June 28, 2017, 02:44:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: King Xerxes vs Leonidas, Reloaded (Part I: Greek and Persian Name Games)  (Read 11917 times)
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« on: February 01, 2014, 09:51:04 PM »

King Xerxes Versus Leonidas, Reloaded
Part I: Greek and Persian Name Games

by Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

In this five-part study, it will be shown that there are numerous and clear similarities between the main Gospel characters and the leading figures of Greece at the time of the Persian invasion.  Not only is Paul patterned after Themistocles, but James the Just after Aristides the Just and Simon Peter of Galilee after Cimon of Athens.  In fact, archetypes of all of the disciples and even for Jesus himself can be found in the time of King Xerxes.  In the standard model of history this is of course impossible.  The Gospel figures are supposed to be local yokels with little or no knowledge of events outside the narrow confines of Palestine.  They should not have been capable of making a sophisticated borrowing from much earlier Greek history, and especially drawing a slick parallel between Israel as the second center of the Roman Empire and Greece as the second center of the Persian Empire.  But they did!

{A new study of the parallels between Jesus and Alexander the Great has also now been posted:   http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=125.0 }

The accounts of Herodotus and Plutarch reveal just how fully invested the so-called Persian royal house was in ruling Greece.  Herodotus [7:150] even has the royal house of Medio-Persia claim that they were descended from Medea of Athens and Perseus son of Danae the daughter of Andromeda.  Herodotus [8:35] also cannily states that Xerxes was more familiar with the temples of Greece than those in Persia, and Plutarch [Life of Artaxerxes] has a Spartan exclaim that Greeks had not become Persian, but Persians Greek!  In other words, the Persian royal family and the Greek aristocracy were one and the same.

The table below lists the Persian princes during the reign of King Xerxes and the contemporary leaders of Greece who “resisted” the Persian invasion of that time.  The correspondence between the two sets of names would have been completely obvious to a member of the multi-cultural royal court.  No attempt was made to hide the dual (Greco-Persian) identities of the leading princes.  On the contrary, the history of Herodotus (later reworked for Romans by Plutarch) clearly demonstrates that the royal family wanted the relationships to be preserved for posterity.  


Table:  Parallels between Persian, Greek and later New Testament Persons

Birth    Persian Name    Life Span         Secondary                       Greek Names                      New Testament Analogs
Order   Name               (est.)               Persian Names

1         Artobarzanes     540-470 BC      Arta-Bazanes                  Pausanias of Sparta            

2         Arsamenes        535-489           Arsames, Sarsames         Miltiades father of        
                                                         (Ahmose/ Amasis)            Cimon (510-450)                Simon Peter
      
3         Ariabignes         530-468           Ariamenes,                     Aristides the Just                James the Just, bro. of Jesus, Andrew
                                                          Ariaramnes,
                                                          Areiamana

4         Achaemenes       525-469          Prince Darius                  Dorieus,                             James son of Zebedee
                                                                                               Leotychides of Sparta   

5         Masistes             524-450          Mathista, Masistress,       Themistocles                       Paul / Judas / Thomas / Simon Magus,
                                                          Artabanus                                                                John son of Zebedee

6         Hystaspes           524-450         Aspithines, Mithradates    Xanthippus II                      Philip
                                                                                               father of Pericles

7         Xerxes                519-465         Artaxerxes                      Leonidas of Sparta               Jesus



Royal Women:

           Amestris                                  Damaspia                        Artemisia                            Mary Magdalene
           (wife of Xerxes)                                                             (secret wife of Xerxes)         (secret wife of Jesus)

           Arta-Ynte                                 Andia                                                                       Salome                                                                
                                                         (wife of Artaxerxes)                                                   (wife of Aristobulus/Greek Jesus)                                                

(1)  The name of the eldest Persian royal prince, Arto-barzanes, is transliterated into Greek as Pausanias.  Herodotus calls him by the variant Arto-bazanes, which makes the correspondence with Pausanius even more obvious (Bazanes -> Pausanias).

(2)  The second Persian prince, Arsamenes, was leader of Egyptian and Ethiopian forces brought by Persia against Greece.  The Egyptian form of his name was Ahmose, and the Greek form Amasis.  Ahmose was the epithet of the moon god Thoth, who was second among the deities under Re and associates with the “second son” of Hebrew tradition known as Simeon (Simon).  The name Miltiades, means “quintessential red earth,” and is a reference to the most renowned “Red Land,” that of Egypt.  In contemporary Greece, Miltiades was the son of Cimon the Elder and father of the even more famous Cimon the Younger of Athens, who governed Athens along with Aristides and Themistocles.  He was the current head of the ultra-wealthy Phil-id clan in Athens and commander of Athenian forces that “opposed” Xerxes.  Miltiades was then a Simeon figure in an exemplary line of Simeon figures.  The Greek form Cimon is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew Simon/Simeon and also makes for a convenient hypocorism (informal, shortened form) of the Persian name Arsamenes.

(3)  The third Persian prince, Ariaramnes, is explicitly identified (by Plutarch) as “the best and worthiest” of all the brothers of Xerxes.  However, “best and worthiest” is the very definition of the Greek name Aristides (“the best of kind”), which would have been enough to give even Greek-only speakers cause to wonder.   Aristides is further characterized by Herodotus as the “best and most honorable man of Athens.”  The basic form, Aristeus, “the best,” is a name associated with Apollo (who strove to the best, particularly in music, love, and warfare).  Aristeus was also the name given to the son of Apollo, and therefore an appropriate epithet for a prince with an Apollo typecasting, i.e., the third prince in the royal birth order (corresponding to the biblical Levi/Seth/“Apollyon”/Satan).  According to the historian Josephus, the third prince in Herodian times was named Aristobulus, “best counsel.”

Ariamenes was in fact “too worthy” to retain his Persian royal identity.  In order to better secure his throne, Xerxes precluded any possibility that Ariamenes could replace him.  Yet, it was not expedient for Ariamenes to literally die, because “The Master” Xerxes still had need of him.  At the Battle of Salamis, a surrogate of Ariaramnes was deliberately encircled and his body was then thrown overboard.  However, the real Ariaramnes continued to operate under his Greek alias, Aristides.

Note:  The name Ariamenes  also contains a form of the name James (Iames).

Note:  Herodotus called Ariamenes by the name Ariabignes in his account [8:89] of the battle.

