It is not unusual that in the formation of a new religious system the creators attack and demonise the faiths that came before it even if these faiths was directly responsible for its very existence.
Often the new faith is presented in such a way as to appear that it was created in isolation and/or represents the highest wisdom born in the midst of a world steeped in iniquity. The old faith is painted with a brush of evil and godlessness. Judaism, progeny of Khemet(Kemet)/Egypt and Babylon, branded its parents as demonic and oppressive.
Christianity likewise, drew from ancestral Judaism and Kemet only what it wanted, rejected the rest and then burned its ancestral bridges. Its attempts were not thorough however; the "pagan" traces of Kemetic Wisdom Teachings and funerary rituals, the legacy of Bel and Mithra, Yusir and Auset, Zoroaster and Plato can be uncovered. Jesus was called the Christ, from the Greek Christus. This Christus comes from the Kemetic KRST [Karast], the Anointed One, the titles of Yusir, Tehuti/Thoth, and Heru. The Jewish equivalent is Messiah from the Kemetic "MESSU" on the one hand and MES-IAH on the other. MES means "to give birth", "son". Horus had a title called "MES", making him "Horus the Son". MES-IAH then is "the son of YAH".
SHOULD the Supreme Principle, total and universal, which the religious doctrines of the West call " God," be conceived of as impersonal or as personal? This question has given rise to interminable and moreover quite pointless discussions, because it originates from partial and incomplete conceptions which it would be useless to attempt to reconcile without going beyond the special domain, theological or philosophical, where they belong. Metaphysically, it must be said that the Principle is at once both impersonal and personal, according to the aspect under which It is viewed : impersonal, or, if preferred, " supra-personal " in Itself ; personal in relation to universal manifestation, without however this " Divine Personality " partaking in the least degree of an anthropomorphic character, for "personality" must not be confused with " individuality."
It is evident that an indefinite number of Divine Attributes may be conceived of in this manner, and indeed every quality enjoying a positive existence may thus be transposed by being envisaged in its principle ; each of these attributes, however, should be considered in reality only as a basis or support for meditation on a certain aspect of Universal Being.
it is clear that no doctrine was ever polytheistic in itself and in essence, since it could only become so as the result of a profound corruption, which moreover happens on a large scale much more rarely than is commonly supposed. In the East, where the tendency towards anthropomorphism is non-existent apart from individual aberrations that are always possible though rare and abnormal, nothing of the kind has ever succeeded in coming to light. This will no doubt surprise many Western people, who, being only acquainted with classical antiquity, are prone to look everywhere for " myths " and " paganism but it is none the less true. So far as India or Egypt is concerned, the symbolical image representing one or other of the Divine Attributes, is most certainly not an "idol,"' for it has never been taken for anything other than what it really is, namely a support for meditation and an auxiliary means of realization, each person moreover being free to attach himself according to preference to those symbols which are most in conformity with his personal tendencies.
For those holding on to the words of the "bible"... Know the scriptures in their original language!
No comments:
Post a Comment