Thoth....
Hav'ah
(god). I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always found a
distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible". My research has shown me
that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating from
ancient Egypt.
What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
My research is very critical, and your replies would be most appreciated.
Thank you.
Hav'ah
Paul Hume
> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible".
Since it is equally likely that the Tarot originated in the late
Gothic/early Renaissance culture of Europe, which is replete with
biblical imagery, this is not surprising.
> My research has shown me
> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating from
> ancient Egypt.
Then your research seems open to challenge, since significant evidence
exists that many elements of the Old Testament derive from Babylonian
and other Fertile Crescent cultures, rather than Egypt, as well as the
early Canaanite culture of the Hebrews.
The reference to the New Testament being linked to Egyptian sources when
it seems fairly clear that much of it derives from Hellenic influences
seems curious...unless you mean the debased remnants of Egyptian culture
by the late, Ptolemaic dynasties?
> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
None.
ilan pillemer
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Many Tarot users believe that the Tarot originated with Thoth, an egyptian
> (god). I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always found a
> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible". My research has shown me
> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating from
> ancient Egypt.
>
Well then your research is absolutely puerile and non-academic. What have
you been reading for research purposes? I am assuming you have been
avoiding any decent library. I think maybe you should perhaps do some real
academic research, you ignorant slob.
> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
none.
>
> My research is very critical, and your replies would be most appreciated.
> Thank you.
your research is infantile.
Little me.
>
> Hav'ah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sue
pagan Egyptians (among others), then burned the library at Alexandria to
cover it up? No....!!
--
Some things are true, whether you believe them or not.
Hav'ah wrote:
>
> Please look at this comparative:
>
> Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
> ~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
> ~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
> ~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
> ~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem, the
> house of bread
> ~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
> ~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
> boat with Jesus
> ~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
> ~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
> ~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
> the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
> ~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the
> sower of the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
> ~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
> birth of Jesus
> ~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when
> baptized; both manifesting the Son of God; both children of Virgins and
> returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life;
> and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three
> thousand years before Christ.
>
> So, there is enough existing evidence proving that both the OT and the NT
> took much of its information primarily from ancient Egypt, and from other
> ancient nations that existed with any influence at that time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hav'ah
Jack Humphry
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>Despite your rudeness, I'll be the decent one of
we two and reply to your
>post in a neutral fashion....
You shall have to get usd too Ilan's rudeness if
you plan on hanging around here (and I hope you
stay, your post was very interesting to me!)
Ilan suffers from Cronic Rudites.
Jack.
Jack Humphry
>>> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
>from
>>> ancient Egypt.
>>
>>exists that many elements of the Old Testament derive from Babylonian
>>and other Fertile Crescent cultures, rather than Egypt, as well as the
>>early Canaanite culture of the Hebrews.
>
>
>writings, but a good majority of it for sure.
>>> that >>>>all<<<<<< of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
>from
>>> ancient Egypt.
Paul Hume
> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the 1100s,
> maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
> were being burned and destroyed.
Whoa - you mean Egyptian writings? Moorish writings? The Muslims did
quite a bit of trashing of pre-Christian cultural artifacts too. I am
unclear whom you posit created the Tarot icons to preserve which set of
secret knowledge - though this is essentially the theory advanced by
Court de Gebelin in Le Monde Primitif, which kicked off the whole
co-opting of the Tarot as an occult artifact.
> In order to keep their information
> UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form
Yet the pictures have changed drastically over the centuries. And the
arguments over how to interpret them as a database of the ancient
mysteries are numerous and diverse.
> but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
> moderated deck of playing cards, a game called Tarocci (which is still
> played vigorously in Italy today).
Tarocco was also hot stuff in the Tudor era. But the question remains
pretty much unanswerable whether the Tarot evolved as a gaming device
which was given an occult interpretation, or was an occult artifact
which was camouflaged as a gaming device (both guises were pretty m uch
anathema to the Church in various periods, so neither seems a
particularly pro-survival choice).
> Someone, one day, turned to me and said that the Tarot DID NOT originate
> with the "Christians" of the Crusades, but much before that in Egypt by
> Thoth...
Which restates the post-Gebelin mythos of the cards. One problem I have
right along with this is the absence of anything like the Tarot
structure in Egyptian sacred iconography.
> I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early Egyptian
> writings
Not to nitpick, but that is exactly what you did say, to wit:
> >> My research has shown me
> >> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information
^^^
> but a good majority of it for sure. However, I have found evidence
> of Sumerian legend lingering in the Bible (man formed from clay), and
> several other nations that existed in that part of the world.
We are on firmer ground here, since the Sumerian/Assyro-Babylonian
infuence on the "final draft" of the Tanakh is more easily demonstrated.
> However, the
> Bible was first recorded during the reign of Ahkenaton, roughly 1500 BC, and
> the person from which these writings sprang is Moses, who existed as an
> Egyptian for the first 30-odd years of his life.
Since monuments, writings, etc. from Ankhnaton's reign were wiped out
after the priests of Amoun regained political ascendancy under his
successor, Tut-ankh-amon, this is not demonstrable. Nor is the mythic
ascription of the Torah to Moses necessarily historical fact, even if
one COULD find proof of a link between the Egyptian monotheistic king
and the Hebrew prophet.
> So, though the Bible has
> borrowed from many early cultures, it took mostly from the Egyptians.
Yet it differs so widely from most points of Egyptian religion.
> Syria
> and Nubia, and other nations are frequently mentioned in the Bible, but
> Egypt is the primary focus, after the Israelites.
In Exodus, perhaps, but Phoenicia, realm of the Philistines, gets an
awful lot of exposure in Judges and Kings. And of course the Babylonians
during the captivity, and the Persians after that - especially when it
comes to the restoration of the Temple.
The focus seems to be more on whichever nation was Judaea's principle
opponent, or in some cases ally. Or simply the toughest kid on the block
in the case of places like Assyria.
> >The reference to the New Testament being linked to Egyptian sources when
> >it seems fairly clear that much of it derives from Hellenic influences
> >seems curious...unless you mean the debased remnants of Egyptian culture
> >by the late, Ptolemaic dynasties?
>
> Please look at this comparative:
>
> Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
> ~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem, the
> house of bread
> ~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
Where do you get Horus as Shepherd?
> ~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
> boat with Jesus
Well, actually, the Hawk-headed divinity in the Aftet and Sektet Boats
is Ra, in the combination form Ra-horakhty, and the number and nature of
the figures with Him in the boat change during different dynasties.
> ~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
Where do you get Horus the Lamb?
> ~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
> the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The trinitarian aspects of Deity in Egypt also move around a great
deal...usually when speaking of Horus as Son, it is the
Osiris-Isis-Horus triad, from the later Theban recension.
Nor is Horus particularly connected with the Son position during the
periods when Atoum was the acknowledged Father/Creator.
> ~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
> birth of Jesus
What Star? Horus as Heru-pa-krat had Seven Scorpions, though one might
conflate these with stellar deities, I suppose.
> ~They are both are identified with the cross
Do you mean the ankh? Virtually EVERY Deity in Egypt is depicted with an
ankh in one hand.
> All this took place three
> thousand years before Christ.
And there are also connections with the myth of Dionysius, Attis, et al.
Yet you do not prove that one descends from the other, as opposed to
pointing out common patterns in the human vision of Deity, and
specifically Deity manifested among mortals, which recur across the
globe and across the centuries.
> >> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
> >
> >None.
> >
> >
> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
> originated with Thoth? From my personal research, I think that I have found
> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll let
> you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
>
An iconographic link between Egypt and the Tarot would be pretty
earthshaking.
> Thank you for your reply. It was nice to have an amicable conversation with
> someone on this topic. Thank you.
Oh, I disagree with you about as vehemently as Ilan did, I just don't
get as nasty about it (g).
Paul
Hav'ah
post in a neutral fashion....
comments between...
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
>
>> Many Tarot users believe that the Tarot originated with Thoth, an
egyptian
>> (god). I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always
found a
>> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible". My research has shown me
>> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
from
>> ancient Egypt.
>>
>
>Well then your research is absolutely puerile and non-academic. What have
>you been reading for research purposes? I am assuming you have been
>avoiding any decent library. I think maybe you should perhaps do some real
>academic research, you ignorant slob.
If you knew anything concrete about ancient Egyptian writings, ie: Pyramid
Texts, then you would know that NO LESS than 3 OT books are directly almost
word-for-word taken from the Pyramid Texts which pre-date the Bible by 1000+
years. Those books are: The Egyptian "Book of Coming FOrth By Day" which is
Genesis, the Egyptian Wisdom Book which is scattered throughout Proverbs and
the Aton-Hymn which is found throughout Psalms, particularly 104. I provide
the following as evidence, taken from the Papyrus of Ani, 3000 BC:
The TRIAD of Thebes
Serapis (like seraphim)
Set and Nephthys (Seth and ?)
Gods of the CUBIT
Gods of the Days of the month, Hours of the Day, Hours of the Night
Gods of the senses
The Sun-God
Gods & Godesses of the 12 hours of Night
Gods & Godesses of the 12 hours of Day
(note: Genesis says, there was evening, THEN morning..., it does that 6
times)
Gods of the Planets
The Star Gods
The Southern and Northern Heavens
(note: Genesis says God divided the lower from the upper and put a firmament
between)
The Zodiak
Gods in the tomb of Seti I (Seth)
Sacred animals, birds, etc.
In a transliteration I have of the Egyptian : "History of the Creation of
the Gods of the World", we have such lines as:
"the things which came into being coming forth from my mouth... Not existed
heaven, not existed earth, not had been created the things of the earth
(plants), and creeping things... I raised them out of Nu (the primal abyss
of water) from a state of inactivity...in the inert watery mass wherein they
were...after I had united my members, I wept over them and came into being
men and women...ruleth earth to its whole extent...Fall their moments,
seasons, upon their plants..." etc, etc...
Jesus and entourage mimick in every sense, almost right down to the names of
the characters involved, Horus, from 3000 BC. I have provided this evidence
so that you can see I spend much of my time in a decent library...
Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem, the
house of bread
~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
boat with Jesus
~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the
sower of the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
birth of Jesus
~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when
baptized; both manifesting the Son of God; both children of Virgins and
returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life;
and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three
thousand years before Christ.
I'd be interested to know what YOUR academic research has to say about the
comparatives I've supplied above.