4)  Prince Darius was the fourth prince in the birth order and took on the expected “Judah” and “lion-like” typecasting, hence the Greek alias of Leo-tychides, connoting “fortune of the lion.”

(5)  The fifth Persian prince, Masistes was also called Mathista, “the greatest.”  This is a title that designated him as the leading minister under Xerxes.  Because Masistes held this title at the same time as Artabanus, the two figures likely should be equated.  (The name Artabanus occurs in later Parthian history and is associated with the "fifth prince" as well.)  The contemporary Greek counterpart of Mathista was Themist-ocles, one of the leading figures of Athens.  Mathist and Themist make an obvious anagram, i.e., one can be derived from the other by transposing the letters.

(6)  The name of the sixth Persian prince Aspathines (Hystapes/Hyspath-ines) is also an anagram of the Greek name Xanthippus,  In fact, Xanthippus is Aspathines read backwards!

The name of Xerxes’ wife and queen, Amastris, is an anagram of the contemporary Greek queen, Artemisia of Caria (a Persian province/satrapy).  At the battle of Salamis, Artemisia rams an allied Persian ship and everyone pretends that she has destroyed an enemy ship.  After the battle, Xerxes lavishes honors upon Artemisia and no one dares to object.  The extreme patronizing of Artemisia by Xerxes belies her true identity, not as a regional queen but queen over the greater empire.  After Salamis, Xerxes also consults her privately about how to best bring the campaign to closure and then entrusts her with the care of his illegitimate children.  This in turn serves to disguise that she was, more importantly, the mother of the legitimate heirs!

Xerxes (soon to be known as Artaxerxes) had at least one royal son at the time of the Greek invasion.  What he coveted the most was a royal daughter that could be paired with his male heir(s).  Herodotus tells the sordid tale of how Xerxes produced this desired daughter by the daughter of Masistes.  However, the daughter of Masistes is not called Masista (as expected), but curiously called Artaynte (“Andia”), which instead relates her to Artayntes, who Herodotus has just prior identified as a commander berated by Masistes in the extreme and to the point of murder.  The product of the union of Xerxes and Artaynte was the infamously cruel queen of Darius II (successor of Xerxes/Artaxerxes) called Parysatis.  And the moral of the story told by Herodotus is that cruelty begets cruelty!

The patterning after Cimon of Athens by the later Simon Peter of Jerusalem was shown in this forum post:
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?read=10132

The patterning after Aristides the Just by the later James the Just of Jerusalem was shown in this forum post:
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?read=10069

In the following forum post, it will be shown that the Apostle Paul was patterned after Themistocles, "Glory of the Law."  After this proof, it will be demonstrated that Xerxes/Leonidas was the central Christ-figure in the histories of both Herodotus and Plutarch.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 12:11:10 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2014, 09:53:18 PM »

King Xerxes Versus Leonidas, Reloaded
Part II: Themistocles Compared with Paul

by Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

The “Life of Themistocles” reeks of Pauline flavor, and so much so it could even be argued that Plutarch (who was nearly contemporary with Paul) deliberately wrote his biography of Themistocles with Paul in mind.  In other words, Paul not only emulated Themistocles, but the account of Themistocles may have been tailored to emphasize the numerous parallels with Paul.  Hence, we are compelled to write our own “parallel life” between these two figures.  The major points are:

- The Greek name Themistocles means, “Glory of the Law,” and very much reflects Persian values.  As noted above, the name Themistocles was also an allusion to the Persian title Mathista, “the greatest (next to the king).”   In Persia, the prime minister was revered above even the king.  In other words, in the view of the people, the first was second and the second was first.  Consistent with this, Paul arguably became more significant in early Christianity than Jesus himself.

- In his early career, Paul expresses extreme “zeal for the law” and claims to be foremost among the Pharisees, i.e., the “legalist party” of the Jews.

- Themistocles was particularly fond of equipping tents.  Paul called himself a “tent maker.”

- Themistocles was transformed from rabid persecutor of Xerxes and his “followers” to his most ardent evangelist.  Plutarch quotes Themistocles as saying, “I … will not only submit … but will also cause many more to be worshippers and adorers of the king.”

- The sources, as Plutarch notes, are divided as to whether this “Road to Damascus” experience of Themistocles occurred before the “death” of Xerxes or after his “resurrection” as Artaxerxes.  In the New Testament, the conversion of Saul/Paul clearly occurs after Jesus has “ascended.”  

- Themistocles was warned of a plot against his life and took evasive action (by impersonating a royal woman and being transported under the covering of a tent canopy).  After Paul’s conversion, he was lowered to safety in a basket.

- Themistocles was ostracized from Athens and turned to the barbarians/Persians, even as Paul was reviled in Jerusalem and thenceforth preached among the gentiles.

- Paul’s first missionary trip was to Greece, and particularly to the seaside extension of Athens that Themistocles built (where the monument to the unknown god was placed).  He was in effect introducing himself as a new Themistocles.  The unknown (secret/hidden) god of Athens in the day of Themistocles was Xerxes.  In Paul’s day it was Jesus, whose royal identity in the Greco-Roman world was just as mysterious (but just as potent as Xerxes).

- Themistocles was known for witticism and caustic retorts, a trademark of Paul as well.

- Themistocles was an epistle writer and renowned for “greeting by name,” which is a salient characteristic of Paul’s letters.

- Themistocles became burdensome to the “faithful” by taking a collection for the benefit of Athens and the Greek alliance.  Paul controversially solicited “throughout Asia” for Jerusalem relief funds.

- Themistocles was called a hustler, a cheat, a traitor and betrayer, which is exactly how the Jews viewed Paul, who was a master of persuasion and strove to be “all things to all people.”  Paul conceded that his speaking and appearance were atrocious.  His reliance, like Themistocles, was instead on “prodigies and oracles.”  

- Themistocles ultimately yielded to homosexual attraction.  Paul denounced homosexuality in his epistles, but this was “do as I say and not as I do.”  Like Themistocles, Paul was highly hypocritical and he expresses the torment of his conflicted soul (without revealing the exact nature of his personal struggles).

- Themistocles was considered a bully and even a murderer, which is reflected in Paul’s aggression toward his detractors and his “handing over to Satan” those who crossed him.  Paul is also implicated in the stoning of Stephen.

