The Sitchin - Catholic Problem

the root of enlil's name, LIL,
LIL
IL
EL
AL
became the generic god word of mesopotamia, so some references to EL are references to ENKI. which really throws sumerian researchers off.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by undo

were you baptized Roman Catholic

reply to post by colbe

 

hehehehehe. whew.

okay, colbe, i love ya like a brother/sister in jesus, but i was baptized in the name of jesus. why would i wanna be baptized in the name of a religion? blink blink.

Well, I hope in the name of the rest of the Blessed Trinity and with water?

yeah water, trinity, but as an adult.
is this the inquisition?

Ha, ha, no. I am trying to figure out why you would post an anti-Catholic
thread?

You are telling me you were never Catholic? So never baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church and neither of your parents Catholic?

You don't speak too positively about Protestantism either. Your adult
baptism, which Protestant community?

I thought your "hehehehehe" was kind.

reply to post by colbe


aww i'm sorry. i don't mean to offend you as a person or a brother/sister in the lord. i'm just commenting on how the holy roman church's decision to be so ecumenical has caused no end of problems in figuring who is who and what is what. now we have people saying because they promoted christmas as his birthday, that it's evidence that all christians everywhere are pagans and that jesus never existed and is just an astrological figure concocted by the RCC. if they weren't so concentrated on getting everyone into the fold by hook or crook, this would not be an issue, but as they are so fond of saying, they are the mother church in their estimation, so they want to pull everyone under their wing like a mother bird dotting on her chicks.

reply to post by undo

Since publication of The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Ani) by E. A. Wallis Budge in 1895, untold numbers of people have written books, papers, and dissertations around the many parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian King God, Osiris. In more recent decades this demanding puzzle has been assigned to thievery by Jesus, or his followers, in borrowing the Egyptian story, and applying it to him. This includes extending the details to an incredible death and resurrection. Unfortunately, those who espouse such weird and godless theory seem to know very little about the facts available to us from historic documents. They clearly are unfamiliar with the ancient Egyptian texts. Further, the New Testament record, and the statements by Josephus, are regarded as worthless except as evidence of the psychological madness of a few followers.

The Pyramid Texts of Ancient Egypt were carved on the walls of the pyramids of King Unas of the end of the Fifth Dynasty and of the rulers of the Sixth Dynasty, (c. 2500 BC) and constitute the oldest corpus of Egyptian religious and funerary literature now extant. Furthermore, they are the least corrupt of all such collections of funerary texts, and are of fundamental importance to the student of Egyptian religion.

We find that the doctrine of eternal life and of the resurrection of a glorified or transformed body, based upon the ancient story of the resurrection of Osiris after a cruel death and horrible mutilation, inflicted by the powers of evil, was the same in all periods, and that the legends of the most ancient times were accepted without material alteration or addition in the texts of the later dynasties.

The story of Osiris is nowhere found in a connected form in Egyptian literature, but everywhere, and in texts of all periods, the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Osiris are accepted as facts universally admitted.

Osiris was the god through whose sufferings and death the Egyptian hoped that his body might rise again in some transformed or glorified shape, and to him who had conquered death and had become the king of the other world the Egyptian appealed in prayer for eternal life through his victory and power. In every funeral inscription known to us, from the pyramid texts down to the roughly written prayers upon coffins of the Roman period, what is done for Osiris is done also for the deceased, the state and condition of Osiris are the state and condition of the deceased; in a word, the deceased is identified with Osiris. If Osiris lives forever, the deceased will live for ever; if Osiris dies, then will the deceased perish.

