Moses PROVED to be a fraud, but...?

[Cerrone]

It's been a while since i've posted anything on any forum, but I made a discovery or a rediscovery some months ago; let's say it's a discovery because I have'nt encountered anybody or anything that put the two things together or even believed the two were compatible- and thats why i'm writing on here now.

For those of your familar with the texts and practises of the Ancient Egyptian religion, you may have found that the commandments of the egyptian faith are identical to those we're taught to believe god told Moses personally. But the fact that Moses was of egyptian origin- hanging around with the educated ruling class who would have known the intricacies of religious conduct better than others- would bring to mind that Moses' first encounter with anything remotely resembling any kind of divine commandments, would have been from the egyptian religion. For Moses to produce a copy of these commandments after fleeing egypt and claim that these commandments were how his new god had demanded this was how humans live, and then for Moses to become a prophet suggests strongly to me that this Moses' character was a fraudster trying to instill the social order of the egyptians into his slave followers. Or while not having every egyptian commandment, Moses' version had a few, so he was careful enough to use them to keep people under control, but not to bring about social harmony as the egyptians had strived for.

Anyhow, perhaps everybody who read that now had already known it, but that leaves my asking myself; why when Moses', a vital pillar in Christianity and Islam is so obviously full of shit are more people not realising this?

That's my question.
Any thoughts?

[Edwardo Piet]

First of all :Welcome: to the forums.

And secondly, I've never heard about the original commandments of the Bible being identical to the Ancient Egyptian religion's commandments. If that's indeed the case, that's certainly interesting.

[Cerrone]

First of all :Welcome: to the forums.

And secondly, I've never heard about the original commandments of the Bible being identical to the Ancient Egyptian religion's commandments. If that's indeed the case, that's certainly interesting.

Thanks, i'm hoping to hear some ideas about this or whether anyone has heard this said anywhere else. Always just do a google search and you'll find the egyptian commandments then compare them yourself to the ones in the bible and the similarity is astounding. The fact that these commandments clearly werent either the word of god or even the musings of Moses himself is evidence enough for me to consider any kind of original merit or good intention in the very beginning of this kind of religious trend thats carried through to today as null and void in that it was rooted in a lie to begin with, and it's definately a fact people should be aware of.

I'm looking forward to seeing the reponse on this.

[tackattack]

I've heard of this before. Of the 42 in the rubik of the 125th chapter of the book of the dead you'd think that they'd be compleely inclusive of a generalized set of 10. I find strong similarities between "Thou shall not steal" and "I have not stolen" as well as lying and coveting another man's wife and murder. I see no correlation for having no other God before me, using God's name in vain, keeping the sabbath, or making likemesses of God. The former group being the basest of common sense regardless of what timeframe you've lived in. Collectively our own individual sense of right and wrong have agreed ,for long before popular religious inceptions, that these are bad things to do to each other. The latter finds no purpose unless you're forming a religion around a single diety. I can not comment on his motives, I wasn't there and I see nothing unethical about the commandments you're speaking about. Regardless of the initial reasoning are they not good personal rules to better your life?

To answer your question, Moses in some branches of Christianity is a pillar of their belief. The bible's OT foundaton rests a lot on his exploits. When speaking of Christianity generally though, I would say the only foundation of Christianity who's lived on this world would be Christ.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for large-scale "slavery" in Egypt before the Hellenistic period. The Egyptian word for slave ( Hm ) pronounced "Hem?" can also be used for "servant." Egyptian building projects were done using a corvee labor system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

in which the commons was kept busy outside of the growing season.


There is a theory known to scholars - if not fundies - that ancient writings tell us more about the times in which the authors lived as opposed to the times they claim to be discussing. It would be consistent with this theory that these so-called holy books were actually written well into the Persian/Hellenistic period when slavery was common.


