Old Testament- False Dialectic-- Oh my

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In other words, we should question whether we are being sold the story by the Jews (don't eat pork) - or a story told by the Egyptian elite about 2 opposing groups of people who don't eat pork - since all kinds of animal bones turned up in Finkelstein's excavations - except pigs? Finkelstein also doesn't find a sudden appearance of new peoples hence the reason why Genesis refers to "Canaanites"?
That's correct. The people of Canaan weren't eating pork at the time that they were polytheists. The business about Noah and Ham (is this porky name a bizarre coincidence?) was needed to disassociate the true identity of the Canaanites from the peoples minds with their now (sardonically) superior new identity of having origins of being the descendants of slaves of the Egyptians. Abraham's god, whose correct name he didn't know, told him that his descendants would first have to be slaves for (yes - both) 4 generations and 400 years in Egypt. Who was left around to gainsay this by the time of the Babylonian Exile? There is no evidence for such slaves in Egypt, unless one wants to consider such as the Shasu nomads from parts such as Moab. And that much of the Egyptian based narrative is also a paean to the Hyksos period.

BTW, the Egyptians were also categorized as being of the descent of Canaan, this being convenient within the contemporaneous geopolitical milieu of the Persians, who would soon come to control Egypt.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
And look at how much basic background stuff I'm needing to explain here.
The original paragraph in question, from the post, was like this:

With the relatively recent ‘return’ to Zion, we are all thus dragged back to the typological milieu, if not the actual scene, of the original identity crime. As we are told: as a result of some inanely obscure interaction of Ham with his drunken father, Noah, all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants were unceremoniously kicked out of the fellowship of Semites (Genesis 9:18-27).
Which might have been easier to understand if we'd done this:

According to the authors (or redactors) of Genesis 9:18-27: all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants were unceremoniously kicked out of the fellowship of Semites, as as a result of some inanely obscure interaction of Ham with his drunken father, Noah.​

Thus avoiding a digression into the concept of modern day recreations of this 'identity crime' and keeping the focus of this one paragraph on the Genesis story.

At the very last paragraph of this section of the introduction, here:

And now these new occupiers of Zion, using the Tanakh as their dubious historical basis, have the chutzpah to claim that they are indeed Semites when their group identity, that of the Ashkenazim, is clearly stated otherwise in the very same holy ‘history’ book. As per Genesis 10:3, Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer, a grandson of Shem’s brother Japheth; while Abraham and all the Israelites were descended from Shem, the original Semite. The present farce, then, is a near perfect and ironic redux of the original. And you can be sure the new Zionists aren’t there for their health, but rather because our human shepherds have a rapturously global plan in mind for them, to be revealed – apocalyptically, in line with both the Jesuit Futurist End Times and the Schofield evangelical system.
We now are discussing again the modern return to Zion with its strange 'typological' parallels to Genesis, and with a bit more context. But the modern-day parallels aren't necessarily the main topic of the section, nor the entire article series. So I think it might be appropriate to supply some more material than in this relatively short paragraph, and perhaps a link to another article. The article on this site about Kipling's poem 'Burden of Jerusalem' touches on this, but rather obliquely.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Struggling to find any significance/relevance of this relating to the overall article. Apparently, Hebrew and Arabic language both came from Greek in actuality, which is Indo-European. The Torah was also probably authored in Egyptian before?
What I'm trying to relate to you, also in the entire subtext of the Introduction, is that, as with Alice in Wonderland, nothing is what it seems, and especially here with so-called ethnicity. I'm not sure how you derived that Hebrew and Arabic derive from Greek, from what I said in this paragraph. Maybe you are extrapolating a bridge too far from that Abraham was Hittite? The Torah was probably authored in the Canaanite dialect of Hebrew, redacted from Canaanite Judean and Israelite tribal dialects, and cribbed Mesopotamian myths.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Is my understanding correct: their monotheistic religion is what identifies the Jews - and they allowed gentiles to join their religious house - though not as easy as later joining the Christians? And the Flavians were purporting a separate ethnic identity? But that was later, so is there any evidence that the Egyptians/Hittites (or whoever) were purporting the same at earlier stages in history? AFAIK, Josephus is the only history of the Jews we have - before that they are just mentioned in passing in Greek sources of the 3rd century BC and after. So a few interesting facts stated, but does the above offer any support to the main thesis of a false dialectic? One could argue that the Roman viewpoint was based on the histories passed down to them, I suppose.
It is the propagandized theocratic history that created the fake ethnicity of the Jews, separating them out from the rest of humanity, including other Semites. Under the so-called Judeo-Christian system then, the Jews are a separate identity. Beyond claiming that adding the contextual confusion of 'gentile', which really means 'noble' or 'elite' with that of 'goyim' (two terms that don't mean the same thing, as the latter applies to any non-Jew) I am not claiming that the Flavians were purporting yet another identity.