The Plutarch Material



First I shall summarize remarks by Plutarch that enlighten this story. While some may regard him as a secondary source, his is the only ancient account available to us that shows how common Egyptian folk believed, much closer to Egyptian times, and not influenced by modern skeptical theories. In Moralia Plutarch addresses a priestess named Clea. I have myself employed the technique of addressing a particular individual to smooth formation of my thoughts. Plutarch did the same. For convenience of the reader I have excerpted all pertinent paragraphs of the original text of Plutarch. In Section 358E he describes general attitudes about ancient myths:



There is one thing that I have no need to mention to you: if they hold such opinions and relate such tales about the nature of the blessed and imperishable (in accordance with which our concept of the divine must be framed) as if such deeds and occurrences actually took pace, then “Much need there is to spit and cleanse the mouth,” as Aeschylus has it.

But the fact is that you yourself detest those persons who hold such abnormal and outlandish opinions about the gods. That these accounts do not, in the least, resemble the sort of loose fictions and frivolous fabrications which poets and writers of prose evolve from themselves, after the manner of spiders, interweaving and extending their unestablished first thoughts, but that these contain narrations of certain puzzling events and experiences you will of yourself understand. Just as the rainbow, according to the account of the mathematicians, is a reflection of the sun, and owes its many hues to the withdrawal of our gaze from the sun and our fixing it on the cloud, so the somewhat fanciful accounts here set down are but reflections of some true tale which turns back our thoughts to other matters.

Plutarch said it well. The ancient myths are evolved fabrications that reflect a much older and now mostly forgotten reality.

www.egyptorigins.org...



Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by colbe

 

aww i'm sorry. i don't mean to offend you as a person or a brother/sister in the lord. i'm just commenting on how the holy roman church's decision to be so ecumenical has caused no end of problems in figuring who is who and what is what. now we have people saying because they promoted christmas as his birthday, that it's evidence that all christians everywhere are pagans and that jesus never existed and is just an astrological figure concocted by the RCC. if they weren't so concentrated on getting everyone into the fold by hook or crook, this would not be an issue, but as they are so fond of saying, they are the mother church in their estimation, so they want to pull everyone under their wing like a mother bird dotting on her chicks.

edit on 22-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

There's a really concrete, confirming way to know Jesus was born
on December 25th. His mother. Mothers remember and Mary who
knew all the Gospel writers and lived with one, she would share
this with them because it is important.

The early Church Fathers confirm that date too. We can know.

The Church wants everyone to be Roman Catholic so does God.

You didn't answer my two questions.


colbe

reply to post by casenately


i dunno
watch this but keep in mind, i think this is only part right. some of it i think she over shoots the data entirely and makes alot of assumptions







that's his omega (last pharaoh) of his alpha and omega statement.
the nimrod - osiris thing is wrong.
enki was likely the first pharaoh.

that would've made him the rightful heir to the roman empire, egypt and israel.
and he would've had lineage from king david, thru his ptolemy ancestory.

of course, i think the "virgin" thing is that caesar didn't actually impregnant her.
and that she was literally artificially inseminated.

reply to post by undo



The Roman Empire was what posters on ATS would call the TPTB of their day – and they did what many Christians fear the (supposed) New World Order would do if it had the power and created a new all encompassing religion and force everybody to follow it.

Christianity is just a random collection of a lot of separate beliefs from many different groups forced into some sort of order, the Roman emperor called himself pope (a child’s word for father) said he was everybody’s god(s) representative on earth and then the whole thing was brutally forced on to the people of the empire

So holy Roman Catholic Church (catholic meaning universal or of general interest) was a deliberate move to make a new theocratic power structure which would control all the people in the Roman Empire at that time and so save the failing empire

This is why pagan beliefs where ether included into the Catholic Church (such as Christmas) or where demonised, its why churches are built over pagan worship sites and why brutality and fear was used to force people to start following the then new religion

So my question still stands - why bother using Christianity to prove your hypothesis when it’s clearly a collection of a lot of separate unrelated beliefs stuck together in a Frankenstein’s monster like way?

reply to post by colbe


i'm gonna pull a jesus on ya here:
if by catholic you mean believers of jesus, then yep.

mwahaha. he was so cool

reply to post by racasan


well i use ancient texts, including the bible. YOU are the one that uses christianity and its many
variants, especially the RCC for your reason not to believe. lol what? you want me to be honest right?
i told a lie to my son and daughter in law last night and now i feel yucky. don't make me do that again.

reply to post by undo


Wisely written and too true.

