Controversial Subjects

Re: The main difference is

Alexa For Australia — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:55:05 GMT

Probably. I didn't say it was not so.

What I objected to was th identification of Akhnathen to Moshe.

But I do think the resemblance is more than accidental.

This is a piece of the Small Hythm to Athen, probably writen by Akhnathen himself . I'm translating;

"Oh Athem, the one who has created himself,

you who have created all the lands, and all that exists on the lands,

the men, the cows and the sheep,

all the trees that grow from the earth,

they all live when you appear over the horizon.

You are the father of all that has been created."

It does ring a bell, doesn't it?

Alexa

Re: The main difference is

Forbes — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:09:55 GMT

Of course it does not follow that because there is no record of Akhnaten's death that he took refuge in the Sinai Desert.

What I am getting at is this:

Exodus may be a rehash of an account of the persecution of the followers of Akhnaten, some of whom may have been Hebrews.

Judaism, and therefore Christianity, may be a direct descendent of the religion of Akhnaten. It may of course have just been influenced by it, or then again any resemblances may be purely coincidental.

Re: The main difference is

Alexa For Australia — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:37 GMT

Forbes wrote the following post

I did indeed. I did not say that I believed Moses was Egyptian. The purpose of my previous post was to point out that on the one hand Anon had said that Moses was Egyptian, but on the other that he could not have been Akhnaten because Egyptians did not live that long. So, if Moses was Egyptian he could not have lived that long either.

Hello:

You are not an Historian, but I am. It is true that there is no record of Akhenaten's death, and his tomb and his mummy have never been found. But the Amarna settlement was destroyed, and many of its archives were lost. There is no record either of the death if Akhenaten inmediate sucessor, Smenkhere.

But to assume that because there is no record of his death, he went to hide in Mount Sinai with his followers, and resurrect as Moshe more than one hundred years later (at the minimum), is an historical idiocy. Oh, and by the way, there is not an historical record either of any Pharaoh that ordered the sacrifice of male children. Hebrew or not.

I am not an English native speaker, so maybe my meaning was lost in translation. To put ir more bluntly: No human being has ever reached the very respectable age of 100 years, and still be able to travel the desert for 40 years more.

A hell of a survivor, indeed.

Alexa

Re: The main difference is

Forbes — Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:46 GMT

Wasn't it you the one who wrote

Some suggest that Moses was Egyptian, perhaps a follower of Akhnaten, or even Akhnaten himself.

Either you believe Moses was a real person, and if you do you have to accept that he was born in Egypt and was educated as an Egyptian (as the Bible says), or you don't and then you just don't talk about him except as a legend.

I think there is a third position which is to believe that we do not know. For myself I am inclined to believe that there was a man Moses and that he was Egyptian, but I do not insist on it. The story of his cradle being found in the bullrushes rings of being a later Hebrew interpolation to explain why their great leader came from Egypt. The idea that an Egyptian princess would adopt a foundling seems a little far-fetched. Also, if Pharaoh (whoever he was) was at the time engaged in oppressing the Hebrews (remember he had ordered all male children to be drowned which was why Moses was set adrift in his cradle) it seems unlikely that a Hebrew nurse would have been acceptable in the palace. The account of Moses having to flee Egypt is not inconsistent with his being a follower of a religion that was being persecuted. But all this is mere speculation.

Of course fitting the Bible with the historical facts is hard, as the Bible is not an historical record. But saying that Akhenaton was in fact Moses is a little too far fetched, I should say. That would have meant he survived Smenkhare, Tutankhamum, Ay, Horemheb... It was during the XIX dynasty that the prosecutions of the Atum followers became generalized. That is Ramses I, Sethi I, and Ramses II, the first pharaohs of that dynasty.

I am no historian and will not argue the point. I simply mention that there is, as I understand it, no record of Akhnaten's death - he simply disappeared from the scene. There is a possibility that he and his followers sought refuge in the Sinai desert. One of the number may have been Moses, whether Akhnaten or not. A small point is that the bible records that Moses used to veil his face. If the representations of Akhnaten are true to life...

You may pick up and choose, your probabilities of choosing the right one are as many as anybody else's.

Precisely.

You can even publish your opinion in the Wikipedia and be taken seriously.

I am not sure if you are having a dig at Wikipedia. I find it a valuable resource. Of course one needs to treat it with caution. In the article the different opinions as to the dating of the Exodus are set out without comment as to which is the more likely. If historians cannot agree, there is no chance of me coming to the truth.