There is evidence of (polytheistic) Jews having existed at Elephantine Island, on the Nile, and based upon the widespread distributions of Jews such as in Babylon (Baghdad), Persia, and elsewhere that is consistent with the biblical accounts I think that it is fair to assume that the substrate of their annalistic history is generally correct sans the propagandic attempt to depict them as having started out as monotheists or even monolotrists.

Furthermore, one can clearly see that the attempts to convert by various brutalities are fair evidence that this is what indeed happened. The Assyrian stele and such corroborate that such as the typical practice of relocation (of the Lost Tribes) occurred. They are not Lost BTW. The archaeology also supports that the various Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns occurred.

The dialectic exists, as everyone admits (and I assume you?), but if the dialectic is only organic (true) then we are forced to either admit that the claimed divine god caused it per the narrative, or that the man-made iterative theological process (driven by mundane and prosaic circumstantial political exigencies) described by Wright in The Evolution of God is what created this Perfect Storm. A Perfect Storm which has at its basis numerous stated ambitions for achieving a global synthesis as its end.

So when you find Moses Hadas waxing on about the efforts of such as Livy, Virgil, Horace, et al. - about using 'Mosaic' typology to construct the Roman imperial edifice for Christ Augustus, then you might start to get suspicious. Especially when Hadas tells about contemporaneous accusations that Livy's works on law looked too Judaic. Hmmm Livy the Levite? Also similar claims that Horace's parents were Jews, making Horace what?

There is a story that when the original Romans arrived on the Italian peninsula they were horrified at the licentious, polyamorous marital practices of the Etruscans. Hmmm, very interesting.

In this light, about dubious ethnicities, one might even wonder if the Pope is Catholic? I don't know, is he? Any critical scholar, using textual analysis can tell you that Jesus, fictional or not, was certainly not Christian, loving or universalist. By my definition, Jesus might be both Jewish and gentil.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Not sure I understand? Levi = first Jews and the rest of the tribes were not yet converted?
The non-existent (at least as far as the alleged account wants us to believe) Moses and Aaron were said to be Levites, the descendants of Levi, supposedly one of the sons of Jacob.

The Jews descend from Judah, one of Levi's alleged brothers. The Jews were a tribe of Judea, along with one or two others, while the rest were the tribes of Israelite Canaan (to the north).

In the alleged Conquest, by Joshua (the original type for Jesus), all the tribes were to be assigned their own territory, except for that of Levi. These latter were to be distributed amongst all the others to act as their priests. They were the ones who, on a monthly rotational basis run the ritual (barbecue) activities at the Jerusalem Temple. These are the people, I assert, that were assigned to the indigenous people to convert them by one means or another, including elimination by one means or another if necessary.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
What was the first parallel - and was it typological? The middle of this paragraph seems somewhat incoherent or missing context. What exactly can we deduce about the mention of African descendents - and what time period was this? The Euro-American slavery wasn't until the middle ages?
Good question. This paragraph was moved around a lot, and thus the lead in has lost its original context. I can't remember what it originally was but I think there is a typological parallel earlier in Genesis it was referring to.

I was hoping to put such digressions into something that appears as sidebars (or linked static pages). I like such things, for drawing contextual linkages over time and such, but it appears that most people don't. In any case, I am referring to America, as your question states, and is why I used the term 'Euro-American'. That's why I first used the word 'later'. I should have been more descriptive, like 'much later'.

This is why I hate writing.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
OK, so I'm lagging way behind you two, but have been attempting a re-write of the first section to incorporate some of the new information and context that was brought out, and to hopefully improve clarity. Here's what I've come up with:

_____________

This post is the introduction to a series focusing on the origins and intentions of the Old Testament (in Christian parlance), or the Tanakh (in the Judaic). With some minor exceptions this series will generally focus on the narratives of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon, the so-called Divided Monarchy, and the Babylonian Exile. These narratives formed the core of the transitional Judaic Temple Cult, as it was restored to Judea under the Persians. This, in turn, became the basis of manipulation for the Seleucid Greeks, and then the Romans, in their ongoing efforts to integrate a new and 'approved' Judaism into an overarching social control mechanism.