>
>> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
>
>none.
>
>>
>> My research is very critical, and your replies would be most appreciated.
>> Thank you.
>
>your research is infantile.
In relationship to your kind of response, I'd have to say "futile" is a
better word.
So, if you have something worthwhile to say, great. I'd love to hear it. But
please try to keep this word in mind when you do reply:
constructive.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the 1100s,
maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
were being burned and destroyed. In order to keep their information
UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form - like a picture bible, and passed
it off as a game. In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of cards,
but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
moderated deck of playing cards, a game called Tarocci (which is still
played vigorously in Italy today).
Someone, one day, turned to me and said that the Tarot DID NOT originate
with the "Christians" of the Crusades, but much before that in Egypt by
Thoth...
My current research shows, that there is every possible reason to believe
this might actually be so.
further comments between...
Paul Hume wrote in message <37158C...@lan2wan.com>...
>> I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always found a
>> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible".
>
>Since it is equally likely that the Tarot originated in the late
>Gothic/early Renaissance culture of Europe, which is replete with
>biblical imagery, this is not surprising.
>
>> My research has shown me
>> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
from
>> ancient Egypt.
>
>Then your research seems open to challenge, since significant evidence
>exists that many elements of the Old Testament derive from Babylonian
>and other Fertile Crescent cultures, rather than Egypt, as well as the
>early Canaanite culture of the Hebrews.
I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early Egyptian
writings, but a good majority of it for sure. However, I have found evidence
of Sumerian legend lingering in the Bible (man formed from clay), and
several other nations that existed in that part of the world. However, the
Bible was first recorded during the reign of Ahkenaton, roughly 1500 BC, and
the person from which these writings sprang is Moses, who existed as an
Egyptian for the first 30-odd years of his life. So, though the Bible has
borrowed from many early cultures, it took mostly from the Egyptians. Syria
and Nubia, and other nations are frequently mentioned in the Bible, but
Egypt is the primary focus, after the Israelites.
>
>The reference to the New Testament being linked to Egyptian sources when
>it seems fairly clear that much of it derives from Hellenic influences
>seems curious...unless you mean the debased remnants of Egyptian culture
>by the late, Ptolemaic dynasties?
Please look at this comparative:
Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem, the
house of bread
~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
boat with Jesus
~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the
sower of the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
birth of Jesus
~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when
baptized; both manifesting the Son of God; both children of Virgins and
returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life;
and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three
thousand years before Christ.
So, there is enough existing evidence proving that both the OT and the NT
took much of its information primarily from ancient Egypt, and from other
ancient nations that existed with any influence at that time.
>
>> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
>
>None.
>
>
Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
originated with Thoth? From my personal research, I think that I have found
evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll let
you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
Thank you for your reply. It was nice to have an amicable conversation with
someone on this topic. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message <4mxR2.608$JM2....@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>>> My research has shown me
>>> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
>from
>>> ancient Egypt.
>>
>>Then your research seems open to challenge, since significant evidence
>>exists that many elements of the Old Testament derive from Babylonian
>>and other Fertile Crescent cultures, rather than Egypt, as well as the
>>early Canaanite culture of the Hebrews.
>
>
>I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early Egyptian
>writings, but a good majority of it for sure.
Actually, to be fair, you did in fact say that all was taken fro Egypt.
"""">>> My research has shown me
>>> that >>>>all<<<<<< of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
>from
>>> ancient Egypt.
Jack.
Hav'ah
rudeness as a rule. He'll get two more shots to attempt a constructive
conversation with me, and if he is rude then too, after that he should not
reply to anything I post - I won't even read them after that point.
:-)
Hav'ah
P.S. I would very much appreciate more good conversation, and welcome it
thoroughly. I'm nowhere near a Tarot EXPERT, but I do know my stuff enough
to hold water. And I know much more that ties in with Tarot, or rather, that
the Tarot ties in with.
Jack Humphry wrote in message <2mxR2.607$JM2....@newsgate.direct.ca>...
>
>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>Despite your rudeness, I'll be the decent one of
>we two and reply to your
>>post in a neutral fashion....
>
>
>
Hav'ah
information, though maybe new to you. What you looked at from my post was
only the data from the NT. The OT is riddled with such plagerisms also.
And for the record, the Christians didn't burn Alexandria. According to
legend, the library at Alexandria was burned three times: in AD 272 (by
order of the Roman emperor Lucius Domitius Aurelian), in 391 (under the
Roman emperor Theodosius I), and in 640 (by Muslims under the caliph Umar I,
581?-644)
So, yes, if you want to believe that Christians burnt down the Alexandria
Library, doesn't make it true. Just as not wanting to believe parts of the
OT and NT are plagiarized doesn't change the fact that they are.
Hav'ah
sue wrote in message <3716C3...@nidlink.com>...
>What, you mean the christians stole some of their religion from those
>pagan Egyptians (among others), then burned the library at Alexandria to
>cover it up? No....!!
>
>--
>Some things are true, whether you believe them or not.
>
>
>Hav'ah wrote:
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Hav'ah
Hav'ah
Paul Hume wrote in message <3716A6...@lan2wan.com>...
>> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
>> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the
1100s,
>> maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the
writings
>> were being burned and destroyed.
>
>Whoa - you mean Egyptian writings? Moorish writings? The Muslims did
>quite a bit of trashing of pre-Christian cultural artifacts too. I am
>unclear whom you posit created the Tarot icons to preserve which set of
>secret knowledge - though this is essentially the theory advanced by
>Court de Gebelin in Le Monde Primitif, which kicked off the whole
>co-opting of the Tarot as an occult artifact.
No, no... not Egyptian writings being burned, but Christian writings were
being burned during the Crusades. To protect the writings they had saved
from the time of Jesus, they put that info into a pictorial version of the
key elements of the bible. I have a tarot deck that's laced heavily with
Semitic overtones, another that is more "biblical", yet another that is more
ethereal. But, about Classical Egyptian writing, it is certainly their way
of preserving some very important knowledge: the Pyramid Texts are here to
stay and are iconical.
>
>> In order to keep their information
>> UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form
>
>Yet the pictures have changed drastically over the centuries. And the
>arguments over how to interpret them as a database of the ancient
>mysteries are numerous and diverse.
That's correct. And so, not one deck must be considered, but ALL
comparatively. For example, I took many decks a number of years ago, and
compared all the Card 11s. Whatever symbol was common to most or all the
cards, that I took as solid, or authentic representation. I do this with
Bibles. In 3 languages: Hebrew, Greek, and English. From antique to modern.
Assuming an antique to be correct because it is antique is as foolish as
assuming a modern to be incorrect because it's modern. Elements from all
must be considered.
>
>> but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
>> moderated deck of playing cards, a game called Tarocci (which is still
>> played vigorously in Italy today).
>
>Tarocco was also hot stuff in the Tudor era. But the question remains
>pretty much unanswerable whether the Tarot evolved as a gaming device
>which was given an occult interpretation, or was an occult artifact
>which was camouflaged as a gaming device (both guises were pretty m uch
>anathema to the Church in various periods, so neither seems a
>particularly pro-survival choice).
From what I can tell, I believe that it was disguised as something other
than it was in order for it to survive the times. Okay. Consider for a
moment, that the Tarot is evolved by christians hoping to preserve the
original teachings and truths about God and the Bible as told by the great
man Jesus. And suppose those truths differ from what the church evolved
into. That would be a very good reason for the church to lead followers to
believe the Tarot was a pagan tool, and no one would be the wiser. After
that, just to cinch their point, we have an Inquisition and burn some more
innocent people. After that, who would dare to even think about examining a
Tarot deck??? No one.
A point: Paul wrote more than 50% of the NT bible. He never even met Jesus!
Peter, who wrote maybe two books of the NT, was impaled upside down by the
Romans and became a martyr. Card 12 - Peter the martyr. So, if Peter was
important enough to put into Card 12, then what are all the churches pushing
Paul's nonsense for? Because, Paul's doctrine keeps people enslaved and
encapsulated. Throw in a great deal of torture and fear, and nobody dares to
contradict the system. That's why the Tarot is so incredibly important. It
provides a true link between Egypt and Moses.
>
>> Someone, one day, turned to me and said that the Tarot DID NOT originate
>> with the "Christians" of the Crusades, but much before that in Egypt by
>> Thoth...
>
>Which restates the post-Gebelin mythos of the cards. One problem I have
>right along with this is the absence of anything like the Tarot
>structure in Egyptian sacred iconography.
A while ago, I read somewhere, that the earliest egyptian picture writing
had only 70 characters: 20 of one series and five groups of ten. I still
have yet to confirm this. (My rule of thumb: find something solid three
times, and you can bet there's something important there.) I don't know
about you, but all my texts about hieroglyphs are all reprints of
information founded in the late 1800s. Nothing really new on the matter.
Personally, I have found many errors in translations from hieroglyph to
english. Or even just in the philosophy of ancient egyptian style. For
example, a university study book states that the Egyptians sacrificed what
they were saying on the Pyramid walls so that what they wrote there would
look good. Okay, symmetry was part of their style, but not to sacrifice the
importance of what they were carving there. Such a statement is made in
ignorance, clearly something the Egyptians did for reasons OTHER than they
wanted it to "look good".
>
>> I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early Egyptian
>> writings
>
>Not to nitpick, but that is exactly what you did say, to wit:
>
>> >> My research has shown me
>> >> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information
> ^^^
Yes, that was pointed out to me. Correct, I said all. I mean "throughout
all" the bible. I apologize for this misprint.
>
>> but a good majority of it for sure. However, I have found evidence
>> of Sumerian legend lingering in the Bible (man formed from clay), and
>> several other nations that existed in that part of the world.
>
>We are on firmer ground here, since the Sumerian/Assyro-Babylonian
>infuence on the "final draft" of the Tanakh is more easily demonstrated.
>
>> However, the
>> Bible was first recorded during the reign of Ahkenaton, roughly 1500 BC,
and
>> the person from which these writings sprang is Moses, who existed as an
>> Egyptian for the first 30-odd years of his life.
>
>Since monuments, writings, etc. from Ankhnaton's reign were wiped out
>after the priests of Amoun regained political ascendancy under his
>successor, Tut-ankh-amon, this is not demonstrable. Nor is the mythic
>ascription of the Torah to Moses necessarily historical fact, even if
>one COULD find proof of a link between the Egyptian monotheistic king
>and the Hebrew prophet.