Re: The main difference is

Sara Straight & Tall — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:52:15 GMT

Forbes wrote:

Alexa For Australia wrote:
Moshe is supossed to have lived during pharaoh Ramses II reign, years 1290-1224 b.c.

There does seem to be a considerable difference of opinion as to how the timeline of the bible fits in with the timeline of Ancient Egypt. For differing opinions of the date of the Exodus see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Date_of_the_Exodus

Alexa For Australia wrote:
And yes, he was an Egyptian by birth and education.

He could not have been Akhenaten himself. Egyptians did not live that long, but he could have been very well one of Atum followers.

???

Wasn't it you the one who wrote

Some suggest that Moses was Egyptian, perhaps a follower of Akhnaten, or even Akhnaten himself.

So????

You may pick up and choose, your probabilities of choosing the right one are as many as anybody else's. You can even publish your opinion in the Wikipedia and be taken seriously.

But if Moses was still alive by then, he was a hell of a survivor all right.

Sara

Re: The main difference is

Forbes — Sun, 13 May 2007 23:23:48 GMT

Alexa For Australia wrote:
Moshe is supossed to have lived during pharaoh Ramses II reign, years 1290-1224 b.c.

There does seem to be a considerable difference of opinion as to how the timeline of the bible fits in with the timeline of Ancient Egypt. For differing opinions of the date of the Exodus see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Date_of_the_Exodus

Alexa For Australia wrote:
And yes, he was an Egyptian by birth and education.

He could not have been Akhenaten himself. Egyptians did not live that long, but he could have been very well one of Atum followers.

???

Re: The main difference is

Anonymous — Sun, 13 May 2007 17:26:14 GMT

I don't know.

He is the creator of Murphy's Laws.

I was answering someone that said Moshe could have been Akhenaten.

If he did, he was certainly a hell of a survivor.

Alexa

Re: The main difference is

Anonymous — Sun, 13 May 2007 15:04:17 GMT

Where did Murphy fit in to all of this?

Tut

Re: The main difference is

Alexa For Australia — Sun, 13 May 2007 13:22:26 GMT

Akhenaten belonged to the XVIII Egyptian dynasty, around 1364-1347 years b.c.

There was an stablished faith in an Only God long before his reign, and his grandfather Tuthmes IV had in fact had already dedicated temples to the Only God Amum.

After Akhenaten's death Atum followers were persecuted, and their temples destroyed. But many of the faithful continued practicing their religion in private, even if they could not practice it in public.

Moshe is supossed to have lived during pharaoh Ramses II reign, years 1290-1224 b.c. And yes, he was an Egyptian by birth and education.

He could not have been Akhenaten himself. Egyptians did not live that long, but he could have been very well one of Atum followers.

Alexa

Re: The main difference is

Stannum — Sun, 13 May 2007 01:37:46 GMT

Thanks mate. I quite liked it myself.

The echoes of Egyptian writings are loud indeed in the Old Testament.

Akhnaten was the bloke I was trying to think of.

Stannum

Re: The main difference is

Forbes — Sun, 13 May 2007 00:16:12 GMT

Stannum wrote:
The whole Life After Death thing was done to death by the Egyptians.

I love that line!

Echoes of Egyptian writings can be found in the Old Testament.

Some suggest that Moses was Egyptian, perhaps a follower of Akhnaten, or even Akhnaten himself.

Re: The main difference is

Stannum — Sat, 12 May 2007 19:36:08 GMT

I respect but do not understand the desire to post a coment but not allow a direct response when the post itself is a direct response but there you go.

OK, I note your disagreement with my use of the word sect. I meant no disrespect. I believe the Jewish Faith to be just as valid as the Christian Faith which is just as valid as the Muslim Faith.

I am unable to find too much newness. Jesus drew on a tremendous history of religious practices and moulded them to His own devices but little was new.

The whole Life After Death thing was done to death by the Egyptians.

Eat Of My Body to be part of My Spirit has been practiced by Australian Aboriginal people for at least 40,000 years

I was born and raised as a devout Roman Catholic and went through all the rituals and absorbed all the dogma during ten formal and very strict years of education at a Holy Roman Catholic school run by austere nuns and monks. I have absorbed a little of the Jewish faith and there seems to be a struck match difference between the two.

Jews believe that Jesus was a holy man who spoke the word of God and was crucified, died and went to heaven while Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God who spoke God's words and was crucified, died, lived and went to heaven. Not a lot of difference to the untrained eye.

Jews believe that Mary was a holy woman who gave birth to a holy man while Catholics believe that Mary was a holy woman who gave birth to the Son of God, see above for the lack of difference.