The Old Testament also forms the basis of the primary false dialectic of Western civilization, namely that of the Gentile versus the Jew. We are referring here to the continual battle between Greek, Roman, and later Christian peoples, on the one side, against the Jewish people and their later proxies, the Islamics. On the Greek and Roman side of the conflict, the defining documents were the Homeric corpus, including the tales of Castor and Pollux and their typological parallels, Romulus and Remus. These collectively formed a sort of bible to the Greco-Roman world; that is, until supplanted by the New Testament.

It is this contrived oppositional thread of tension that runs continuously through our collective historical narratives, since the time fictively attributed for Moses. This 'clash of civilizations' keeps the majority distracted from what really matters, and constantly blaming institutionalized scapegoats for real or perceived problems.

The sad irony here is that some modern day Jews complain that they have been, and still are, scapegoats for the evils of their superiors in Christian-dominated realms. We find this ironic because we assert that, within the Western schema, this was indeed the assigned role of the Jewish people from day one of their troubled existence. The responsible parties for creating this role were the 'real wise guys', the Persian 'magi' redactors of the Old Testament, and perhaps the Egyptians and Hittites going before them. In carrying out this 'assignment', the Jews have been progressively and 'romantically' encouraged by their various prophets (such as Isaiah and later rabbis) to collectively adopt the metaphoric mantle of the Suffering Servant, for atonement's sake, and for the eventual betterment of all humanity. Importantly, this same victimological mantle was claimed by Christianity for Christ.

In a nutshell, we believe that the Judaic, and then the Christian narratives, their respective theologies, and even their 'ethnic identities', have been progressively tweaked so as to continually pit two otherwise similar (or maybe even otherwise identical) groups of ordinary peasant peoples against each other, so as to profitably disguise the elite sponsors, the oligarchs du jour. This tweaking was masterfully done via numerous figurative 'sleight of hand' techniques ranging from the literary domain to various psychological and physical brutalities, not a few of which have been put to use again in more modern times.

The contrived creation of this dialectic is initially achieved wherein we find, with the Mosaic Law and Pentateuch, a radical new society formed with hundreds of its laws and customs inverted from those of the surrounding 'heathens' such as Egypt, and even from that of the surrounding fellow Semitic tribes (Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, pp. 55-74). The combination of these new laws and customs, plus the nationalistic narrative of the Torah, plus their new god Yahweh, made this new society of transformed heathens into an exclusively 'chosen' Elect. It was this demanding and curious singular god, Yahweh, who inscrutably preferred this particular group for the revelation of his latest plan for how humans should relate to each other and to him. But such a God, with his demands for singular fealty, and his lovingly wielded carrot and his iron rod, went provocatively against the widespread grain of tolerantly syncretistic polytheism which prevailed before him.

So, let us reflect upon what happens when either one individual or an entire group is set high up on a pedestal above all others, while rejecting all others' customs and cultures. Hmmm ... How to lose friends and enrage enemies? This is not to say that many, such as women, didn't find attractive features (for instance, monogamy) in this radically new religious and social paradigm. A variety of such attractive forms of Judaism eventually came to achieve approximately 10 percent of the Roman Empire's population. But later on we'll see that the Romans also portrayed themselves as another exclusive set of Chosen people. However, they played a seemingly (but not really) opposite game of overtly absorbing others' gods, and then even the Jews' god, who finally supplanted all the others. That is, the Homeric and Roman polytheistic religious traditions and philosophy were syncretized with Judaic monotheism to form Christianity. This, in time, became the dominant religion of the entire Empire, and remained as an heritage to medieval Europe and beyond.

And while creating Christianity, the Romans purposely left a remnant of the Jewish god's people as a controlled opposition to themselves. That is, the Romans created Rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism, as a unified and defanged successor to the many earlier Judaic sects, some of which had become quite radical. In fact, this may have been done not only to solve the immediate challenges of the day, i.e. repressing and co-opting (supposedly organic) violent Judaic nationalism, but also because of its potential utility throughout the Roman empire, and perhaps with an eye towards manipulating circumstances yet to come. This is how elites typically and systematically co-opt and control the masses, via such tried and true human shepherding techniques.