The link is this: in 1887, under Ahkenaton's city, 400 clay tablets were
discovered. The tablets Moses wrote into the bible, are Pyramid texts, and
other such writings. He could only have gotten these tablets from Egypt. But
it does begin with Moses. Research proves that "Moses" lived during
Ahkenaton's lifetime. Now, Judaism states that Moses wrote the first five
books of the Bible (though I know he didn't write ALL five). That would mean
that the Bible's contents in those first five books originated with Moses,
and Moses took the Egyptian tablets and used them to his advantage. His
writings begin with the Pyramid texts of creation that existed 1500 years
before Moses.
>
>> So, though the Bible has
>> borrowed from many early cultures, it took mostly from the Egyptians.
>
>Yet it differs so widely from most points of Egyptian religion.
If you mean the idea that the Egyptians worshipped multiple Gods, then not
when you consider the monotheistic reign of Ahkenaton, which was a
re-institution of monotheism from the IVth Dynasty, roughly..
>
>> Syria
>> and Nubia, and other nations are frequently mentioned in the Bible, but
>> Egypt is the primary focus, after the Israelites.
>
>In Exodus, perhaps, but Phoenicia, realm of the Philistines, gets an
>awful lot of exposure in Judges and Kings. And of course the Babylonians
>during the captivity, and the Persians after that - especially when it
>comes to the restoration of the Temple.
Yes, but Judges and Kings are written after Moses death. Also, Joshua made a
copy of Moses writing, and yet neither are listed in Solomon's possession
with the ark and yet appear in the temple of Solomon 400 years after
Solomon's death. The only Egyptian passages from the pyramids and the
tablets occur during "moses" writings and Solomon's writings. Which is why
Egypt is ignored through much of the bible except by the prophets who praise
Egypt up and down, basically.
>
>The focus seems to be more on whichever nation was Judaea's principle
>opponent, or in some cases ally. Or simply the toughest kid on the block
>in the case of places like Assyria.
Well, after Joshua wiped out the five nations of Canaan, they would be
considered a much mighty opponent to any of the warring nations back then.
But, yes, the docu-drama appears to simply record wars after Moses' death
through to the beginning of the Prophets.
>
>> >The reference to the New Testament being linked to Egyptian sources when
>> >it seems fairly clear that much of it derives from Hellenic influences
>> >seems curious...unless you mean the debased remnants of Egyptian culture
>> >by the late, Ptolemaic dynasties?
>>
>> Please look at this comparative:
>>
>> Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
>
>> ~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem,
the
>> house of bread
>> ~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
>
>Where do you get Horus as Shepherd?
>
>> ~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
>> boat with Jesus
>
>Well, actually, the Hawk-headed divinity in the Aftet and Sektet Boats
>is Ra, in the combination form Ra-horakhty, and the number and nature of
>the figures with Him in the boat change during different dynasties.
Of the Gods known by the Pyramid Texts at Saqara, Horus was the hawk-god.
>
>> ~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
>
>Where do you get Horus the Lamb?
>
>> ~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
>> the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
>
>The trinitarian aspects of Deity in Egypt also move around a great
>deal...usually when speaking of Horus as Son, it is the
>Osiris-Isis-Horus triad, from the later Theban recension.
>
>Nor is Horus particularly connected with the Son position during the
>periods when Atoum was the acknowledged Father/Creator.
>
>> ~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
>> birth of Jesus
>
>What Star? Horus as Heru-pa-krat had Seven Scorpions, though one might
>conflate these with stellar deities, I suppose.
>
>> ~They are both are identified with the cross
>
>Do you mean the ankh? Virtually EVERY Deity in Egypt is depicted with an
>ankh in one hand.
>
>> All this took place three
>> thousand years before Christ.
>
>And there are also connections with the myth of Dionysius, Attis, et al.
>Yet you do not prove that one descends from the other, as opposed to
>pointing out common patterns in the human vision of Deity, and
>specifically Deity manifested among mortals, which recur across the
>globe and across the centuries.
One could prove the relation right through history. Every nation in the
world can trace itself back to five original lands: Greece, China, Egypt,
Caldea, and Phoenicia. And before that? Basically, the earth was of one
language. Gen. 11:1. (Nice string of numbers that, eh?)
About all the inbetween comments on the Jesus/Horus comparative.... I
started inserting the areas that you asked about, but it became too lengthly
to do tonight here, now. So, I'm going to do this: I'll answer the missing
parts tomorrow, or so, in detail. But, I'll tell you exactly where I get
most of my info about Egypt:
1300+ pages written by E.A. Wallis Budge in 1903 and reprinted in 1969.
Three volumes of work:
1) "The Egyptian Book of the Dead - the Papyrus of Ani" Egyptian text,
transliteration and translation (377 pages)
2) "The Gods of the Egyptians - Studies in Egyptian Mythology" Volume 1 (525
pages)
3) "The Gods of the Egyptians - Studies in Egyptian Mythology" Volume 2 (431
pages)
All the information I printed above is found in these tremendous volumes of
egyptian data. So, soon I'll go through and quote as much as I can from
these volumes specifically about the above points, and include page numbers
so you can verify it yourself.
>
>> >> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
>> >
>> >None.
>> >
>> >
>> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
>> originated with Thoth? From my personal research, I think that I have
found
>> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
>> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll
let
>> you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
>>
>
>An iconographic link between Egypt and the Tarot would be pretty
>earthshaking.
Working on it. :-)
>
>> Thank you for your reply. It was nice to have an amicable conversation
with
>> someone on this topic. Thank you.
>
>Oh, I disagree with you about as vehemently as Ilan did, I just don't
>get as nasty about it (g).
I believe that true humility is accepting the fact that everyone has the
right to their own opinion. You don't have to agree or disagree. We're just
having a conversation. But, I won't take you seriously if you pump out
insults. Just as you would not take me seriously if all I spewed were
insults. That is such a sub-standard of intelligence. Those who lack
something worthy to say resort to such petty behavior.
I'm glad to see you know your bible. So many people who do spit fire and
brimstone at me if I even breath the word Tarot! Do you find a keen
connection between the Tarot and the Bible?
Hav'ah
>
>Paul
>
Gary Achenbach
> >> My research has shown me
> >> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating
> >> from ancient Egypt.
And then...
> I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early Egyptian
> writings, but a good majority of it for sure.
"All" is, you realize, the same word as "all". When you want to say something
else, best to use another word.
Best,
--Gar
Hav'ah
did mean to write "throughout the whole bible"... I have notably corrected
my error with any parties who were kind enough to reply to my post.
Sometimes I forget that people will take everything as strict in ngs.
Absolute anything is an oxymoron. I would have thought this was understood.
However, I did make myself misunderstood, and so I have corrected my mistake
to the best of my ability. And, in future, I shall have to be more careful,
though I should hope that those reading my posts see I have a sense of
sensibility, and will at least be somewhat less rigid.... Sometimes I write
things backwards, too, or transposed, so it doesn't make sense unless one
reads it through a couple of times... lol... happens. Occasionally I'll even
slip a bad word, like, "never" or "should". I hope people will forgive my
slight misgivings. They are not meant in belligerence.
:-)
Hav'ah
Gary Achenbach wrote in message ...
Jack Humphry
people who do spit fire and
>brimstone at me if I even breath the word Tarot!
Do you find a keen
>connection between the Tarot and the Bible?
Have you seen this site? As someone who as of yet
has little knowledge of his Bible, I can not
comment on it's accuracy. However it is
interesting all the same.
www.yhwh.com/tarottoc.htm the extension may be
"html", i am not sure.
Also, check, http://tarot-cards.com
Jack.
Tarots05
I understand your search and I can tell you tarot come from China too
Yi & yan
I make myself a tarots deck for canalise energies of earth
if you are interested i can draw the tarot for you
titia
Hav'ah
I have absolutely no reason to doubt what you are saying. I have done much
research into the early history of China, Fohi and all that. I would love to
see and learn anything in this regard that you would be willing to share
with me. You can email me directly or post it here for everyone - whatever
you are most comfortable with. I would so very much love to see your
research on this issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Tarots05 wrote in message <19990416074324...@ng39.aol.com>...
Hav'ah
Totally cool.. I checked out both those sites you listed and found them both
most interesting. They are bookmarked now and I have written the authors of
both sites for more information.
Thanks for the help Jack. I do truly appreciate it.
If ever you have a chance, you might find this site interesting:
http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/
It is entirely based on dispelling myths and exposing the truth about
certain issues. There's a 4-D communication device based on our original
language Gen.. 11:1 and how it relates directly to Tarot and qabala and
numerology, as well as every major language past and present. The section is
called "To the Word" and is easy to use. Kinda like using the Tarot, except
these are in sigil format. If you do happen to visit, please sign the
guestbook. Click "Home" and the sign-in is there.
Again, thanks for your input. I have taken it to its full use.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message ...
>>I'm glad to see you know your bible. So many
>people who do spit fire and
>>brimstone at me if I even breath the word Tarot!
>Do you find a keen
>>connection between the Tarot and the Bible?
>
>
Daffyd ap Morgen
wrote:
>Hi Paul...
>
>I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
>found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the 1100s,
>maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
>were being burned and destroyed. In order to keep their information
>UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form - like a picture bible, and passed
>it off as a game. In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of cards,
>but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
>moderated deck of playing cards, a game called Tarocci (which is still
>played vigorously in Italy today).
A question I have is, what is the importance of proving a connection
between the [Christian] Bible and the Tarot? The whole time it has
been assumed--tacitly--a connection in both history and philosophy
between the Bible and the Tarot is a good thing.
How would this be a "good" thing to have? How would this contribute to
the knowledge of the Tarot?
Further, the Bible itself has been severely critiqued in terms of
authenticity and validity. It's reliability as a "source" or
reference is considered questionable. Do you, then consider it a
reliable source for knowledge of the Tarot?
Daffyd ap Morgen
If, for example a clear and verifiable link connecting the two cannot
be found or proven, where does this leave the Tarot?
Daffyd ap Morgen
wrote:
>
>Paul Hume wrote in message <3716A6...@lan2wan.com>...
>>> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
>>> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the
>1100s,
>>> maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the
>writings
>>> were being burned and destroyed.