- As in New Testament times, Cimon (Peter) and Aristides (James) were generally aligned against Themistocles (Paul).  Righteous Aristides acted as a foil to unscrupulous Themistocles, and Cimon generally sided with Aristides.

- Themistocles is known his object lessons using Olympic sports, and for being a celebrated figure at the games following Salamis.  Likewise, Paul speaks of running and finishing “the race,” and the great “cloud of witnesses” (spectators) cheering and expecting even greater things from Paul (in the role of Themistocles).

- Themistocles credits adversity for his success, and Paul “boasts/glories” in tribulations he endured.

- Themistocles was famously shipwrecked and also had an ominous encounter with a serpent.  Similarly, these are two memorable scenes in the travels of Paul.

- With the support of Xerxes, Themistocles was trained as a Magi, and as Paul carried on under the alias of Simon Magus.  Themistocles was despised by leading men, but aided by wealthy women.  Simon Magus courted the opulent queen Helen.

- A price was placed on the head of Themistocles, but he found protection in an unlikely place, at the court of King Admetus of Molossia (Western Greece), who he had formerly offended.  Similarly, when Paul gets into serious trouble in Jerusalem, he finds favor from Herod Agrippa.  Themistocles went from the court of Admetus on to Persia rather than risk staying in Greece.  Likewise, Paul similarly ”appeals to Caesar” rather than accepting exoneration and release from Agrippa.

- At the end of his career, Themistocles was confined to a very casual house arrest where he was allowed to have guests and to freely conduct business.  In Rome, Paul was likewise “detained.”

- Themistocles is said to have taken his own life rather than supporting Xerxes/Artaxerxes in a new war against Greece.  Paul’s death (as a Christian martyr) is implied in the Book of Acts.  It is left open, because Paul was evidently involved in a coup attempt, even as Themistocles assisted the transition from Xerxes to Artaxerxes.

- In the Gospels, the figure of John son of Zebedee (“John the Beloved”) is the one expected to play the part Themistocles, but for some reason the “fifth prince” of that day was not capable of the role and it fell to Paul take up the slack in the typecasting.  Possibly that John was not yet old or forceful enough to assume the role when it needed to be performed.  In the Gospels, John does however retain the element of intimacy with Jesus, which Paul did not or could not cultivate (other than in the stock role of “Lazarus”).  Conversely, Paul’s expected role would have been as Pausanias, the eldest prince.  And there is an element of the personality of Pausanias transmitted in Paul.  Pausanias flaunted his Persian (“gentile”) sympathies (as Paul did Roman) and was praised by Xerxes.  Pausanias was very much the Spartan counterpart of the Athenian Themistocles, however in Sparta Pausanias was openly homosexual.  Pausanias like Themistocles was eventually exiled from Greece and made his way to the Persian royal court.

- Themistocles, like John son of Zebedee of the Gospels, was very much beloved by “The Savior/Master” Xerxes.  John and his brother James also expected greater kingdoms than Peter and the other James due to the influence of their mother!  Prince Achaemenes and Prince Masistes/Artabanus were the brothers of Xerxes by the same mother.  Within this context, the name James can readily be seen as a short form (hypocorism) of Ach-aemenes.   John is a Greek form of the Hebrew Jo-hanan, which is in turn a Biblical epithet of the beheaded god Osiris (Patriarchal Issachar, the “fifth son”).  The pairing of John and James actually predates the Persian Period and may have first appeared in an apocryphal work called The Book of Jannes and Jambres, which is curiously quoted by Paul (neo-Themistocles) in 2 Timothy 3:8.  Simon Peter and James correspond to Prince Arsamenes and Prince Ariamnes, who had a different mother than Xerxes.  Simon was shown to be a hypocorism of Arsamenes and again, within this context, the name of the second James is easily perceived as a hypocorism of Ar-iamnes.

- In the New Testament, James son of Zebedee (patterned after Persian Prince Achemenes) is “martyred” after the “ascension” of Jesus.  This helps to clarify that Prince Achemenes (a.k.a. Prince Darius) was also killed after Xerxes was deposed by Artabanus and Artabanus was in turn replaced by Artaxerxes.  There is some confusion in the sources and debate among scholars over this issue.

- Themistocles was an inspiration for two further Gospel characters.  He was not only a famous turncoat, but he also accepted a bribe of 30 talents to effect (or affect, as it may be) a betrayal, even as Judas Iscariot took 30 pieces of silver.   The New Testament name Thomas also derives from Themistocles, who like Thomas was sent as an Apostle to the East.  Thomas overcomes his own doubts regarding the resurrection of Jesus.  Themistocles is renowned for overcoming doubts of others.  Whether these roles were also absorbed by Paul (or played by a separate prince) is a subject of a future study.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:22:06 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2014, 01:31:44 AM »

King Xerxes Versus Leonidas, Reloaded
Part III: Xerxes Compared with Jesus

by Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

Cyrus is considered a messianic king, but his second successor Xerxes generally is not.  Hollywood productions such as 300 and Meet the Spartans haven't done much for Xerxes' image, nor is he likely to be rehabilitated much in the upcoming sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire.  Ironically, these films do considerable justice to the subject by depicting the Persian invasion as a glorified bloody farce.  As it turns out, it was a completely scripted farce.  Among Biblical scholars, the downgrading of Xerxes is partially due to the mistaken identification of Xerxes as the vain king who made Esther his queen.  However, it was the mother of Xerxes that was known as Atossa (Hadossa/Esther).  The only known wife of Xerxes was instead called Amestris.  Those who do see Xerxes as a messianic figure attribute this more to Esther, because they see her as a “bride of Christ.”  Despite the confusion, Xerxes clearly assumed the typecasting of Joshua, and Jesus of the Gospels borrows much from Xerxes that has previously gone uncredited.  The following points can be drawn from the history of Herodotus:

- Xerxes becomes angry with Artabanus (as a Moses figure) for his lack of faith, and refuses to allow him to enter Greece (at least under that name).
 
- Xerxes demands all from his followers.  Xerxes sends the “rich man” away and deals harshly with the man who asks to withhold one of his sons from service.  Jesus tells the rich man to “sell all and follow me,” but he is unwilling and departs.

- Xerxes leads an enormous group of people into Greece over dry land.  He had commanded a pontoon bridge to be constructed and covered with a layer of soil.  He then struck the waters before crossing over.