This is a bit rich. I was not derogatory. This is a place of words. Please pay attention to mine if you wish to challenge me on my use of them. I was using sect as being a subsidiary of or flowing from or a derivation of. I was not using it in a religious way but in a literary manner. I at no time challenged the religious standing or esteem of The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Thank you very much. You have demonstrated a deep knowledge of The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

May I please take this opportunity to say that I at no time made any denigrating comment regarding their most venerable Pope.

I totally agree but I do not remember using the word cult in this thread. I have no need of religious tolerance. I neither fear nor hate religions nor religious people. I remember the quiet certitute that utter belief endows. My deep and unabiding knowledge in God was beyond faith, it was a tenet of my daily life. I was a cop who strapped on a gun and walked the mean streets for 10 years and I did not care if a hoodlum killed me because I knew that I would be sitting at God's right hand for eternity so I was cool about shotguns and knives and bats and violence and big hairy bundles of agression and hopelesness who just wanted to vent on me. They vented and when they blinked I slipped the darbies on them and we became acquainted. All was well. This utter knowledge allowed me to walk through any valley at any time because I had the biggest guardian angel possible.

God blinked and I lost my faith but this does not take away my respect and admiration for a well run religious organisation devoted to the betterment of humanity.

I am a lapsed heathen regaining my heretical ancestory.

Stannun

Re: The main difference is

monfrancom — Sat, 12 May 2007 15:50:19 GMT

Stannum wrote:
Alexa For Australia wrote:
Stannum wrote:

Roman Catholicism is a Christian sect.

Stannum

The first Christians were in fact followers of a Jewish Rabbi.

Christianity is a split up section of Judaism.

Alexa

G'day Alexa,

Too true.

Christianity is a Jewish sect.

See ya mate,

Stannum

Hi Stannum and Alexa

Sorry, this is incorrect to say that Catholism is a "sect" of judaism or of christianity! It is inconceivable and demonstrates a disregard of terms. It could have been described as such during its first century or so of existence 2 000 years ago... (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Church-sect_typology) but I would argue that based on the fact that Jesus professed something "new" rather than simply opposing its predecessor. For those familiar with the Sermon on the mount, one could argue... except that the theology expressed in that text is one that shows a God of love... as opposed to the vengeful one ascribed to by the jewish faith.

Catholicism is an officially recognized religion with its own fundamental beliefs which are n o t at all the same as judaism. Anyone in the "know", even just a little bit, would state this. For adherents of christiannity, Jesus Christ is God/son of God, etc. At best in judaism, Jesus may attain the status of "prophet". And this recongnition was further down the road of history, not in the first centuries. Catholism "is" a religion because of Jesus Christ. No Jesus, no catholism. Judaism's central figure is Yahweh, and as Jesus came l o n g after the existence of the Torah, I am hard put to believe that there would be references to Jesus in it. Someone who has read the Torah could maybe inform us. Anyway, for a jew, it is absolutely blasphemous... surely worthy of "excommunication" if jews put this in practice, to even "think" of God being "man"!!! A jew is not even to say the word "Yahweh" as God is to great to be reduced to a "name". (I do hope that I am not offending anyone in speaking this way.)

Definition of religion: See http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Religion
Definition of sect: See http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Sect to understand the "derogatory" element in the use of "sect" that you statements imply. And as the beginning of this article shows http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/6/10/65743/2167, one can understand why some would interchange the term "sect" and "religion".

What is absolutely (for me) astounding is the fact that Roman Catholicism is at the same time a political and geographical reality. See http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Country where the concept of coutry is explored and see http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/List_of_countries for a list of countries in which is named Vatican City. The head of the catholic church, the pope, is also the head of a state: the Vatican which is also an officially recongnized country. It has diplocatic ties with other countries throughout the world. The "type" of ambassador they send to another country determines the relationship held with that country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Shi.27a_Islam informs the reader about religion and state.

...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

I do not profess a faith or practice any type of religion.

Re: The main difference is

Stannum — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:18:46 GMT

Alexa For Australia wrote:
Stannum wrote:

Roman Catholicism is a Christian sect.

Stannum

The first Christians were in fact followers of a Jewish Rabbi.

Christianity is a split up section of Judaism.

Alexa

G'day Alexa,

Too true.

Christianity is a Jewish sect.

See ya mate,

Stannum

Re: The main difference is

Alexa For Australia — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:33:40 GMT

Stannum wrote:

Roman Catholicism is a Christian sect.

Stannum

The first Christians were in fact followers of a Jewish Rabbi.

Christianity is a split up section of Judaism.

Alexa