In the Old Testament narrative, other gods were either absorbed into the one Judaic god, or the new god was equated with the Canaanite heavenly god, El. The redactors pretended that this was always the case, claiming that all other gods had always been false. Thus, we now see confusing claims that 'God' and 'Gods' mean the same thing. That is, in translations, the plural word 'elohim' for the sibling 'gods' is frequently conflated with the singular, 'El', as it is claimed that the plural form is used in context as if it were singular.

Prior to this imposition of monotheism, societies warred against each other for the vanities and ambitions of their rulers, but never because of religious problems regarding other peoples' equivalent gods. In fact, such equivalent gods from different societies were typically seen as the very same divine entities whom were simply known respectively by different culturally appropriate names. But ever since this new and supposedly benevolent and loving god, or his human creators rather, made himself the exclusive god of gods, we have had nothing but religious based rancor and strife. Except, that is, during the good ol' Dark Ages of feudalism, when a single God reigned over all Western civilization, and where everyone knew their fixed place in the Judeo-Christian caste system. (Oops, we forgot Islam.)
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
And today we are still left contending with the legacy of this 'seeming' mother of all cultural wars appearing to stem from that 'Father loved them best', and that those 'others' are too good to join us for supper. The conflict, of course, has grown more complex, as new players (such as the aforementioned Islamics, and then Protestants of various types), have joined the fray. Geopolitical conflicts masquerade as theological disputes about the 'true' nature of this seemingly overly particularist and mysterious god, and the culturally crucial issue of whether one has had their foreskin clipped for him or not. While the latter aspect has been somewhat 'bandaged over', we are all still left with this God's planed Apocalypse hanging over us, like the sword of Damocles. "We will all fry together when we fry", in any universal holocaust, whether or not we feel ourselves individually under his sway anymore. Or, we may be subsumed into a global empire, run by the elite, based on these ancient premises. Again from Isaiah:

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:10-12 KJV)

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. (Romans 11:19 KJV)

As discussed in Caesar's Messiah, the Flavian Roman Emperors had a little help from their elite 'Jewish' friends as they grafted themselves on to Isaiah's Root of Jesse. As is widely known, the 'Jewish' Philo crafted the philosophical underpinnings of the merger of Judaism and Hellenism. His 'Jewish' nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, exhibiting even less tribal loyalty to his clan of chosen people, led a Roman legion against the Jews of Palestine for the Flavians in the Jewish War. In that war, Josephus's subtext in his accounts makes it clear he was a double agent -- undermining his alleged compatriots, the Jews, while aiding his master Romans at every turn.

So who were these 'almost Jewish' people? By asking this question, we are not saying that such as Josephus and Philo were not Jews as we 'commonly' understand the term. That is, in terms of their theological beliefs, they almost certainly were. But all of these alleged Jews seem to be linked to the Herodian usurpers of the Judaic throne, and their Roman allies, at least typologically, if not genetically. At this elite level, group allegiance as 'Jew' or 'Roman' (that is, 'Gentile') seems to have been a contrivance.

And furthermore: who was this Jesse, and why was his son David anointed into Judaic royalty (1 Samuel 16)? Jesse is the stated father of King David. He married a Moabite woman, Ruth, and David was the son of this partnership. Thus even David violated the supposed matrilineal laws for becoming a Jew. What does this say about Solomon, or Jesus for that matter? Again, we find the categories are an artificial contrivance.

These are the sorts of questions and issues we will be addressing with these posts. Of course, this is a radical proposal that will require the reader to drop their contextual presuppositions and cultural biases in order to grasp the new Postflavian framework. We hope you will bear with us as we continue.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Speculation about the motives of the oligarchs in creating/maintaining the Jewish myth?
I guess that all depends on one's interpretation of 'speculation'. Do you have other possible motives or mechanisms besides our primary ones, i.e. political, social control (power) and accumulation of disproportionate wealth?

Traditional Christianity, which is crypto-Platonism, was not shy in asserting the proper order of society, the ancien regime, not much different than Buddhism's and Hinduism's caste systems, of which there have been many proponents of there having once been a benevolent caste system where everyone had their dignity and could live decently. Maybe so in the depths of pre-history, but otherwise I'm not aware of any such benevolent societies of kings other than, in the latter case, a few exceptions to the rule.