- Xerxes occasionally sends “disciples ahead” to make ready, but generally takes no thought for what the people, reported to have been in the millions, with him will eat and drink.  Instead, he relies on the hospitality of each region that they pass through.  In the process, rich patrons are bankrupted and entire rivers and lakes are drank dry.  Like Xerxes, Jesus eats indiscriminately with sinners and publicans, simply because they have invited him.  And regarding water, he goes one better by saying his true followers will “never thirst again.”  As the progress continues, the massive throng only grows larger with new followers.

- Xerxes buried nine children (alive) as a show of piety in accordance with a local tradition.  Jesus inverts this rather macabre precedent by raising (dead) children.

- Xerxes “feeds his enemies” and employs other counter-intuitive strategies.  When a shipment of grain headed for lower Greece in intercepted, Xerxes refuses to confiscate it, but allows the ship to continue onward toward its destination, i.e., to those Xerxes is presently at war with!  Jesus said, “love your enemies” and “do good to those who despitefully use you.”  He sends captured spies on their way unharmed.

- Xerxes proceeds at a leisurely pace through the country side and towns.  The very path they take becomes venerated from that day forward.  Xerxes behaves less as a military leader and more like an “itinerant Master.” He speaks informally with his “disciples,” poses questions for them, and often laughs over their lack of understanding.  

- Xerxes weeps over the mortality of men.  Jesus weeps at the death of Lazarus.

- Xerxes approached his own predicted death resolutely, even eagerly.  He had “set his face” toward the point of exit (from Asia to Greece), which was  auspiciously named Abydus (after the Egyptian place of death and resurrection, Abydos).

- A tall, handsome Greek sailor Leon is the first sacrificial victim of the war in Greece, because he is said to have been in the likeness of Xerxes.

- A berserk Greek land warrior is chopped to pieces fighting the Persians, but miraculously survives and becomes a kind of Persian mascot.

- The unusual story of a man who was crucified but then taken down alive is interjected by Herodotus.

-Xerxes next comes to the location where it was said the mighty Heracles was “left behind” by Jason and the Argonauts.  (Xerxes intended to leave his Hercules typecasting behind, as well.)

- Xerxes then carefully avoids a garden that forebodes certain death.  Jesus prays at the Garden of Gethsemane that the cup of suffering and death will be taken from him.

- Xerxes moves on to the river Phoenix (a symbol of death and resurrection) and the sanctuary of Demeter (associated with the dying god Dionysus).

- An oracle from Delphi proclaims that one king must die for the country.  Leonidas of Sparta offers himself up and stoically departs for Thermopylae.

- The men with Leonidas, along with a Greek prophet, determine that they will “die with him.”  The disciples of Jesus similarly resign themselves to die after they cannot dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem for the Passover.

- Xerxes is reassured after a solar eclipse (“the sun is darkened”).  When faced with a barrage of Persian arrows, one of the 300 states that they shall “fight in the shade.”  A solar eclipse is recorded during the crucifixion of Jesus.  

- Leonidas is the Greek alter ego (avatar) of Xerxes.  He must die so that Xerxes can ascend to even greater kingship.  After arranging for Leonidas to perform feats of everlasting heroism, Xerxes commands that Leonidas be brutally struck down and his head lifted up on a pole.  Herodotus remarks that the treatment of the body of Leonidas was atypical for Xerxes, but the discerning reader knows that it was done for effect.  Leonidas was being deliberately “lionized” by Xerxes.  Xerxes was assuring his own legacy as a dying savior god.  He also personally took possession of the body of Leonidas after the crucifixion was finished.

Note:  Leonidas is brought down at a location occupied by a local people called the Malians, which is the same name given to the Indian tribe Alexander the Great was fighting when he was hit by an arrow and miraculously recovered.

- Rather than being dejected at the ignominious Persian losses at Thermopylae (and the associated naval battle of Artemisium), the mood of Xerxes is decidedly elevated.

- Xerxes destroys Athens, even as Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem for its rejection of his kingship.

- Xerxes arranges for a final grand sea battle against the combined navies of Athens and Sparta.  His commanders are against engaging, but are duped into by Xerxes and Artemisia of Caria.  Everyone on both sides of the conflict resents Artemisia, a queen who dares to command forces like a king.  Only Xerxes comes to her defense and honors her above all his men.  She can do no wrong in his eyes, because she is implicitly his wife.  He effectively rescues her from a confinement of ships (Greek and Persian) as Joshua extricated Rehab from the walls of Jericho and the rivals that threatened her life.

- Xerxes declared his campaign to be finished and a resounding success.  He decides that it would only be vain to extend his conquest to the “furthest sea,” a lesson that Alexander the Great would also have to learn.

- The mission of Xerxes was ultimately (and intentionally) a violent, even genocidal, one.  Likewise, Jesus says he “did not come to bring harmony but division and the sword.”  Only a remnant of the gigantic army of Xerxes made it back across the Hellespont.  Most died in retreat or were abandoned, as was the case for the army of Alexander the Great on its return from India.  After Xerxes departed, Greece attained its final independence by defeating the Persian commander Mardonius.  However, “Greek Freedom” was only an illusion.  Pausanias, Miltiades and his son Cimon, Aristides, Themistocles, and Xanthippus were Persian royalty.   Xerxes had left Greece in the hands of his most illustrious royal companions.  Greece was free from direct Persian oppression, but they were far from independent of the royal family.  Athens was a royal experiment with democracy, and it remained under close aristocratic control.  Under Persian royal tutelage, the country was transformed from one known for hot-headed warriors to one graced by sublime architecture and timeless thinkers.

Xerxes was clearly the “type of Christ” in his own royal generation.  He “laid down his life for the sheep,” but then took it up again with even greater glory.  His brothers were not only his enablers during the production of his Passion Play, but afterwards in establishing his cult worship as one of the greatest heroes of Greece.  They also deliberately humbled Greece by orchestrating the Peloponnesian War that all but annihilated the country even as the Jewish Revolt would in the generation of Jesus.