>>
>>Whoa - you mean Egyptian writings? Moorish writings? The Muslims did
>>quite a bit of trashing of pre-Christian cultural artifacts too. I am
The problem I see here is the chain of reasoning with big jumps
between assumptions using a great deal of circumstantial evidence:
Eygpt
|
|
Old Testament
|
|
New Testament
|
|
Crusades
|
|
Italian Rennaissance
|
|
Modern Tarot
Whatever explanation we have for this must account (and yes, I use the
term _must_) for both the "stages" of this development and the
connections between these stages.
The more the stages and their connections are called into question,
the more convoluted the explanations about them become.
The transitions between the stages seem to require the use of a third
party or a third factor, usually providential in timing and
semi-divine in nature.
We can cut and paste a great many authorites citing this and that, but
what is it we are attempting to prove or disprove?
Daffyd ap Morgen
Daffyd ap Morgen
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:49:20 GMT, "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Paul...
>>
>>I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
[snip]
>Further, the Bible itself has been severely critiqued in terms of
>authenticity and validity. It's reliability as a "source" or
[snip]
>Daffyd ap Morgen
>
Please disregard these last two lines after my sig; they were
accidentally left in. Apologies.
Hav'ah
Egypt's Horus = NT Jesus
Crusades = destruction of Christian writings (advent of Tarot?)
Renaissance = Inquisition (tool to keep control over habits of Christians)
Modern Tarot = convoluted definitions of original (?) Tarot
My point was this: if so much literature has been borrowed or developed
through the usage of ancient Egyptian philosophies and "mythological" texts,
and incorporated into the Bible, and the Bible has a relationship with the
Tarot, is it possible that the Tarot too has connections to ancient Egypt as
well? i.e.: Thoth? And, if it is connected to Thoth, then how?
Hav'ah
Daffyd ap Morgen wrote in message <37180be6...@news.sonic.net>...
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 05:44:03 GMT, "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Paul Hume wrote in message <3716A6...@lan2wan.com>...
>>>> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What
I
>>>> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the
>>1100s,
>>>> maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the
>>writings
>>>> were being burned and destroyed.
>>>
>>>Whoa - you mean Egyptian writings? Moorish writings? The Muslims did
>>>quite a bit of trashing of pre-Christian cultural artifacts too. I am
>
Hav'ah
questioning the validity of the bible here, I am simply stating that there
is a tight relationship between some decks and the Bible records of supposed
history. It doesn't matter if the bible records are true or not at this
point (that's for later), what we are trying to establish firstly is did the
Tarot originate with the Christians, Semitic Egyptians, or with the ancient
Egyptians?
Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot definition,
but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
the decks.
It's just something I noticed over the years - a relationship between much
of the pictorial Tarot and the bible records.
Hav'ah
Daffyd ap Morgen wrote in message <371805ee...@news.sonic.net>...
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:49:20 GMT, "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Paul...
>>
>>I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
>>found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the
1100s,
>>maybe even a bit earlier. The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
>>were being burned and destroyed. In order to keep their information
>>UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form - like a picture bible, and
passed
>>it off as a game. In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of
cards,
>>but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
>>moderated deck of playing cards, a game called Tarocci (which is still
>>played vigorously in Italy today).
>
>A question I have is, what is the importance of proving a connection
>between the [Christian] Bible and the Tarot? The whole time it has
>been assumed--tacitly--a connection in both history and philosophy
>between the Bible and the Tarot is a good thing.
>
>How would this be a "good" thing to have? How would this contribute to
>the knowledge of the Tarot?
>
>Further, the Bible itself has been severely critiqued in terms of
>authenticity and validity. It's reliability as a "source" or
>reference is considered questionable. Do you, then consider it a
>reliable source for knowledge of the Tarot?
>
>Daffyd ap Morgen
>
>
>
J. Karlin
> Many Tarot users believe...
...a lot of silly things.
Suggestion: don't copy them.
> that the Tarot originated with Thoth, an egyptian
> (god).
And you figure that's very likely to be true?
> I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always found a
> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible".
Like what for example?
> My research has shown me that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen"
> information originating from ancient Egypt.
So far the products of your 'research' are pretty questionable.
Most of the Bible represents a particularly Jewish origination and
viewpoint. If parts of it show influences from other cultures, that's
hardly surprising, but also not evidence of 'theft', nor that the
Bible is 'Egyptian', and certainly not that Tarot was born in, or
derived from, ancient Egypt.
> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
I'll make you a deal, if you can show me evidence that the
world and its creatures were made in six days by Yahweh, I'll
show you evidence that the Egyptian deity, Thoth, had something
to do with the origin of tarot.
Have you ever heard of the word, 'myth'?
You might want to look it up in Mr. Dictionary.
> My research is very critical,
I don't think so.
Your 'research', to judge from your presentation of it here, is absurd,
your conclusions ridiculous, and your powers of reasoning, entirely
absent.
> and your replies would be most appreciated.
I doubt that.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> Good day
> I understand your search and I can tell you tarot come from China too
Tarot did not 'come from' China.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> Hi,
>
> I have absolutely no reason to doubt what you are saying.
You should.
> I have done much research into the early history of China,
Poor China.
(jk)
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
>... I can tell you tarot come from China too...
Tarot does NOT come from China.
The idea of playing cards probably originated in China. It moved from
there into the Islamic world of the eastern Mediterranean. The idea may
have gone to India first and then further west, or the Indian
developments may have been a parallel development, rather than a
predecessor of the Islamic cards. Playing cards moved into Europe from
the Islamic countries and we begin to find references to them by 1377.
The Trump cards were added to the four suits in Italy, sometime between
1410 and 1440. See Kaplan, The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Volume 1, for a
brief analysis of the evidence.
ilan pillemer
>
> You shall have to get usd too Ilan's rudeness if
> you plan on hanging around here (and I hope you
> stay, your post was very interesting to me!)
>
> Ilan suffers from Cronic Rudites.
Is that Chronic, Kronic or Cronic?
Little me
>
> Jack.
>
>
>
ilan pillemer
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Lol.. Thanks for the warning Jack. Though I will say, I don't reply to
> rudeness as a rule. He'll get two more shots to attempt a constructive
> conversation with me, and if he is rude then too, after that he should not
> reply to anything I post - I won't even read them after that point.
>
> :-)
>
> Hav'ah
Go and fuck your self.
Little me
ilan pillemer
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Do you deny what I wrote? Do some research, it's hardly NEWS this
> information, though maybe new to you. What you looked at from my post was
> only the data from the NT. The OT is riddled with such plagerisms also.
Oh really? Have you been abducted by Aliens?
But you are absolutely right your nonsense could hardly be called news.
> Just as not wanting to believe parts of the
> OT and NT are plagiarized doesn't change the fact that they are.
By the way, moron, when was the last time you read a book that was not
sold in the window at a New Age crystal shop?
Little me.
PS Do you really think you can ignore me. I dare you to.
Little me
ilan pillemer
>
> If you knew anything concrete about ancient Egyptian writings, ie: Pyramid
> Texts, then you would know that NO LESS than 3 OT books are directly almost
> word-for-word taken from the Pyramid Texts which pre-date the Bible by 1000+
> years.
word for word? Are you as stupid as your are presenting yourself as?
> Those books are: The Egyptian "Book of Coming FOrth By Day" which is
> Genesis, the Egyptian Wisdom Book which is scattered throughout Proverbs and
> the Aton-Hymn which is found throughout Psalms, particularly 104. I provide
> the following as evidence, taken from the Papyrus of Ani, 3000 BC:
evidence. yum yum.
>
> The TRIAD of Thebes
> Serapis (like seraphim)
> Set and Nephthys (Seth and ?)
> Gods of the CUBIT
> Gods of the Days of the month, Hours of the Day, Hours of the Night
> Godsof the senses
> The Sun-God
> Gods & Godesses of the 12 hours of Night
> Gods & Godesses of the 12 hours of Day
all those gods. word for word you say? one god. lots and lots of gods. one
god. lots and lots of gods. one god. lots and lots of gods. hmm.
word for word you say?
> (note: Genesis says, there was evening, THEN morning..., it does that 6
> times)
actually it says "...Ve-yehi Erev Ve-yehi Boker..."
I know I know. Its difficult to grasp. But the bible was not written in
English.
It was written in Hebrew. Have you ever heard of Hebrew? (Hebrew
is not a Hieroglyphic script - and I have never met anyone who has claimed
that the Egyptians spoke Hebrew ever.)
> Gods of the Planets > The Star
Gods > The Southern and Northern Heavens
gods and gods and more gods.
> (note: Genesis says God divided the lower from the upper and put a firmament
> between)
ahh. brilliant piece of evidence there. My 5 year old cousin can also
tell the difference between the sea and the sky. Do you accuse her of
plagiarising as well?
> The Zodiak
> Gods in the tomb of Seti I (Seth)
> Sacred animals, birds, etc.
do these gods never stop?
>
> In a transliteration I have of the Egyptian : "History of the Creation of
> the Gods of the World", we have such lines as:
>
> "the things which came into being coming forth from my mouth... Not existed
> heaven, not existed earth, not had been created the things of the earth
> (plants), and creeping things... I raised them out of Nu (theprimal abyss
> of water) from a state of inactivity...in the inert watery mass wherein they
> were...after I had united my members, I wept over them and came into being
> men and women...ruleth earth to its whole extent...Fall their moments,
> seasons, upon their plants..." etc, etc...
Listen sweetite. The Egyptians did not speak English either!
Bit different to Geneis. Word for word you said. Its not even the same in
English!
>
> Jesus and entourage mimick in every sense, almost right down to the names of
> the characters involved, Horus, from 3000 BC. I have provided this evidence
> so that you can see I spend much of my time in a decent library...
Jesus. I hate to dissapoint you but Jesus did not crack a mention in the
Hebrew Bible. Hard to believe?
>
> Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
the size of their penises?
>
> I'd be interested to know what YOUR academic research has to say about the
> comparatives I've supplied above.
you are a moron.
> >> My research is very critical, and your replies would be most appreciated.
> >> Thank you.
> >
> >your research is infantile.
>
> In relationship to your kind of response, I'd have to say "futile" is a
> better word.
ok ok. your research is infantile and futile.
>
> So, if you have something worthwhile to say, great. I'd love to hear it. But
> please try to keep this word in mind when you do reply:
>
> constructive.
fuck you constructively.