The ecclesia of the Catholic church has been a continual cesspool of debauched corruption, and as James Carroll, a former Catholic priest detailed in Constantine's Sword, the contiguous (Augustine through today) theological precepts of Catholicism depends on maintaining the concept of the Jew as a necessary dialectical demon. He just allows that this was an unfortunate consequence of how Christians initially defined themselves.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Again, not sure what the significance of "Semite" is? Why would they want to claim this - dubious or otherwise? I've never heard of the "Schofield evangelical system", but sounds interesting. And I guess you figured out the Jesuits are the current Oligarchs? Not sure what their future plans entail, though I heard they would like to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem and possibly destroy the Vatican.
According to the strict rules of Judaism, you can't be a Jew unless your mother, at least, was a Jew. This thus extends back to being a Semitic (Shemitic) descendant of Shem. You cannot immigrate (Return) to Israel (Zion) unless you are a technical Jew. The Ashkenazi, in the Genesis geneologies state that they do not descend from Shem. Do you see the problem?

OK, I took care of Scofield.

No I do not think the Jesuits are the oligarchs, just their employees. The current pope is a Jesuit, and some believe there is a ~500? year old prophecy that this one will be the last pope. That's why I say that there will be a fake assassination of Francis when he comes to speak before Congress shortly. again, start with Rulers of Evil.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The original paragraph in question, from the post, was like this:



Which might have been easier to understand if we'd done this:

According to the authors (or redactors) of Genesis 9:18-27: all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants were unceremoniously kicked out of the fellowship of Semites, as as a result of some inanely obscure interaction of Ham with his drunken father, Noah.​

Thus avoiding a digression into the concept of modern day recreations of this 'identity crime' and keeping the focus of this one paragraph on the Genesis story.

At the very last paragraph of this section of the introduction, here:



We now are discussing again the modern return to Zion with its strange 'typological' parallels to Genesis, and with a bit more context. But the modern-day parallels aren't necessarily the main topic of the section, nor the entire article series. So I think it might be appropriate to supply some more material than in this relatively short paragraph, and perhaps a link to another article. The article on this site about Kipling's poem 'Burden of Jerusalem' touches on this, but rather obliquely.
Point well taken, however, I still prefer having my digressions. Just need to identify them better through various means. IMHO
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
And today we are still left contending with the legacy of this 'seeming' mother of all cultural wars appearing to stem from that 'Father loved them best', and that those 'others' are too good to join us for supper. The conflict, of course, has grown more complex, as new players (such as the aforementioned Islamics, and then Protestants of various types), have joined the fray. Geopolitical conflicts masquerade as theological disputes about the 'true' nature of this seemingly overly particularist and mysterious god, and the culturally crucial issue of whether one has had their foreskin clipped for him or not. While the latter aspect has been somewhat 'bandaged over', we are all still left with this God's planed Apocalypse hanging over us, like the sword of Damocles. "We will all fry together when we fry", in any universal holocaust, whether or not we feel ourselves individually under his sway anymore. Or, we may be subsumed into a global empire, run by the elite, based on these ancient premises. Again from Isaiah:

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:10-12 KJV)

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. (Romans 11:19 KJV)

As discussed in Caesar's Messiah, the Flavian Roman Emperors had a little help from their elite 'Jewish' friends as they grafted themselves on to Isaiah's Root of Jesse. As is widely known, the 'Jewish' Philo crafted the philosophical underpinnings of the merger of Judaism and Hellenism. His 'Jewish' nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, exhibiting even less tribal loyalty to his clan of chosen people, led a Roman legion against the Jews of Palestine for the Flavians in the Jewish War. In that war, Josephus's subtext in his accounts makes it clear he was a double agent -- undermining his alleged compatriots, the Jews, while aiding his master Romans at every turn.

So who were these 'almost Jewish' people? By asking this question, we are not saying that such as Josephus and Philo were not Jews as we 'commonly' understand the term. That is, in terms of their theological beliefs, they almost certainly were. But all of these alleged Jews seem to be linked to the Herodian usurpers of the Judaic throne, and their Roman allies, at least typologically, if not genetically. At this elite level, group allegiance as 'Jew' or 'Roman' (that is, 'Gentile') seems to have been a contrivance.

And furthermore: who was this Jesse, and why was his son David anointed into Judaic royalty (1 Samuel 16)? Jesse is the stated father of King David. He married a Moabite woman, Ruth, and David was the son of this partnership. Thus even David violated the supposed matrilineal laws for becoming a Jew. What does this say about Solomon, or Jesus for that matter? Again, we find the categories are an artificial contrivance.