The names selected by the royal family for use in Greece were in no way disguised.  They clearly revealed the identities of their holders to all that were literate (“had eyes to see”), however very few were educated during this time period.  The royal family wished to be known, not only by their contemporaries, but by posterity, and especially royal posterity.  Roman elites were the beneficiaries of this history and carefully emulated it.  During the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, Jerusalem was the second city of the Empire, even as Athens had been during the Persian Empire.  The Persian model for pacifying Athens (and creating the illusion of independence) was staged again by Rome, and with Roman princes playing nearly identical parts as their Persian predecessors!
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 01:20:02 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2014, 01:59:46 AM »

King Xerxes Versus Leonidas, Reloaded
Part IV:  Xerxes Compared with Noah/Solomon

By Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

The role model of Xerxes in shouting down the storm that ruined his ship-bridge was the Akkadian wise man Adapa, who saved himself on the sea by exercising god-like knowledge and ability to command and even curse the gale wind.  Adapa, like Biblical Noah, was alone considered blameless in a perverse generation, and after his affront to the gods Adapa (like Xerxes) humbly apologized for it.  He was forgiven, but in the end not allowed to join the ranks of the gods as an immortal.  Adapa combines the peculiar traits of both Noah and Solomon, and these two types actually were (or became) equivalent as will be explained below.

The Exodus and Flood myths are actually related and somewhat competing traditions.  In the Flood myth, Noah (Atrahasis/Ziusudra) and his family are saved in Mesopotamia by God (Ea/Enki).  In the Exodus myth, a remnant of the people are saved from the Flood in Egypt by Moses (Ra).  In the Bible, both versions of the Flood story are carefully preserved.  Noah’s Flood is told as a one-time event.  However, although this world-wide “Great Flood” was also inspiration for the Exodus account, there were also distinct exodus events associated with each and every one of the major Egyptian dynasties, that is, just prior to the start of the Old Kingdom, at the end of the Old Kingdom (5th/6th Dynasty), at the end of the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty) and during the New Kingdom (end of the 18th Dynasty).  This recurrent flood scenario could be driven either by extreme flooding or drought.  For example, the 5th/6th Dynasty and 18th Dynasty exodus events were caused by killing drought.  The 12th Dynasty exodus was caused by record flood levels of the Nile.  The Exodus account given in the Bible was a composite of multiple exodus events and of multiple kings/princes (Akhenaten and Auibre Hor/Hammurabi, especially) that played the role of the sun god Re in preserving at least some human life during an environmental crisis.

In the Bible, the career of the sun god Re is broken into two parts. The first part of the story of Re “going down to Egypt” and becoming head of the pantheon of 12 deities there.  This is related in the story of Jacob and his 12 sons, who are modeled after the 12 Egyptian deities (Geb-Reuben; Thoth-Simeon; Set-Levi; Horus the Elder-Judah; Osiris-Issachar/Shechem; Shu-Asher; On/An-Gad; Hathor-Naphtali; Isis-Zebulun; Atum-Dan; Ptah-Joseph; Horus the Younger-Benjamin).  Each major Egyptian time period also had a distinct “Jacob-the-Grabber” figure, e.g., Khufu of the Old Kingdom, Senusret II of the Middle Kingdom, Yakub-her of the Hyksos Period, Amenhotep II of the 18th Dynasty, and so forth.  Each major dynasty also had a distinct Noah figure, e.g., Ny-Netjer (“Belonging to god/Ptah”) of the early dynastic period, Ny-User-Re of the Old Kingdom, Ny-Maat-Re (Amenemhet III) of the Middle Kingdom, User-Maat-Re (Amenhotep III) of the 18th Dynasty, and Pi-Nedjem (“Belonging to the Peaceful One/Ptah”) of the late New Kingdom.

Note:  The early dynastic name Ny-Netjer has the same meaning as one of the epithets of Solomon, that being Lemuel, "belonging to God."

The second part of the Re story involves his disgrace (as Moses) and departure from power.  This became separated from the memory of his “glory days.”  The downfall of Re began with his role in the death of “an Egyptian,” namely his fellow god Osiris.  Others had more active parts in this drama, but Re was held responsible for it.  After a period of banishment, Re was restored in Egypt, but found that he was no longer respected as a king there.  The timing of the Flood was such that in retrospect it was attributed to the wrath of Re for the country’s rejection of him.  All the gods of Egypt were “cast down” and the people suffered from the various calamities and plagues detailed in the Book of Genesis.  Some miraculously survived and this too was credited to the intervention of Re on their behalf.  The Book of Genesis gives the impression that a significant amount of time passed between the death of Joseph, the rise of Moses, and the promised coming of Shiloh (Solomon).  It is only an impression, and was deliberately designed to keep the two competing streams of tradition separated.  The roles of Joseph, Shiloh/Solomon and Moses were always played out in close succession and even overlapped to a considerable degree.  For example, in the 18th Dynasty, these roles were played by Prime Minister (Vizier) Yuya, Amenhotep III, and Akhenaten, respectively.  The role of Noah/Solomon after the manufactured disaster that was the Amarna Revolution was played by Pharaoh Ay.

As with the god Re, the life of Atrahasis/Ziusudra (Noah) was also split into two parts.  And like Re, Atrahasis/Ziusudra undergoes a name change as part of the ordeal.  Before the Flood, he is a wise and loyal servant of the gods, but also the cruel taskmaster on behalf of those same gods. He is beloved by God (or the gods), but came to be resented by the people as an oppressor.  This negative aspect is downplayed in the Bible, but is nevertheless still detectible.   The second part of the Flood-hero character is found in the post-Flood story of Utna-pishtim (Noah), who gives up his slave-driving ways and becomes a laid-back farmer and wine-bibber.  The re-enactment of this radical transformation was also included in every major dynasty.  For example, in the Old Kingdom, Ny-User-Re renews his kingship as Unas/Wenis.  In the Middle Kingdom, the great builder pharaoh, Amenemhet III, surfaces after the flood as Aya.  At the end of the 18th Dynasty another legendary builder, Amenhotep III, “reappears” after the exodus of Akhenaten as Pharaoh Ay (It-Netjer), as noted above.