In the 16th century BC an Egyptian ruler named Ahmose (look closely at that name) defeated the Hyksos and chased them back to Canaan. He thus set the stage for 4 centuries of Egyptian domination of Canaan...a dominion they lost to the Phoenicians and Philistines, not the Israelites. Ahmose. Moses? Too close to be a coincidence.

The whole thing seems like a garbled bit of folklore which was redone by later writers to make a point.

[Rev. Rye]

First of all :Welcome: to the forums.

And secondly, I've never heard about the original commandments of the Bible being identical to the Ancient Egyptian religion's commandments. If that's indeed the case, that's certainly interesting.

I've honestly never heard of that either, but I wouldn't exactly be surprised if they were similar, especially since the Commandments (especially the last six), really don't seem so much guidelines of personal morality as rules for maintaining public order.

[Cerrone]

I've heard of this before. Of the 42 in the rubik of the 125th chapter of the book of the dead you'd think that they'd be compleely inclusive of a generalized set of 10. I find strong similarities between "Thou shall not steal" and "I have not stolen" as well as lying and coveting another man's wife and murder. I see no correlation for having no other God before me, using God's name in vain, keeping the sabbath, or making likemesses of God. The former group being the basest of common sense regardless of what timeframe you've lived in. Collectively our own individual sense of right and wrong have agreed ,for long before popular religious inceptions, that these are bad things to do to each other. The latter finds no purpose unless you're forming a religion around a single diety. I can not comment on his motives, I wasn't there and I see nothing unethical about the commandments you're speaking about. Regardless of the initial reasoning are they not good personal rules to better your life?

Thats the one, the 42 Commandments, Book of the Dead. The obviously worded similarities jump out at you at once, but granted Moses' version has many removed or reworded to suit the activities of his followers. As I see it, the basic commandments for keeping people passive and subservient are there, but the other commandments he removed; such as commiting fraud or judging people hastily, or taking milk from the mouth of a child are as significant and there would have no reason to remove them- if Moses' and his slave followers were interested in social harmony and justice as the egyptians were.

The link below is a quick comparision I was able to find.
http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/Maat/

Are they not personal rules? They're manipulative rules that've been brutually enforced rules for nearly 2000 years designed perhaps originally to create some order for Moses' followers in a new land, but later adopted by the romans and used as a way to control people. I see it very simply in that for these near 2000 years under horrific christian manipulation, the poor man has worked for his King, his lord, his employer and has striven to be pious and obey the rules that the church has told him to do. He believes he'll live his life in "honest poverty" and grinding labour, and for his life of slavery he'll be rewarded when he dies, meanwhile the Kings and the lords have known of the same rules, but chosen to use their actions only for their own gratification and to exploit their subjects.

Christianity to me is propaganda deisgned to keep the masses humble and servile while the people in power do as they please, and it always has been.

There is no evidence for large-scale "slavery" in Egypt before the Hellenistic period. The Egyptian word for slave ( Hm ) pronounced "Hem?" can also be used for "servant." Egyptian building projects were done using a corvee labor system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

in which the commons was kept busy outside of the growing season.

There is a theory known to scholars - if not fundies - that ancient writings tell us more about the times in which the authors lived as opposed to the times they claim to be discussing. It would be consistent with this theory that these so-called holy books were actually written well into the Persian/Hellenistic period when slavery was common.

In the 16th century BC an Egyptian ruler named Ahmose (look closely at that name) defeated the Hyksos and chased them back to Canaan. He thus set the stage for 4 centuries of Egyptian domination of Canaan...a dominion they lost to the Phoenicians and Philistines, not the Israelites. Ahmose. Moses? Too close to be a coincidence.

Yes those are all true, the egyptians did have some slaves (as we would use the word today) though, prisoners of war or those who'd surrendered in battle for example, just as many other cultures did at the time.

