Forum

Similar but Different
In Response To: a different view ()

I have followed up on Ahmed Osman's original association of Solomon with the pharaoh Amenhotep III.

Amenhotep III was only a short time before Ramses II, and it is now known that many monuments attributed to Ramses II were actually built by Amenhotep III and later claimed by Ramses II. In my model Ramses II corresponds to Jeroboam II, called a "savior of Israel." So, yes I agree he was a very important figure as far as Hebrew tradition is concern.

Amenhotep III had two Babylonian wives, the sister and the daughter of a Babylonian king named Kadashman-Enlil. Before sending his daughter to Amenhotep III, Kadashman complained that he had not received any news about his sister and did not know if she was still even alive!

Kings throughout the Near East called each other "brother" in correspondence. I take this kinship between Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings literally, but for many other reasons besides the bride exchanges mentioned in royal letters.

As far as Jesus being crucified in Egypt, I agree with that also, at least partially. The typecasting of New Testament Jesus combines the memories of the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris. Osiris was known in Mesopotamia as Dumuzi (and also called "the Gardiner" to answer Eddie's riddle). Osiris/Dumuzi had been brutally killed and dismembered in Egypt. His severed head was considered especially sacred and believed to have been placed at Abydos. This was where the early dynastic kings also chose to be buried in identification with Osiris. Tutankhamun, a type of Horus and Osiris in his own generation also suffered a violent death in Egypt, but was buried in the Valley of the Kings rather than Abydos.

For the Gnostic Christians, Jesus was far more than a person who lived in the first century A.D. And he was more than just the incarnation of Tutankhamun ("Elisha"). Jesus or Christ was a principle as well as a person based on the oldest of known traditions. As Eddie also mentions, these Gnostic Christians were more interested in very abstract notions of existence . Some became so spiritually minded that I suppose they were no longer of any earthly good.

It doesn't matter to me if the Hebrews came from Africa or the Artic. To me it is not important other than purely academic reasons. If it does matter to a person, then that probably reveals a built in prejudice. We recently disussed in another thread the furor over king Tut being proclaimed "primarily Caucasoid" by the National Geographic team of researchers, which it seems were hand-picked by Zahi Hawass. But what does primarily Caucasoid mean exactly? I don't think anyone really knows.

We've started another thread here about Japheth. I'm now starting to think that he was the true son of Jubal (Horus the Elder) and the biological father of the ancient line ("scarlet thread") of kings. But even if scholarship bears this out, that doesn't prove that Japheth was white. He could just as well have been black. Japheth does after all convey "dark" and Ham "light". To reiterate a point I've made in the other thread, we can all claim descent from those ancient kings whether we live in Africa or Ireland or Palestine. Gentically speaking the characteristics of the royal family were distributed throughout the world, and probably fairly evenly.

In the tutorials posted on this site, I present new scholarship that indicates that the rulers of the ancient Near East were the result of intermarriage between two very different races. Adam's race seems to have been a short stocky people with red hair. Eve's race were in size as giants to them and more advanced technologically. But they had apparently been dispossessed of their former homeland (as "Atlanteans"?) and were seeking out new domains.

Adam's people, although far more numerous in their native land, were tricked into subjection and ultimately almost killed off. However, with the rise of Horus the Elder (archetypal "Judah"), the male line of Adam became and remained the dominant one in kingship. This was celebrated to no end. The little guy had triumphed over the big bully. In memory of this event, the small man David would later take down the giant Goliath.