The Biblical character of Solomon is of the Noah type, and the story of Solomon was based primarily on the wise builder-king Amenhotep III of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty.  Biblical Solomon pushes the people to the point of revolt with his massive construction works.  As a result, his kingdom is diminished at the end of his reign as compared to the start, and then immediately falls apart when he is gone.  After the crisis of Akhenaten (“foolish Rehoboam”), the kingdom is partially restored under Ay (“good king Asa”) before an entirely new and vigorous dynasty replaces it under Ramses (Jehoahaz) and his son Seti (Jehoash).  This was however only the expected pattern after a major disaster event.  A wise Noah/Solomon is unable (or unwilling) to completely restore order after an upheaval brought about by nature’s fury, and is ultimately eclipsed by a younger, more aggressive Ham figure.   In the competing version of this stock scenario, Moses passes the mantle of leadership to the youthful Joshua son of Nun (a Noetic name).   The role of Joshua was equivalent to that of Ham/Benjamin in the other formulation of the Flood/Exodus story.

During the Middle Kingdom, the pharaoh cast in the role of Noah/Solomon was Amenemhet III.  He tried to “game the system” by also assuming a Ham/Benjamin typecasting.  Amenhotep III of the 18th Dynasty attempted to do the same.  This ploy, while very clever, did not work in either case.  However, future Great Kings of this type would try, try again.  And the first that can be said to have definitely succeeded in combining the Noah/Solomon and Ham/Benjamin/Joshua roles was Xerxes himself!  Instead of adding the Joshua typecasting to an original Noah/Solomon role, he did the reverse.  He first fulfilled the role of a Joshua (via his invasion of Greece) and then assumed the typecasting of a Noah/Solomon figure.  In the process, Xerxes effectively established an entire dynasty of Noah/Solomon kings, and primarily because this was a kingly type (based on mildness/gentleness/meekness) especially venerated by the Medio-Persians.

The metamorphosis of Xerxes from an oppressive pre-Flood Noah/Solomon to a mild-mannered post-Flood Noah/Solomon begins with the Persian invasion of Greece.  Construction of the pontoon bridge across the Hellespont was an architectural marvel, and one worthy of a Solomon figure.  Moreover, when the first bridge was damaged by a storm, Xerxes flew into a rage and executed the chief engineer.  The work crew was then pressed hard to complete the repairs in time for the arrival of the massive army (“exodus party”).  Prior to the actual crossing, Xerxes not only struck the water in the role of Joshua, but viciously and repeatedly lashed it in the role of a pre-Flood Noah/Solomon.  For good measure, he also threw chains (of bondage) into the waters and also symbolically branded the water’s surface (as a mark of slavery), and all the while shouting outrageously intimidating language.

Across the continental divide, the behavior of Xerxes begins to gradually soften.  However, the transformation would not be complete until Xerxes fully discharged the role of Joshua and underwent a name change back in Persia.  He had to be “born again.”  Until then, the characterization of Xerxes (as presented in the narration of Herodotus) is rather bipolar.  In fact, the erratic behavior begins at the crossing itself.  Xerxes follows the merciless abuse of the Hellespont with a new set of symbolic gestures.  A cup, a golden bowl, and a special sword are ceremoniously offered to the waters.  Herodotus suggests that Xerxes may have had remorse for his earlier tirade and was making his peace.  The second group of objects are all associated with royal kingship.  The cup is particularly an object associated with the Benjamin typecasting.  By surrendering these things Xerxes is imitating Noah, who renounced despotic kingship and elected to cultivate a modest plot of land rather than resume the traditional (Adamic) mandate to “subdue the whole earth.”  The type of sword is also specified by Herodotus as the akinakes, which in itself connotes “transfigured spirit of Noah” (from the Hamito-Semitic roots of akku (“transformed spirit”) and nakeh (“smitten, contrite”).  Noah was originally a tiller (breaker) of men but became a cultivator of the rain-soaked soil.

The name Noah (the Hebrew Noach/Nowach, pronounced no’-akh) means “rest.”  It is an obvious adaptation of Enoch (Enki), whose dedicated servant he once had been.   But the labors of Noah had ceased, as did his oppression of the people.  Noah is an appropriate epithet of the post-Flood Patriarch.  It becomes an interesting puzzle to deduce the formal name or names of Noah prior to the Flood when he was powerful, and perhaps even considered a divine being.  In Egypt, there is a mysterious god or demi-god called Minh, who is generally thought to be a manifestation of the primary deity Ptah (Enoch) or that of Thoth (Lamech).  However, it now seems to be that he was actually a separate entity, and should more properly be associated with the prince subsequently known as Noah.  Minh is called an ithyphallic god, that is, a god always depicted with an enormous erect penis.  This, of course, lends an entirely other meaning to the characterization of Noah as “ever upright” in the eyes of the Lord.  

It also explains the embarrassing episode after the Flood when Ham “uncovered the nakedness” of Noah, which literally means that he sodomized Noah.  Noah had formally stuck it to the people.  It was time for Noah to now receive his “come-uppance” from Ham!!  Ham was not the biological son of Noah, and therefore constituted a different dynastic line.  However, as the political junior of Ham, he was called Benjamin, that is, “son of Yamin,” which can be more freely translated as, “son of the god Minh.”  The identification of Noah as the ithyphallic god/demi-god Minh also explains one other crude passage in the Old Testament.  When Rehoboam was asked whether he would lighten the burden imposed by his predecessor Solomon, he replied, “My pinky is bigger than Solomon’s prick!”  The people, immediately understanding the implication, revolted against Rehoboam.

Note:  Other forms of the name Minh were likely the Greek Menes and Memnon, and the Cretan Minos.  A Mesopotamian or Eastern form would have been something along the lines of Ma’en(ak), “Great Lord.”  See the End Note 1, www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.msg494#msg494, for further similarities between Minh and Noah/Solomon and End Note 2 for additional etymological fodder.

The Egyptian cult of Amun-Ra was heavily pantheistic, but primarily influenced by the individual cults of Ra, Ptah and Thoth, with Minh perhaps being its “high priest” or “first prophet.”  Similarly, the leading (and almost exclusive) deity of the Persian Empire was Ahura Mazda, whose salient characteristics of fire, water and wisdom reflect that of the Egyptian Amun-Ra, and particularly its constituent god Ptah/Khnum, if not also Thoth and Minh.  The element Mazda can also be parsed as “Great (Lord) Zida,” in which zida conveys a sense of “olive (peace, health),” “seeker (pursuer of knowledge),” “seventh (zayin),” and “last (zed).”  The element, Ahura, summons the “spirit (of the sun god Ra).”