Taking about Egyptian rulers, something I found particularly interesting with Nefertiti's husband Akhenaten was his clash with the established egyptian religion- but more specifically how he abolished the word "amun" signifying the priesthood and the temples, and replacing it with "aten", placing himself as the representative of the gods in the sense that he was the only divine being on the planet and that the tributes should go to himself and not the priests. However after his death and Nefertitis disputed two year reign, the famous boy king Tutankhamun takes the throne- and changes the last part of his name Aten, to Amun which signifies the return to the established religion. The Aten revolution was brief but it seems to have been popular, the priesthood at the time being considered corrupt and Akhenaten was supported by the people and the army in shifting the balance of tributes from the priests to himself. But after his death a lot of his writings and monuments were defaced by the priests, and word Aten outlawed.

But what I find interesting in the above, is whether one would consider the prayer word "Amen" to be originated in Amun or Aten?

[Minimalist]

The Aten revolution was brief but it seems to have been popular,

I don't see that at all. As soon as Akenaten was out of power the state reverted to the old gods. There has been some suggestion that the richness of Tutankamun's burial (even though he was an insignificant king) had to do with the fact that the old gods were restored under his reign and people were grateful.

[Cerrone]

The Aten revolution was brief but it seems to have been popular,

I don't see that at all. As soon as Akenaten was out of power the state reverted to the old gods. There has been some suggestion that the richness of Tutankamun's burial (even though he was an insignificant king) had to do with the fact that the old gods were restored under his reign and people were grateful.

That might be true, i'm not saying that the Aten revolution was for better or for worse -it is largely insignificant-, but Ahkenaten- widely portraying himself as a family man instead of a traditional iscolated god pharaoh which is what egypt had always expected of its pharoahs, had managed to gain the support of the army to go against the priests. That itself is monumental in the timeline of egyptian history.

Along with this story, Nefertiti is said to have taken the throne for the next two years until she disappeared, probably murdered, and the boy king Tutankhamun installed as pharoah. Maybe the army abandoned the Aten idea because they did'nt want to follow a woman? It's not important really but, like I said with the origin of the prayer word Amen coming most likely from Amun, it would show another link between the relgion of egypt and that of Moses'.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Welcome.

Nothing has been proved,only some new educated guesses made.


One growing consensus is that the Exodus is myth and that Moses never existed. I'm unaware of any causal link between Mosaic law and the the Egyptian law of M'aat,although there may be some correlations .Egyptian ethics and moral law are not directly analogous with Judaeo-Christian mores.Their entire world views,cosmology and theology are different.


Another growing consensus is that Judaism is younger than traditionally thought. the Exodus is dated at anything from 1450B CE to1250 BCE. It's being increasingly accepted that the Torah was probably written in Babylon as late as the C8th BCE. That at least some of Mosaic law was lifted from Hammurabi's code, circa 1790 BCE.

---

I don't see that at all. As soon as Akenaten was out of power the state reverted to the old gods.

Indeed, his brand new capital at Amarna was abandoned ,his name obliterated, his statues defaced and his son and heir to the throne changed his name from Tut-Ankh-Aten to Tut-Ankh-Amun. The proper order(m'aat) was restored and the priest so Amum regained their staggering wealth and power.

My understanding is the cult of Aten mas very UN-popular indeed,and probably ignored by the general population as much as possible..A bit like the way Christians ignore heretics.Had not Akhn- Aten been pharaoh,he would almost certainly have been killed outright for blasphemy. He has been known throughout history as"The Great Heretic".


Tangent:

@Min: I received my National Geo today. There's a photo of Tut Ankh Amun's famous gold mask on the cover,and an article on his DNA.Can't wait to read it.

Plus I saw a doco recently which speculated that Tut's tomb may have belonged to his grandfather, AYE (who then pinched Tut's royal tomb) AND that many of burial goods were not made for Tut but his father and and Nefertiti. The argument is that by quickly.but properly burying Tut, Aye legitimised his claim to the throne over Horemheb,who took the throne after Aye died a couple of years later.


Tut's parents were Akhn Aten and one of his five sisters,although it's not known which one (established though DNA testing) It is now though common Egyptian Royal incest may have been the cause of Tut's death at age 19 due to genetic defects..