as well as Somoa and new Zealand. Read a book. The military, police, and lynch mobs all aided racial segregation. I know in my country the military and law inforcement kept races segregated. After India got rid of the caste system. Ghandi went to a segregated south Africa where the military kept races segregated. Blacks needed special papers to walk in public. Don't be ignorant read a book. All you offer is your uniformed opinions. Seriously. Where are your facts,



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


I am sorry I thought your enforcement of racism was the opposite of your statement. But you are wrong both ways. The caste system was enforced by law and force. When the Aryans invaded India they forced the Dravidians to live separately. Also thousands of years create inter breeding no matter what laws are in place. They can't be enforced everywhere and live is a powerful thing. But yea originally Brahmins were only Aryan. The baloney around sudras were all fabricated to create a master race. Literally over the darker Dravidians. He'll just do a little ancient Indian research. Google it even. Better read Indian history books. I study the sarode which is Hindustani. South indian music us called Carnatic. Even today there is a separation between Dravidian and Aryan culture. The scripture was rewritten to make Aryans the Brahmin ruling caste.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
interesting thread, id like to point out that its easy to see where it began if you look fat it from the other side. By this i mean think of abraham being a brahim and from ancient india .He was one of many brahimns , but he decided to migrate to Iraq. With him he brought the vedic teachings were the most advanced in the world at that time.

Ab=father, brahim= educated by todays standards , when he left india and was looked upon as the father of the brahmic teachings. Because to them it was the first time someone as smart and full of wisdom had entered thier lands...

Saraswati and the hagar rivers are in India long before the monotheistic scriptures came into existance. Furthermore Sanskrit is older than armaic , hebrew , latin ect...The worlds oldest civilization took place in Harappa and Mohjendaro. Not only the oldest but far more advanced as well. They used standard size bricks , drainage systems and the worlds oldest seal( stamp) was unearthed there..Theres plenty of evidence to support all this . Evidence that matches the Vedic scriptures and science/archealogoy/ linguistics ect...all point in the same direction. There is no doubt left in ones mind after researching india's ancient past that much of worlds religions , languages and education have originated from India.

Even the early greeks learnt math from the Indians, in fact in Taxilla which is close to modern Peshewar in Pakistan was the worlds oldest university. They came from all the world to seek knowledge from this center.

So going back to was abraham a brahim ? absolutely !!! Its no coincidence that the word brahim itself lies within his name. And not just Abraham but mostly eveything else stemmed from ancient India ..OH and the Aryans...They never invaded ! thats a lie and most scholars will tell so . The Pashtuns are the direct desendants of which the west refers to as Aryans. Aryans in fact meant the same as being a Brahim. Slight difference is that A brahim believes htat one attains god through self enlightenmant . And in old sanskrit aryan means educated...

It was not the western Aryans that built Harrapa and Dwarka ect...it was the native peoples of India/Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan/Iran. All the tribes and races are mentioned in the vedas. Do yourself a favour and read a copy that has not been translated by westerners....Goodluck in your search for truth



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


enjoyed your comparing OP

yes brahma is stolen from 'abraham ', ' sarasvati ' from 'sarah ', his wife, etc

The entire indian pantheon makes only sense, when you understand that it is a trick to let humanity imprison itself. There are deities, originating from biblical times, which satan has 'transponded ' into the east -
like the ganesha, who is the former moabite 'chemesh '

likewise, around 1500 bC, satan brought 'brahma ' , 'sarasvati ' etc to india:
that is, the evil version of the REAL abraham,
so that, by the energy of millions of eastern people worshipping the evil brahma, the REAL version - abraham - would remain imprisoned.

remember - abraham was promised ' descendants like the sand of the sea '

This was what satan wants to block - hence, he lets that same 'sand of the sea ' ( the millions of asiatics) to imprison themsélves: by worshipping his fake version

do you understand please...?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
..pantheons dont make sense to modern man,
because modern man disqualified himself by renouncing the other world.

yet
you are able to trace and recognize actual , living, deities,
but only through the vision of the Bible it makes all sense.

for example
the hindu 'narashimha ', the lion, is the same as the egyptian Sekhmet
...the attributes are the same :
sekhmet 'waded through humanities blodd after destroying them '
and narasimha ' has a garment soaked in blood '
etc

meaning,
after satan s egipt empire - the spiritual empire ruling this world - was announced by God that it would be destroyed, he moved his empire to the east: to india/tibet
around 1500 bC

And 'gave ' the asiatics his own deities to ' worship '

This is why maitreya comes from the ' east '
and why both swastika ánd 'davids star ' ( = the hindu goloku star) are satans creations, empowered by his bastion in the East, empowered by millions of hindus imprisoning THEMSELVES by worshipping what is FALSE.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join