Returning to Xerxes, he was the fourth son (“Judah”) of Atossa, but the seventh (“Benjamin”) son in the overall birth order of royal princes in his generation.  At Thermopylae he sacrificed his Judah typecasting (Greek Leonidas).  He was also determined to completing his role as Benjamin in order to assume an even more significant typecasting, at least in view of Persian culture.  His decision to stage the final battle of his campaign at Salamis was not arbitrary.  Salamis alludes both to Salmon (an epithet of Joshua) and to Solomon. It marked the completion of one role and a redoubled emphasis on the other.  At the conclusion of the battle, Xerxes made a token attempt to build a pier from his Persian ships to the harbor, but this time he allowed the effort to fail, and thereby signified that his role of Joshua needed no further fulfillment.  However, as a neo-Solomon there was still much room for improvement.

Back in Persia, some years passed before Xerxes enlisted the services of the formerly chastised Moses figure, Artabanus, to help effect his name change to Artaxerxes.  Artabanus dutifully deposed his king, occupied the throne for seven months, and then yielded it back up again to his master under the name Artaxerxes.  The Persian form of the (Greek) name Xerxes had been Xshaya-arsa/rsha, usually translated as “Ruling over Heroes,” but also more simply meaning, “King Arsa.”  This indicates that Arsa was his given name, and it is the same given name known for Artaxerxes.  Plutarch wrote, “Artaxerxes, among all the kings of Persia the most remarkable for a gentle and noble spirit, was surnamed the Long-handed, his right hand being longer than his left, and was the son of Xerxes.”  However, Herodotus described Xerxes as a king with an extraordinarily long reach.  The “born again” king Artaxerxes had to be named as someone’s son, and he evidently chose to be his own.  He had in effect changed from “false Xerxes” to “true Xerxes.”

The Persian form of the new name Artaxerxes was Artakhshathra, which in Old Persian style was Artaxshasa.  The “Benjamin element” of Aya in the name Xerxes (Kshaya-Arsa) is absent in the new name, and is replaces with Asa. Even more significantly, Artakhshathra is also very close to Zarathustra (Zoraster) and Atrahasis, the archaic Mesopotamian names of Biblical Noah.  Xerxes had survived the crisis of his Era, and had successfully renewed his reign.  It was also then possible for him to begin grooming his own biological son in the role of Ham/Benjamin, and ultimately place him on the throne under the Benjamin styled name of Darius, which had also been that of his father.  The successor of Darius II was in turn his son Artaxerxes II Memnon.  Plutarch states that Memnon began his reign in close emulation of the first Artaxerxes.  Artaxerxes is even known for the controversial introduction of the Anahita (“Asherah”) cult (ala King Solomon).  However, he ironically ended up making a metamorphosis from a Noah/Solomon typecasting to that of a Benjamin, which is actually a more straightforward transition.  A traditional alternating king-name dynasty had been established, and very similar to the greatest ones of former times.  In the Middle Kingdom, warrior kings assumed the name of Senusret and philosopher kings that of Amenemhet.  In the New Kingdom, Thutmose was the name of warrior kings and philosopher kings took the name of Amenhotep.  For the Persians, Darius was the name of a conquering king and Artaxerxes that of a peaceful builder.  (See Endnote 3, www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.msg496#msg496)

Note:  Herodotus (5.53-54; 7.151) calls Susa, the capital of Persia in the time of Darius and Xerxes, by the name “Memnonian City.”

Xerxes found a way to create the personae of a loving Noetic king who not only enjoyed the blessing of long life and continuous rule, but also without the threat of being “bum-rushed” by a neo-Hamitic upstart.   The roles of Noah/Solomon and Ham/Joshua are complete opposites – one is characterized by slow and careful planning, and the other by quick action.  However, in Xerxes the two have been combined, as well as other divine roles.  Xerxes has approached what in later Christian doctrine was called the “fullness of the godhead,” that is, the feat of assimilating the traits of all the gods into one king.  Although Xerxes was not directly remembered in later Jewish and Christian memory for this, he clearly was venerated by subsequent generations of royalty who paid him the highest compliment, that of emulation.  His adaptation of required kingly typecasting was considered ingenious and supremely effective, and therefore Xerxes still had a profound indirect impact on the likes of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:22:34 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2014, 02:28:49 AM »

King Xerxes Versus Leonidas, Reloaded
Part V: Leonidas Compared with Gideon

By Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

We have seen how the Life of Xerxes/Leonidas was projected forward as a model for Alexander the Great and for New Testament Jesus.  But where did Xerxes find his inspiration and the precedent for the outlandish Greek campaign?

This section will compare the Persian invasion of Greece by Xerxes to an earlier Proto-Persian (Kassite) invasion of Israel/Egypt, which has already been explored in Chapter 10 of the on-line book:

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-10.html

In the repetition of this earlier event, Xerxes plays the role the proto-Persian king Agum II/Kakrime (Biblical "Amraphel/Zalmunneh"), who was said to have been killed along with other Eastern magnates in the famous war of "5 Kings against 4" in the Book of Genesis.  The successful defense of Israel/Egypt in that earlier time led to the founding of the Egyptian New Kingdom Empire.  This set a precedent that Xerxes clearly leveraged in his own campaign.  The staged defense of Greece (and equally staged killings of the invading Persian leaders) created a typological basis for a Greek/Macedonian Empire and the associated Hellenistic Age, which had not existed before (at least not since the mythic Greek victory over doomed Atlantis).

Discussion points are:

Mamre/Gideon (Tao II) as a role model for Leonidas (and for Xerxes)
Abram/"the Lord" (Djehuty) as a role model for "righteous" Aristides
Eschol/Bira/Abimelech (Thutmose) as a role model for "fiery" Themistocles
Aner/Phurah (Amenhotep son of Ahmose) as a role model for Cimon son of Miltiades (Ahmose/Amasis)
Could it be that Darius the Great (father of Xerxes) was yet living and had a role in the drama similar to Terah/Jesse (Tao I)?

Withholding of tribute from the Midianite kings as the trigger for the invasion of a great horde that covered the land like locusts as compared to the withholding of "earth and water" by leaders in Greece, which is the stated cause of the massive Persian invasion.

The emphasis on the number 314 in the Xerxes narrative compared with the number 318 ("Eliezar") in the Genesis account.  Could the number 4 (318-314) actually be what is of significance, i.e., because Xerxes was determined to complete/lose his Judah (4th prince) typecasting in Greece?   Note:  The inclusion of the number 360 by Herodotus is less mysterious, as it was the number of Enoch (Ea/Ptah), a highly venerated deity incorporated within the cult of Ahura Mazda.