Little me.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hav'ah
>
>
>
>
>
>
ilan pillemer
> of Sumerian legend lingering in the Bible (man formed from clay), and
dust dust. not clay. different.
dust is not clay. clay is not dust.
> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
> originated with Thoth?
stupidity?
> Thank you for your reply. It was nice to have an amicable conversation with
> someone on this topic. Thank you.
its my pleasure.
Little me
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hav'ah
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lothar Schenk
>
>Some things are true, whether you believe them or not.
Some things are false, whether you believe them or not.
Bye, Lothar S.
--
"Walk this world with me"
J. Karlin
> Listen sweetite.
Biblical form of 'sweetie'.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> Hi Paul...
>
> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot.
It appears you wasted your time. It appears you wish to waste
ours as well.
> What I found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up
> around the 1100s, maybe even a bit earlier.
What evidence do you have to support this view?
Be specific.
> The crusades began in 1096,
And the first extant tarot decks are dated to c. 1440---350 years
later. So what?
> and all the writings were being burned and destroyed.
All what writings? Where? When? By whom?
Be specific.
> In order to keep their information
Again, what information? Whose?
What is your evidence?
Be specific.
> UNCHANGED, they put it into picture form -
Who is 'they'?
> like a picture bible, and passed
> it off as a game. In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of cards,
What king of France? What deck of cards?
> but I know that that deck came down from Italy, where the Tarot was a
> moderated deck of playing cards,
What do you mean a 'moderated' deck?
> a game called Tarocci (which is still
> played vigorously in Italy today).
The game only came to be called, 'tarocchi', in the early 16th century.
It was originally called 'trionfi', the game of 'triumphs', by the
Italians, who invented it in the 15th century.
> Someone, one day, turned to me and said that the Tarot DID NOT originate
> with the "Christians" of the Crusades,
That part is true---the tarot did not originate in the Crusades.
> but much before that in Egypt by
> Thoth...
'someone' was obviously an idiot.
Here, I will make this simple for you.
There is no evidence to suggest that Crusaders invented tarot.
There is no evidence to suggest that ancient Egyptians invented
tarot.
End of story.
> My current research shows, that there is every possible reason to believe
> this might actually be so.
Then perhaps you share a certain quality with 'someone'.
> >Then your research seems open to challenge, since significant evidence
> >exists that many elements of the Old Testament derive from Babylonian
> >and other Fertile Crescent cultures, rather than Egypt, as well as the
> >early Canaanite culture of the Hebrews.
>
> I did not say ALL of the info in the Bible was taken from early
> Egyptian writings,
Actually, you did.
> but a good majority of it for sure.
You do not know what you are talking about.
> However, I have found evidence
> of Sumerian legend lingering in the Bible
That's not what you said before.
> However, the Bible was first recorded during the reign of Ahkenaton,
> roughly 1500 BC, and the person from which these writings sprang is
> Moses, who existed as an Egyptian for the first 30-odd years of his
> life.
This is legend, not necessarily fact.
> So, though the Bible has borrowed from many early cultures, it
> took mostly from the Egyptians.
That is simply nonsense. For one thing, who do you think the Egyptians
borrowed from?
For another, the Hebrews lived in a place which became a crossroads
for many invading armies and cultures. They were subject to absorb
the ideas of many different peoples, including those of the people
they conquered, the Canaanites. Indeed, the Hebrew God, Yahweh,
IS Canaanite, not Egyptian.
It is interesting to do a search of the Bible for word frequencies,
for while it is certainly true that the word, 'Egypt', is very
prominent in the Bible, appearing 611 times in the KJV, the collective
occurrence of other groups and tribes is much more than this,
and, interestingly, when one searches for the word, 'Egyptian',
it comes up only a few times, whereas if you search, for example,
for the word, 'Philistines', it comes up a surprising 250 times.
Babylon is mentioned 286 times, and Assyria 118 times. Syria
comes in at 75.
However Canaan and Canaanites come up collectively at 146 mentions,
and this does not take into consideration the many individual
mentions of Canaanite and surrounding peoples. For example, 'Edom'
alone is mentioned 86 times.
On the other hand, the word, Israel, occurs 2,565 times.
That's the point---the concern of the Hebrews was with themselves,
their Holy Land, their God, and the Jewish, not Egyptian, religion
which binds all these.
> Syria and Nubia, and other nations are
> frequently mentioned in the Bible, but Egypt is the primary focus,
> after the Israelites.
On the contrary, the Assyrians and Babylonians figure just as
prominently and perhaps even more importantly than the Egyptians.
A entire section of the Bible is taken up with the the prophecy
and history concerning the destruction, and enslavement of the Jewish
people by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Babylonian, and later
Persian and Greek cultural exposure of the Jews was much more
readily pertinent to the evolution of Judaism, particularly in
the development of Christianity, than was the influence
of ancient Egyptian religion.
> >The reference to the New Testament being linked to Egyptian sources when
> >it seems fairly clear that much of it derives from Hellenic influences
> >seems curious...unless you mean the debased remnants of Egyptian culture
> >by the late, Ptolemaic dynasties?
>
> Please look at this comparative:
>
> Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
About the same as Christ and Krishna.
Some things, and many other things NOT in common.
Indeed, it seems to me that Osiris would be the more logical
choice if you're looking about for Egyptian analogies to
the figure of Christ.
> ~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
Hmmm..., how familiar this list seems:
http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/exist.htm
By the way, the utterly sophistic nature of this page's assertions
is quite telling, for example, in the way it dismisses anything
but 'eyewitness' accounts of Jesus' execution, as if anyone
could prove the claim of a person's having 'been there', 2000
years later.
Anyway, in what Egyptian text is Horus 'baptized' with water
by Anup (you mean Anpu?)?
> ~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
Who or what is 'Anup the Baptizer'?
Again, what text is this from?
And why should it be equated to the figure of John the Baptist?
> ~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
Thoth was the Egyptian divine scribe, and which 'John' are you
talking about?
> ~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem, the
> house of bread
Annu is Heliopolis---Sun City. There are many Horuses, with many functions
and symbolisms. There is one (historical) Jesus.
You're fighting a losing battle here, not only is your premise
absurdly incorrect (tarot was not invented by ancient Egyptians),
but your evidence and reasoning are simply obtuse.
> ~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
Where is Horus called 'the Good Shepherd'?
> ~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the
> boat with Jesus
Which boats are you talking about specifically?
Horus and Jesus took a number of boats.
> ~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
And again, where is Horus described as 'the Lamb'?
> ~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
'christ' is from 'christos'---'anointed'---Greek, not Egyptian.
> ~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit =
And why is that the 'trinity'?
> the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Yes, that's a trinity, but why is it 'Egyptian'?
> ~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the
> sower of the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
Again, what is the Egyptian text where this dichotomy is represented?
While Jesus does relate such a parable, the angels are the 'destroyers',
(the harvesters), not Satan.
> ~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the
> birth of Jesus
Again, what Egyptian text are you talking about?
There is more than one 'child Horus'. So which one are you
talking about here?
> ~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when
> baptized;
Again, where is this Horus 'baptism' text?
> both manifesting the Son of God;
Some versions of Horus present him as a son of a god, not
the Son of God.
He was really, more pertinently, an aspect of the Sun.
> both children of Virgins
What makes you think Isis (whichever one you're talking about)
was a virgin?
> and returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life;
Actually, Horus brought war and destruction.
For that matter, so did Jesus.
> and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three
> thousand years before Christ.
No, it did not.
> So, there is enough existing evidence
You have presented no evidence.
You have merely made unsupported claims.
> proving that both the OT and the NT
> took much of its information primarily from ancient Egypt,
Again, you have provided NO evidence that this is the case.
> >> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
> >
> >None.
> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
> originated with Thoth? From my personal research, I think that I have found
> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll let
> you know if I find anything substantial.
I suggest you not waste your time, or ours.
(jk)
Jack Humphry
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> You shall have to get usd too Ilan's rudeness
if
>> you plan on hanging around here (and I hope you
>> stay, your post was very interesting to me!)
>>
>> Ilan suffers from Cronic Rudites.
>
>Is that Chronic, Kronic or Cronic?
Excuse me. That was Chronic.
Jack.
Jack Humphry
will say, I don't reply to
>> rudeness as a rule. He'll get two more shots to
attempt a constructive
>> conversation with me, and if he is rude then
too, after that he should not
>> reply to anything I post - I won't even read
them after that point.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Hav'ah
>
>Go and fuck your self.
Better yet, you go fuck him. You know you want to.
8======D
Jack.
J. Karlin
> No, no... not Egyptian writings being burned, but Christian writings were
> being burned during the Crusades.
What writings?
What Christian writings were being burned? When? Where?
And what evidence is there that these writings were symbolized
in tarot?
Be specific.
> To protect the writings they had saved
> from the time of Jesus,
They who?
> I have a tarot deck that's laced heavily with
> Semitic overtones,
What the hell does that mean?
What is a 'semitic overtone'?
Be specific.
> another that is more "biblical",
What?!
You're making a distinction between 'biblical' and 'semitic
overtones'?
What the hell are you talking about?
> yet another that is more
> ethereal.
So, 'ethereal' is not 'semitic overtoned'?
> But, about Classical Egyptian writing,
And what is that?
> it is certainly their way
Whose way? What way?
> of preserving some very important knowledge: the Pyramid Texts are here to
> stay and are iconical.
And what does that mean?
You're blathering on about things you clearly know nothing about
whatsoever. And you're hoping that you inane conjectures about
how your ignorance might inform tarot will be thought worthy of
the name, 'research'.
You are wrong---about many things.
> >Yet the pictures have changed drastically over the centuries. And the
> >arguments over how to interpret them as a database of the ancient
> >mysteries are numerous and diverse.
>
> That's correct. And so, not one deck must be considered, but ALL
> comparatively. For example, I took many decks a number of years ago, and
> compared all the Card 11s. Whatever symbol was common to most or all the
> cards, that I took as solid, or authentic representation.
Why? On what basis would you think this?
And what basis of 'authenticity' are you even talking about?
You don't know, do you? Just like you don't know anything about
Egyptian writings or their significance, or anything much
at all it appears.
> I do this with Bibles.
And you're just as stupid with that as you are with tarot.