Both sides have taken the lies they have been fed and run wild on it.


In my own eyes, it's just proof that the entire argument is something designed to damn the lot of them for their incompetence. Not literally...I hope.

reply to post by racasan


So because a Latin based church used the Latin word for father it means the Romans invented it?


Did you not read the OP?


Your logic is silly.

reply to post by Gorman91


take that up with these guys
en.wikipedia.org...

problems with the link - look for Footnote #2
^ "Liddell and Scott". Artfl.uchicago.edu

reply to post by racasan



....so


I repeat what I just said.

reply to post by undo


I would like to add a potential important point.
Sitchin is discredit, saying he didnt know or understand sumerian.
Well i happen to live in a country that does actually have sumerology (like egyiptology), and u do know at least 1 scientist studying this.
He has confirmedx sitchin translations are indeed correct.
He has been discreditet unfairly.
Personaly i dont believe that the sumerian cosmonology is anything more then fiction, but i hate unfairness when i see it.
Cheers.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by undo

 

I would like to add a potential important point.
Sitchin is discredit, saying he didnt know or understand sumerian.
Well i happen to live in a country that does actually have sumerology (like egyiptology), and u do know at least 1 scientist studying this.
He has confirmedx sitchin translations are indeed correct.
He has been discreditet unfairly.
Personaly i dont believe that the sumerian cosmonology is anything more then fiction, but i hate unfairness when i see it.
Cheers.

oh i'm not saying he's not correctly translating the written cuneiform. i just don't agree with his nibiru material, which is a theory he had based on a picture in a cylinder seal. the nibiru thing has been blown way out of proportion so now if you mention anunnaki or sumer or enki or enlil, alot of people immediately think of sitchin's nibiru theory.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Wisely written and too true.

Both sides have taken the lies they have been fed and run wild on it.


In my own eyes, it's just proof that the entire argument is something designed to damn the lot of them for their incompetence. Not literally...I hope.

i don't think it's incompetence. it's just satisfaction. if you're satisfied with the amount of data you have and you don't have all the data, you don't like someone else explaining anything else, cause you're satisfied. problem is, if you're satisfied and someone comes along and asks you difficult questions you will unprepared to give an account of the text. just seems good practice to be sure you know as much as you can about it. ya know?

reply to post by undo


That is just a cop out. You can't prove it so you act like you are interested in my self discovery.

I was a christian until my mid teens when I started questioning and investigating for myself. I came to the conclusion that the proof just isn't there. I did that leg work. If you have something which proves otherwise and which I was unable to find why would I not want that question answered or proof given?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by colbe

 

i'm gonna pull a jesus on ya here:
if by catholic you mean believers of jesus, then yep.

mwahaha. he was so cool

Yep, waaaaay Cool! I don't know why there isn 't more evidence. Some believe the christ was Appolonius of Tyana, but I know that that being or consciousness IS the mediator. People make the mistake of looking for a being outside themselves, but it's only found within. I've never known such an awesome sense of humor. At that state, the joy is bubbling over and unspeakable, purifying and healing. A compassionate best friend.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by undo

 

That is just a cop out. You can't prove it so you act like you are interested in my self discovery.

I was a christian until my mid teens when I started questioning and investigating for myself. I came to the conclusion that the proof just isn't there. I did that leg work. If you have something which proves otherwise and which I was unable to find why would I not want that question answered or proof given?

watch videos i posted above.
that's my answer. i think she does a darn good job of it, too, although i don't agree with all her findings, i do believe she's hit the nail on the head and my quibble with it is not related to the actual premise but the residual information.