The three signs given to Xerxes compared with the three signs requested by Gideon

Compare the 300 lashes applied to the Hellespont by Xerxes and the 300 men of Leonidas with the 300 men of Gideon.  Note:  The name of Mamre connotes “whip, lash, strike.”

Compare the epithet Agamemnon “very resolute,” an apparent reference to Xerxes by Herodotus (7:13), to the “wavering” Gideon and the "badass" Leonidas.  How does this relate to the transformation of Xerxes from Judah and Benjamin roles to that of a Solomon/Noah (“Memnon”)?  

The Solomon/Noah/Memnon typecasting was normally reserved for the end of a great dynasty.  What does the early adoption of the role by Xerxes tell us about the royal family’s commitment to Persian, as opposed to Greek culture?

What effect did the namesake of Xerxes have on his role playing?  Compare the earlier Persian king Arsa (Tiglath-Pileser III) with Arsa II/Xerxes.  

Compare Xerxes with the King Ahaz (the Biblical counterpart of Arsa I/Tiglath-Pileser III), who was infamous for sacrificing his sons in the fire.

Destruction of the temple of Baal by Gideon as compared to that of Athens by Xerxes

Compare the three spies captured by Xerxes and sent back to the Greeks unpunished with the two spies of Gideon's account

The striking down of Zalmunneh by Gideon, which led to him later being "disrespected" (and in turn struck down).  How did the surprising executions of both figures create a precedent for Xerxes to follow with respect to his primary throne and also to that of his alter ego Leonidas of Sparta?

The role of panic instilled in the Midianites (Medes) compared with that experienced by the Persian army and navy

The fire sacrifice made by Abram as compared to the fire sacrifice of the "eldest son" of Pythius by Xerxes



« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:22:48 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2014, 01:36:31 AM »

End Note 1:
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

Minh the “God of Sex and Violence”

Minh was patron deity of wanderers, miners and hunters (and by implications seekers and explorers – those that pursued knowledge above and below).  King Solomon was of course famous for his mining operations.  Minh was particularly associated with human fertility the desert thunderbolt (also suggesting fertility), and Solomon was envied for his prodigious harem.  The sacred plant of Minh was a gigantic lettuce that oozed with a white secretion resembling semen.   The Greeks equated him to their over-sexed god Pan, half-goat and half-man.  Solomon was further known for building a palace out of cedar wood.  The sacred tree of Minh was the related cypress, under which he was worshipped.  Notable devotees included the Noah-figure pharaoh Ay of the late 18th Dynasty.  The hieroglyph of Minh consisted of an extinct seashell on either side of a circle.  This symbol has no certain significance, but within the context presented here it obviously alludes to a world-wide flood event.  Biblical Noah lived (and ruled) at a time when knowledge had increased, however it was also a time of over-population and bloodshed.  The iconography of Minh reflects this through his grasping of an enormous penis with the left hand and a flail hanging over his raised right hand.

Minh (like the post-Flood Menes) was associated with the Lower Egyptian city of Memphis (a Greek name likely derived from the epithet Men-Nefer).  Minh was also the leading cult figure in two other cities, Koptos (just north of Thebes in Upper Egypt) and Akhmin/Panopolis (in Middle Egypt), which housed the high priest and sacred shrine of Minh (Khent-Minh).  During the 18th Dynasty, Minh was merged with the god Amun (as Amun-Minh).  He was considered both the son and consort of Isis, but also had other consorts, such as Anat and the desert goddess Kadesh.  Minh also had the epithet Kamutef, “bull (sexual partner) of his mother.”  Appropriate offerings to Minh included a sheaf of corn and incense.

The god Minh was extremely ancient, and far more so than the early dynastic period in Egypt.  The Minh/Menes (cum Ny-Netjer) of that time would have been a king typecast in the role of this deity and not the original deity, which would have dated to the end of the last Ice Age, if not even earlier.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:23:02 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2014, 11:28:06 AM »

End Note 2:
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

The following Hebrew words have bearing on the name change of Noah.

aniy, “misery”; unniy, “afflected”; anah, “lament, pray, anguish”; anach, “mourn, groaning”; anaq, “cry, shriek”; anayah, “Yah has answered”; nahah, “groan, bewail, assemble”; maan, “heed, answer, obey”; maaneh, “reply”; maanah, “till, depress, oppress”; nakah, “kill, murder, punish”, naqah, “innocent, blameless”; na, “prayer, entreaty”; nacham, “rue, be sorry, consoling”; abad, “till (the ground), enslave, serve, labor, keep in bondage”, Obed, “Binder”; Manowach, “quiet, settled, home, rest”; yanach, “let alone, pacify, allow to stay”, omnah, “piller, supporting, covenant”; amown, “architect (trained, skilled)”; aman, “faithful”; amen, “true”; omnam/umnam, “surely, truly”; Amon, “Amun, god of Egypt”; yamin, “the right hand/side/eye”; amam, “gathering place”; amown, “multitude”; ayin, “knowledge, eye, favor, regard”; Shiloh, “unto him shall the gathering of the people be”.

Word definitions from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:23:15 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 266


« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2014, 10:32:47 PM »

End Note 3:
www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0

Fully-fledged typecasting existed even at the beginning of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

The roles of the gods and their relationships to one another were considered sacred in the ancient world.  It set the precedent for everything that was to follow.  The story of that illustrious time and how it came to an ignominious end was played out over and over in each successive dynasty of kings and queens.  This is what gives the ancient world such a high degree of consistency and coherency over so long a period.  Each new empire was patterned after the ones before it, and on the original dynasty of the gods.  Everything had to be expressed as a fulfillment of what had been done before.   Even by the start of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, there was already an entrenched process for founding a dynasty, establishing a court and bureaucracy, undertaking grand projects, and then executing a pre-planned collapse, destruction, and replacement by a new but “inferior” empire.  (See the following link for the early Egyptian typecasting:  

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-12.html

The history of this self-perpetuating culture was also thoroughly described in the pages of the Bible, however it was written at a time and place in which it was deemed necessary to sanitize the ancient world and the former “pagan” practices of the “Patriarchs.”

« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 04:23:30 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.222 seconds with 16 queries.