> >Tarocco was also hot stuff in the Tudor era. But the question remains
> >pretty much unanswerable whether the Tarot evolved as a gaming device
> >which was given an occult interpretation, or was an occult artifact
> >which was camouflaged as a gaming device (both guises were pretty m uch
> >anathema to the Church in various periods, so neither seems a
> >particularly pro-survival choice).
>
> From what I can tell, I believe that it was disguised as something other
> than it was in order for it to survive the times.
From what you can tell is not anything.
You can't tell.
You are an idiot.
> >Since monuments, writings, etc. from Ankhnaton's reign were wiped out
> >after the priests of Amoun regained political ascendancy under his
> >successor, Tut-ankh-amon, this is not demonstrable. Nor is the mythic
> >ascription of the Torah to Moses necessarily historical fact, even if
> >one COULD find proof of a link between the Egyptian monotheistic king
> >and the Hebrew prophet.
>
> The link is this: in 1887, under Ahkenaton's city, 400 clay tablets were
> discovered. The tablets Moses wrote into the bible, are Pyramid texts,
Well, in that case, you should be able to point to these texts,
specifically.
For example, what 'pyramid texts' did 'Moses' take the story of
Creation in Genesis from?
And what is your evidence for this view?
> >> Syria
> >> and Nubia, and other nations are frequently mentioned in the Bible, but
> >> Egypt is the primary focus, after the Israelites.
> >
> >In Exodus, perhaps, but Phoenicia, realm of the Philistines, gets an
> >awful lot of exposure in Judges and Kings. And of course the Babylonians
> >during the captivity, and the Persians after that - especially when it
> >comes to the restoration of the Temple.
>
> Yes, but Judges and Kings are written after Moses death.
So was the Torah.
> Also, Joshua made a
> copy of Moses writing,
How do you know that?
> and yet neither are listed in Solomon's possession
> with the ark and yet appear in the temple of Solomon 400 years after
> Solomon's death.
That should give you a clue about something.
> The only Egyptian passages from the pyramids and the
> tablets occur during "moses" writings and Solomon's writings.
I thought you said the whole Bible was stolen from Egyptian
writings.
> Which is why
> Egypt is ignored through much of the bible
And now we're at "Egypt is ignored through much of the Bible".
You are obviously emotionally disturbed.
> One could prove the relation right through history. Every nation in the
> world can trace itself back to five original lands: Greece, China, Egypt,
> Caldea, and Phoenicia.
Like I said.
This fellow is simply vondanikenizing himself---and in public.
> I believe that true humility is accepting the fact that everyone has the
> right to their own opinion.
True humility is bothering to shut yourself up if you don't know
what the fuck you are talking about.
And you don't.
(jk)
ilan pillemer
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Egypt Pyramid Texts = Genesis OT, parts of Proverbs and Psalms
no connection.
> Egypt's Horus = NT Jesus
no connection.
> Crusades = destruction of Christian writings (advent of Tarot?)
you are a bit nutty.
> Renaissance = Inquisition (tool to keep control over habits of Christians)
Umm. The Renaissance was not the Inquisition.
> Modern Tarot = convoluted definitions of original (?) Tarot
hmm. And Alice saw that everything was backwards and upside down. curioser
and curioser said Alice.
Have you ever tried LSD?
>
> My point was this: if so much literature has been borrowed or developed
> through the usage of ancient Egyptian philosophies
It wasnt. The Egyptian culture died out. ended. kaput. heh heh. gone. Go
read Exodus to hear about their last days. It was terrible. Plagues and
all sorts of horrible horrible things. poor Egyptians. ach shame.
> and "mythological" texts,
what is a "mythological" text? Anything like an "illogical" ramble?
> and incorporated into the Bible,
incorporated? listen darling, have you ever read the DC or Marvel comics -
they are just up your line. I am sure they are filled with your brand of
research.
> and the Bible has a relationshipwith the
> Tarot,
hmm. Is this a reference to the Kabbalah?
> is it possible that the Tarot too has connections to ancient Egypt as
> well? i.e.: Thoth? And, if it is connected to Thoth, then how?
no.
Little me
>
> Hav'ah
ilan pillemer
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Yes, an imperfect Bible because it was penned by imperfect men.
How do you not know that it was not written by imperfect women?
> I am not
> questioning the validity of the bible here,
Hey to break it to you. But you are.
> I am simply stating that there
> is a tight relationship between some decks and the Bible records of supposed
> history.
I have never even met a religious man who would call the Bible a history
book.
or even a supposed history book. the normal definition, in Maimonidean
circles would be - the Bible is a guide to the first and the last. Now
what that means is a bit more subtle.
> It doesn't matter if the bible records are true or not at this
> point
At what point. You have not even made, reached or vaguely stumbled upon a
point.
> (that's for later)
goody goody.
>, what we are trying to establish firstly is did the
> Tarot originate with the Christians, Semitic Egyptians, or with the ancient
> Egyptians?
we are not trying to do anything of the sort. we are laughing at you.
semitic egyptians or ancient egyptians?
>
> Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot definition,
> but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
> the decks.
Ahh. Kabbalah. Qabbalah. Cabbalah. (and other transliterations). Darling
where do you think the Kabalah originates? The Ancient Kingdom of Kongo?
>
> It's just something I noticed over the years - a relationship between much
> of the pictorial Tarot and the bible records.
pictorial Tarot as opposed to aural Tarot or invisible Tarot or Braille
Tarot?
Little me
Shaun Goodwin
>
> Yes, an imperfect Bible because it was penned by imperfect men. I am not
> questioning the validity of the bible here, I am simply stating that there
> is a tight relationship between some decks and the Bible records of supposed
> point (that's for later), what we are trying to establish firstly is did the
> Tarot originate with the Christians, Semitic Egyptians, or with the ancient
> Egyptians?
Christianity is a semitic religion, you do realise that I hope, Jesus was
Jewish. There has been a Hellenic influence on the religion, particularly from
NeoPlatonism, but Paul had far more influence on the Greeks, than they had on
him. If not, Western IndoEuropeans would still be worshipping many Gods.
Muslims, Christians and Jews all come from the same stem, Abraham. There is so
much in common between them, that if one religion has a close connection with
the tarot, then so will the others.
> Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot definition,
> but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
> the decks.
>
> It's just something I noticed over the years - a relationship between much
> of the pictorial Tarot and the bible records.
>
<snip>
Daffyd wrote:
> >
> >A question I have is, what is the importance of proving a connection
> >between the [Christian] Bible and the Tarot? The whole time it has
> >been assumed--tacitly--a connection in both history and philosophy
> >between the Bible and the Tarot is a good thing.
I'm not sure that it is seen as a 'good thing', rather it is a fact. Good and
bad in this context therefore becomes irrelevant. The early tarot decks were
heavily influenced by Judaic-Christian tradition and to understand what the
tarot creators were trying to do, surely some knowledge of the first five
books of the bible, plus John's revelation is essential.
In the Golden Dawn phase of the late 19th. and early 20th. century biblical
imagery continued to be used (Cain & Able - The Lovers, as an example) and
Crowley seems to have been quite taken with Revelation, identifying with the
beast (666) himself.
> >
> >How would this be a "good" thing to have? How would this contribute to
> >the knowledge of the Tarot?
Surely, it is such a fundamental part of what tarot is, that it is essential
to a knowledge of the tarot.
> >
> >Further, the Bible itself has been severely critiqued in terms of
> >authenticity and validity. It's reliability as a "source" or
> >reference is considered questionable. Do you, then consider it a
> >reliable source for knowledge of the Tarot?
As a historical source it can be questioned, but as a record of the beliefs,
myths and allegories of a people it is the 'guvnor'.
Shaun
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
> Many Tarot users believe that the Tarot originated with Thoth, an egyptian
> (god)...
That belief is incorrect. It comes from a French occultist tradition
that is not based on any evuidence at all. We also used to believe that
the earth was flat - turns out that was wrong. We used to believe that
the Tarot originated with Thoth - turns out that is wrong too.
>... I am quite fond of my deck for many years now and have always found a
> distinct co-relation between it and "the Bible". My research has shown me
> that all of the bible, OT and NT, is "stolen" information originating from
> ancient Egypt.
Your research is leading you down blind alleys. What sources are you
relying upon for your knowledge of ancient Egypt? I recommend that you
go to the library and find books by E. A. Wallis Budge (Egyptian Magic,
or Dwellers on the Nile: the life, history, religion and literature of
the ancient Egyptians, or Egyptian Religion). Dr. Budge was the curator
of Egyptology at the British Museum and a world authority. Most
importantly, he is not either an occultist nor an anti-occultist so his
presentation of the ideas is not biased. I would also recommend A.
Erman (Life in Ancient Egypt) and/or S. Morenz (Egyptian Religion) -
these are also accurate and unbiased. I think a little research will
change you mind about 'stolen' and give you a better idea about how much
the Jews might have acquired during their long stay in Egypt.
> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
ALL of the evidence says it's NOT.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the 1100s,
That is not accurate. Playing cards first showed up in Europe between
1370 and 1377. The Trumps were added in Italy, in the first half of the
15th century. Its not simply that they existed before that and we just
don't know about it - we have lots of information on magic and
divination during the preceeding centuries. I'd recommend that you
start your searching with C. Burnett (Magic and Divination in the Middle
Ages, Variorum 1996) R. Cavendish (A History of Magic, Arkana 1987) W.
Shumaker (The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance, Univ Calif Press
1972). I have never found any hints - not even in the "occult" or
"hidden" traditions in earlier centuries.
>... The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
> were being burned and destroyed...
Where did you get that impression? What was burned? Where?
>...In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of cards...
That's an old error that has been corrected. The reference was actually
to a deck of playing cards (4 suits). When an old hand-painted Tarot
deck was discovered at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, one author
jumped to the conclusion tht this must be the deck referred to in 1392.
But that was an error, it was later shown tht the deck was an Italian
deck from the second half of the 15th century. Unfortunately, the error
continues to be propagated and confuses a lot of people.
> >> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
> >
> >None.
> >
> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
> originated with Thoth?
Sure. First, there is the occult tradition. The original
identifications of the Tarot with ancient Egypt were made before the
Rosetta Stone was discovered. Before that, we couldn't translate the
hieroglyphics so the early occultist writing is largely inaccurate.
Once the tradition started, students transmitted what their teachers
told them, later occultist writers just quoted earlier occultist
writers.
Second, there is the principle that I call "long ago and far away".