These are the sorts of questions and issues we will be addressing with these posts. Of course, this is a radical proposal that will require the reader to drop their contextual presuppositions and cultural biases in order to grasp the new Postflavian framework. We hope you will bear with us as we continue.
What does this represent, a suggested edit or what?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, exactly, a suggested edit.

About strict rules of matrilineal inheritance of Jewishness, wasn't that a Rabbinical (talmudic) invention which was self-serving from the Roman point of view, as a means of keeping Judaism confined within a ghetto? Is there any support for matrilineal determination in the Torah? And if there was, there must have been a liberalization by the 2nd temple period, considering all the proselytizing and conversion that was going on?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Why don't you open a revision draft, so that we can place the new proposed paragraphs into, and then we can use the comparison tool.

Re: matrilineal descent rules, yes, I think that was a later gloss intended for exactly what you suggest. Its enforcement expediently waxes and wanes depending on how the demographics are faring at the time. We may have to cut all this out though.

As such, I suggest as an experiment, that we should make two new proposed revisions, with one completely stripped of any external references. The other should make it more apparent when there is a digression or such. Then we all can see which is best - before proceeding on.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As such, I suggest as an experiment, that we should make two new proposed revisions, with one completely stripped of any external references. The other should make it more apparent when there is a digression or such. Then we all can see which is best - before proceeding on.
OK, I'll get it set up.
 

gilius

Active Member
Thanks to Richard and Jerry for their latest responses. I'm just reading Rulers of Evil as recommended by Richard then I will continue with more feedback - for what it's worth - whilst this topic remains fresh. Thanks again!
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I thought about posting this elsewhere, but since I mentioned The Wizard of Oz in the connected post then this is as good a place as any. And such as these two pharaohs below are connected to my overarching schema.

Seems new statues of Ramesses II and Seti II have been recently found. The former at Heliopolis. I incidentally happened across this story this afternoon, and the name Ozymandias, the Greek transliteration for Ramesses II struck a chord. It seems that one of L. Frank Baum's novels, The Last Egyptian, ties a central character to Ramesses II, or rather the high priest that Baum has claimed controlling Ramesses II. The holy city of Heliopolis was the city related to biblical Joseph's wife, a daughter of the Egyptian high priest, the marriage arranged by the pharaoh. Schismatic Jews, in the first millenium BCE would return to Heliopolis and set up a rival temple there.

I have suspected that L. Frank Baum's Oz meant something more than he would let on. The etymology of Oz. It seems that Baum was a theosophist, at least, and others claim masonry. This Xian link has some academic literary discussion of Baum's treatment of various occult matters. In any case, one can discern the clear Egyptio-masonic linkages, which many (conveniently?) dismiss as late glosses by the masons.

...
The statue of Pharaoh Ramses II was found in what was once very close to the ruins of the ruler’s temple in Heliopolis, which is now known as Cairo. Ramses the Great had a long reign over Egypt of 66 years, from 1279 BC to 1213 BC.

Also known as Ozymandias, the great Pharaoh Ramses II once had a beautiful and melancholy poem written about him in 1818 by the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. This poem was also the title of a suitably dramatic episode of Breaking Bad during Season 5 and was read aloud by actor Bryan Cranston over scenes from the upcoming episode.

“I met a traveler from an antique land who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, tell that its sculptor well those passions read. Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, the hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains, round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.” ...

http://www.inquisitr.com/4046852/pharaoh-ramses-ii-statue-from-13th-century-bc-discovered-in-mud-in-egypt/

Wikipedia on The Last Egyptian:

...
The novel focuses on three main characters, and is written in a third person limited point of view, which subtly shifts among the three characters, the narrator speaking with each character's very different prejudices as each becomes the temporary main focus. These three characters, in order of appearance, are Gerald Winston Bey, an English Egyptologist; an Egyptian, Kāra, and a dragoman named Tadros. Kāra, being white-skinned, is mistaken by Bey for a Copt, though he is no Christian, and he has no respect for Arab Muslims, either. Kāra claims to be a descendent of Ahtka-Rā, High Priest of Ămen, whom he says ruled Rameses II as his puppet, including hiding the latter's death for two years--archaeology says Rameses reigned 67 years, but according to Kāra, he ruled only 65. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Egyptian
Look at Ramesses II's Trump-like hair:

 
Last edited:
Top