This is very common in the transmission of esoteric information. "The
origins are long ago and far away and all the records ahve been
destroyed - therefore the only way to learn this is to believe what I
teach you since I alone have access to the secret oral tradition or I
alone have received communications from the adepts on another plane."
Basically, long ago and far away means that you cannot confirm (or
dispute) anything I say. Plug in your own understanding of human nature
- this can lead to abuses of the truth. Plug in that the teacher may
depend on this exclusive access to 'truth' for personal financial
security - this increases the probbility of abuses.
>... From my personal research, I think that I have found
> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll let
> you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
What is the source of your information?
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
> ...the Pyramid Texts are here to stay and are iconical.
What are the Pyramid texts?
> ...I took many decks a number of years ago, and
> compared all the Card 11s...
But that would include Fortitude/Strength (Tarot de Marseille), Justice
(Golden Dawn), Hermit (Steele c.1470 and several other 15th century
sources), and Hangedman (Sicilian Tarot). So you can't base the
comparison on the number of the card - the numbering and ordering shows
a lot of variability.
If you mean the cards that represent Fortitude/Strength - then the
oldest deck we have shows a man with a club about to kill a lion - the
only common feature is the lion. I agree with your principle of looking
for the common features - but across the range of interpretations, there
is almost nothing that is common to ALL decks.
> From what I can tell, I believe...
That is a better way to say it. The Tarot community has a lot of
beliefs/opinions that can neither be proven nor disproven. But we try
to argue them from well-founded, accurate evidence - so you will proably
get more resistance on that issue.
> ... it was disguised as something other
> than it was in order for it to survive the times...
You will find a similar (not identical) theory in O'Neill, Tarot
Symbolism 1986.
> ...Consider for a
> moment, that the Tarot is evolved by christians hoping to preserve the
> original teachings and truths about God and the Bible as told by the great
> man Jesus. And suppose those truths differ from what the church evolved
> into...
There is evidence for this in the possible Gnostic contributions to the
original Tarot designs. Whether or not these Gnostic sects actually had
the "truth" about God/Bible/Jesus is debatable, but THEY certainly
believed tht. See O'Neill Chapter 8.
> ...Card 12 - Peter the martyr...
(1) There is a break in your logic here - if the Tarot was designed by
ancient Egyptians, how could they know about Peter?
(2) In the 15th century when the tarot was designed, someone hung upside
down was a common representations of a traitor - lots of examples.
> ...all my texts about hieroglyphs are all reprints of
> information founded in the late 1800s. Nothing really new on the matter.
> Personally, I have found many errors in translations from hieroglyph to
> english...
E. A. Wallis Budge: An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (in 2 volumes,
Dover 1978, from the original, London 1920).
> The link is this: in 1887, under Ahkenaton's city, 400 clay tablets were
> discovered...
Interesting, didn't know about that. Where are the tablets today and do
you have a source for the translation.
> ...Judaism states that Moses wrote the first five
> books of the Bible (though I know he didn't write ALL five). That would mean
> that the Bible's contents in those first five books originated with Moses,
> and Moses took the Egyptian tablets and used them to his advantage...
Modern scholarship (Christian and Jewish) has identified five separate
oral traditions that were merged into the Torah. There wasn't a single
author.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
> Renaissance = Inquisition (tool to keep control over habits of Christians)
I don't think that is an accurate association. In many respects, the
Renaissance occurred in Italy BECAUSE the direct power of the papacy,
faculty at Paris, and Inquisition was broken by the development of the
city-states in Italy. The Viscounti-Sforza dynasty in Milan and Medicis
in Florence were actively warring against the Pope and the Papal States
and the power of the Pope had been greatly diminished by the existence
of multiple Popes. So the court officers of the Inquisition were
actually being housed and fed in the Sforza castle. It was precisely
the broken dominance of the Papacy that permitted the resurgence of
interest in the ancient Pagan writers, Neoplatonism, Cabala, Magic,
Astrology, Alchemy, Egyptology, etc.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
> Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot definition,
> but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
> the decks.
But realize tht the QBLH was largely associated with the Tarot after
their original design. At the time the Tarot was designed in 15th
century Italy, QBLH was certainly accessible in the city-states in
Italy. So one can argue reasonably tht it had some contribution to the
original symbols. But in many instances, the QBLH that was developed by
that time and available in Spain and Italy was NOT the QBLH tht was
later used to develop and interpret the Tarot.
I think it is more accurate to say that later occultists saw the
parallelism between QBLH and Tarot and developed this parallelism in an
effort to explore the symbols. In my opinion, this parallelism is
largely due to the influence of Gnosticism on both systems. It also
appears that they largely depended on Christian interpretors of the
Jewish system. Probably because they didn't have direct access to the
Jewish tradition.
Hav'ah
I'll start by saying that if you are going to answer my posts in this
manner, don't bother. I won't even open them. But, to give the benefit of
the doubt (maybe you're just having a cranky day and need to take it out on
someone), I'll answer this post... comments between...
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
>
>> Yes, an imperfect Bible because it was penned by imperfect men.
>
>How do you not know that it was not written by imperfect women?
adam=human being, same context using the word "men". However, the bible does
not in itself profess to have been penned by women, strictly by males.
>
>> I am not
>> questioning the validity of the bible here,
>
>Hey to break it to you. But you are.
No, I wasn't. I was looking at the relation between the Bible and the Tarot,
which is so obvious with certain decks, and even down to the symbolism in
some as well. The Tarot cannot prove or disprove the Bible, just as the
Bible cannot prove or disprove the origins of the Tarot. It is just another
puzzle piece. I have, however, used the Tarot to dispel certain Bible myths.
In this way, the Tarot offered clues to Solomon and the problems with the
"Moses" account.
>
>> I am simply stating that there
>> is a tight relationship between some decks and the Bible records of
supposed
>> history.
>
>I have never even met a religious man who would call the Bible a history
>book.
>or even a supposed history book. the normal definition, in Maimonidean
>circles would be - the Bible is a guide to the first and the last. Now
>what that means is a bit more subtle.
Actually, the Catholics call the specific history books of the bible, the
Apocrypha, and attest that the other main books of the Bible provide a
history of a particular people. As do the Judaics, as do the Christians.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the bible records are true or not at this
>> point
>
>At what point. You have not even made, reached or vaguely stumbled upon a
>point.
The question was never is the Bible accurate. The question was: what
evidence is there that the first Tarot decks originated with Thoth?
>
>> (that's for later)
>
>goody goody.
You want to read about Biblical myths being dispelled, you can go to my
site. .
http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/
This is a Tarot room. If you want to talk Bible, try
alt.christian-biblestudy. You can find me there too.
>
>>, what we are trying to establish firstly is did the
>> Tarot originate with the Christians, Semitic Egyptians, or with the
ancient
>> Egyptians?
>
>we are not trying to do anything of the sort. we are laughing at you.
>semitic egyptians or ancient egyptians?
Maybe you are laughing, but that just proves your ignorance. Study Classical
Egyptian, early hieroglyphics, Pyramid Texts, etc. You cannot learn one
without dabbling in the Semitic undertones and influences brought into Egypt
by the ten tribes of Israel (Jacob's sons by Leah), prior to 1700 BC.
>
>>
>> Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot
definition,
>> but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
>> the decks.
>
>Ahh. Kabbalah. Qabbalah. Cabbalah. (and other transliterations). Darling
>where do you think the Kabalah originates? The Ancient Kingdom of Kongo?
Qabala is one of the oldest mystic sciences in history. Read about it. You
might learn some of their wisdoms.
>
>>
>> It's just something I noticed over the years - a relationship between
much
>> of the pictorial Tarot and the bible records.
>
>pictorial Tarot as opposed to aural Tarot or invisible Tarot or Braille
>Tarot?
I said "pictorial" as some of the decks I have seen are the Bible stories in
picture form. As opposed to a written bible, a pictorial version of key
elements therein and expressed pictorally in the Tarot.
>
>Little me
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
yourself this: if the Egyptians were murdering and sacrificing the Hebrew
children, then why did a Hebrew woman send her son to the Pharaoh's house
for safe-keeping? Do some research and studying before you answer posts like
this. Now I must say that I am truly laughing at you.
Hav'ah
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
>
>> Egypt Pyramid Texts = Genesis OT, parts of Proverbs and Psalms
>
>no connection.
>
>> Egypt's Horus = NT Jesus
>
>no connection.
>
>> Crusades = destruction of Christian writings (advent of Tarot?)
>
>you are a bit nutty.
>
>> Renaissance = Inquisition (tool to keep control over habits of
Christians)
>
Hav'ah
specifically, as being a tool by the RCC to control the populace into
domination. It worked quite well. The Renaissance era is called so because
at that time in history, artwork went from 2D to 3D. The Inquisition just
happened to be going on at that time.
Hav'ah
Bob/Gerry O'Neill wrote in message <371A49EB...@ibm.net>...
>Hav'ah wrote:
>> Renaissance = Inquisition (tool to keep control over habits of
Christians)
>
Hav'ah
I have the entire encyclopedia volumes from Budge. And the Aton-hymn, and
several other reliable sources of Classical Egyptian writings. I am far from
being an Egyptologists, but closer in this field than some. And when I read
the pyramid texts and read "This is at last the bones of Unas this. This is
at last the flesh of Unas this". And then you read how the Jews admit Moses
added this little part into the Genesis, this begins some of the relations
found between the OT and early Egypt. There are so many other parallels,
besides this one which is far more glaring even.
I have been doing some additional research into the Thoth/Tarot connection -
and find none. However, there are some Pyramid paintings that closely
resemble certain Tarot deck cards, that the relationship cannot be ignored.
This only shows that there is a relationship between Semitic Tarot and early
Egyptian Pyramid paintings in regards to the Tarot. It doesn't however prove
any connection to Thoth.
I must say though, considering Budge wrote his work in 1903, and is now
dead, and other information about the transliterations has come to light in
the last 100 years, I would have to say that there are errors in his
transliterations. Though the bul of his work seems intact, there are
problems with it. He is, however, the most knowledgeable resource I have
found to date. I will look for the other books you listed. And I will
eventually get them and absorb them thoroughly.
Thank you for your input. It has been helpful.
Sincerely,
hav'ah
Bob/Gerry O'Neill wrote in message <371A3018...@ibm.net>...
Hav'ah
Bob/Gerry O'Neill wrote in message <371A39F9...@ibm.net>...
>Hav'ah wrote:
>>
>> I did a former extensive research about 15 years ago on the Tarot. What I
>> found was that the Tarot in it's popular format showed up around the
1100s,
>> maybe even a bit earlier...
>
>That is not accurate. Playing cards first showed up in Europe between
>1370 and 1377. The Trumps were added in Italy, in the first half of the
>15th century. Its not simply that they existed before that and we just
>don't know about it - we have lots of information on magic and
>divination during the preceeding centuries. I'd recommend that you
>start your searching with C. Burnett (Magic and Divination in the Middle
>Ages, Variorum 1996) R. Cavendish (A History of Magic, Arkana 1987) W.
>Shumaker (The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance, Univ Calif Press
>1972). I have never found any hints - not even in the "occult" or
>"hidden" traditions in earlier centuries.
I will also take these reference resources under advisement. Thank you. This
does help.
>
>>... The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
>> were being burned and destroyed...
>
>Where did you get that impression? What was burned? Where?
The early christian writings were burned as heretic. This is not uncommon.
The new religion always destroys the works of the old religion, as much as
they can anyway. This has been done right through history.
>
>>...In the late 1300s, the King of France had a deck of cards...
>
>That's an old error that has been corrected. The reference was actually
>to a deck of playing cards (4 suits). When an old hand-painted Tarot
>deck was discovered at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, one author
>jumped to the conclusion tht this must be the deck referred to in 1392.
>But that was an error, it was later shown tht the deck was an Italian
>deck from the second half of the 15th century. Unfortunately, the error
>continues to be propagated and confuses a lot of people.
Hmmm... I didn't mean the King of France had a Tarot deck, only that he had
a deck of cards, as in playing cards. I should have been more specific.
Anyway, the research I have done concludes that the modern playing deck of
cards was taken from the Tarot. This would mean that the tarot deck
pre-dated the playing cards, by some time, though it is uncertain by how
long exactly. And so the mystery remains unsolved, and specualtion rules.
>
>> >> What evidence is there that the Tarot derived from Thoth?
>> >
>> >None.
>> >
>> Any idea, then, why some people are such sticklers about it having
>> originated with Thoth?
>
>Sure. First, there is the occult tradition. The original
>identifications of the Tarot with ancient Egypt were made before the
>Rosetta Stone was discovered. Before that, we couldn't translate the
>hieroglyphics so the early occultist writing is largely inaccurate.
>Once the tradition started, students transmitted what their teachers
>told them, later occultist writers just quoted earlier occultist
>writers.
So, theology is the culprit. Not uncommon either.
>
>Second, there is the principle that I call "long ago and far away".
>This is very common in the transmission of esoteric information. "The
>origins are long ago and far away and all the records ahve been
>destroyed - therefore the only way to learn this is to believe what I
>teach you since I alone have access to the secret oral tradition or I
>alone have received communications from the adepts on another plane."
>Basically, long ago and far away means that you cannot confirm (or
>dispute) anything I say. Plug in your own understanding of human nature
>- this can lead to abuses of the truth. Plug in that the teacher may
>depend on this exclusive access to 'truth' for personal financial
>security - this increases the probbility of abuses.
Yes, I have found much of this kind of gibberish in my research. Which is
why I began asking questions here.
>
>>... From my personal research, I think that I have found
>> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
>> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll
let
>> you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
>
>What is the source of your information?
Well, Ahkenaton had the Pyramid text tablets, discovered in 1887 under his
city to God, Ahketaton. Thothmes III was an archaeologist and did much
digging around the Pyramids in his day. Amen-Hotep, translated some of these
tablets and then immediately changed his name to Ahkenaton (Aton is
satisfied, or, beneficial to Aton) and re-instituted monotheism into Egypt.
Amen-hotep is the only heir to have jointly ruled one year with the Pharaoh
(a term coined by the Thothmes III reign) and the bible states in relation
to Enoch (meaning "a man")that 365 days and it was translated. That's one
year, and a translation that literally transformed the world thought from
app. 1500 BC+. My sources? Ancient language translations, ancient writings,
and numerous other resource materials. I'll put it this way, I'm probably
one of the only people in the world who owns a piece of Egyptian history
dated 3500 BC (a stylus) and another piece that is not as pristine from 1500
BC (a ring of the universe). I only mention this because I am trying to
emphasize that my research is quite extensive, to the point where I actually
have relationships (academic, of course) with those people who actually do
the digs. I have first-hand knowledge and accounts of discoveries that don't
even make it to print for years.
Again, thanks for your input. It is knowledgeable and helpful.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
Great Pyramid and subsequent pyramids at Giza.
other comments between...
Bob/Gerry O'Neill wrote in message <371A46C8...@ibm.net>...
>Hav'ah wrote:
>>
>> ...the Pyramid Texts are here to stay and are iconical.
>
>What are the Pyramid texts?
>
>> ...I took many decks a number of years ago, and
>> compared all the Card 11s...
>
>But that would include Fortitude/Strength (Tarot de Marseille), Justice
>(Golden Dawn), Hermit (Steele c.1470 and several other 15th century
>sources), and Hangedman (Sicilian Tarot). So you can't base the
>comparison on the number of the card - the numbering and ordering shows
>a lot of variability.
Well, from my research I have ascertained that Card 11 cannot be strength.
It must be Wisdom, commonly called Justice. The reason for this would be,
first, that it is card 11, eleven being a key number of completeness and
balance of both wisdom and justice, and secondly, that it relates to Card 2
(the priestess). So either card 2 is out of alignment, or card 11 is NOT
card 8 Strength. But, as you mention below, this is just more conjecture
based on other pieces of evidence.
>
>If you mean the cards that represent Fortitude/Strength - then the
>oldest deck we have shows a man with a club about to kill a lion - the
>only common feature is the lion. I agree with your principle of looking
>for the common features - but across the range of interpretations, there
>is almost nothing that is common to ALL decks.
Which is why I am so perplexed. For such an important medium, the Tarot has
been skewed so many times. Obviously, this has been done intentioanlly to
disuade any real use from them, but there is a hidden truth buried in the
Tarot cards that speaks volumes about lies and deceipt. In general, despite
the variety found between decks, the cards as a composite, regardless of the
deck, still hints or points out these lies and deceptions.
>
>> From what I can tell, I believe...
>
>That is a better way to say it. The Tarot community has a lot of
>beliefs/opinions that can neither be proven nor disproven. But we try
>to argue them from well-founded, accurate evidence - so you will proably
>get more resistance on that issue.
>
>> ... it was disguised as something other
>> than it was in order for it to survive the times...
>
>You will find a similar (not identical) theory in O'Neill, Tarot
>Symbolism 1986.
Hmmm.. I did not know this, though my research shows that throughout
history, many people have had to disguise their truths in order for them to
survive the debaucheries of those who would have such truths suppressed or
extinguished.
>
>> ...Consider for a
>> moment, that the Tarot is evolved by christians hoping to preserve the
>> original teachings and truths about God and the Bible as told by the
great
>> man Jesus. And suppose those truths differ from what the church evolved
>> into...
>
>There is evidence for this in the possible Gnostic contributions to the
>original Tarot designs. Whether or not these Gnostic sects actually had
>the "truth" about God/Bible/Jesus is debatable, but THEY certainly
>believed tht. See O'Neill Chapter 8.
Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on O'Neill. Sounds like someone
level-headed who has spent much time researching connecting links. Though I
don't believe the Tarot is of Gnostic origina, the recent finds in the Nag
Hammadi and Dead Sea prove that there is much that was ommitted
intentioanlly from the bible, and so all the more reason to question what it
was that some people were trying to save by giving their lives... it seems a
truth is lingering there in the shadows and within the nooks and crannies of
mystic encryption of said works. Jesus told them things that are much
disguised in the Bible. Things that the powers that be in control do not
want people as a whole to know.
>
>> ...Card 12 - Peter the martyr...
>
>(1) There is a break in your logic here - if the Tarot was designed by
>ancient Egyptians, how could they know about Peter?
>(2) In the 15th century when the tarot was designed, someone hung upside
>down was a common representations of a traitor - lots of examples.
I didn't say it was designed by the egyptians. I was asking what proof there
is that would cause some people to say it originated with Thoth. If it is
Peter, then that would make some decks originating with the early
christians, which would make sense that they would try to put this
information into a format that could be disguised in order to protect it.
However, considering I have found much information in the Bible that is
blatanly Egyptian 3000 BC, it is not unlikely that the image of Peter
hanging upside down was borrowed from another Egyptian myth or legend. I am
still working on that, though not enduringly since I haven't gotten to that
as being a priority.
>
>> ...all my texts about hieroglyphs are all reprints of
>> information founded in the late 1800s. Nothing really new on the matter.
>> Personally, I have found many errors in translations from hieroglyph to
>> english...
>
>E. A. Wallis Budge: An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (in 2 volumes,
>Dover 1978, from the original, London 1920).
Yes, as well I have his "Book of the Dead - Papyrus of Ani"
>
>> The link is this: in 1887, under Ahkenaton's city, 400 clay tablets were
>> discovered...
>
>Interesting, didn't know about that. Where are the tablets today and do
>you have a source for the translation.
Some of the Tablets are in the British Museum. Others are distributed to
museums in other parts of the world. I saw one at the Royal Ontario Museum,
as well as a papyrus copy of the Book of Coming Forth By Day (aka "Book of
the Dead"). If you look up Ahkenaton and the city he built to God,
Ahketaton, you will learn about the tablets discovered under his city.
>
>> ...Judaism states that Moses wrote the first five
>> books of the Bible (though I know he didn't write ALL five). That would
mean
>> that the Bible's contents in those first five books originated with
Moses,
>> and Moses took the Egyptian tablets and used them to his advantage...
>
>Modern scholarship (Christian and Jewish) has identified five separate
>oral traditions that were merged into the Torah. There wasn't a single
>author.
Exactly, in fact, it seems that our Deuteronomy, was written by Joshua, who
made a copy of the writings of Moses. And further evidence of a debauched
"first five" occurs 400 years after Solomon's death with the discovery of a
"book of Moses" found in the ruins of the temple at Jerusalem as destroyed
by Neb'zr. This has everything to do with Solomon.
If you are interested, I just finished posting a complete and supported
research article called "Moses did not write the first five books of the
Bible", and you can view it at:
http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/mosauthr.html
You know, I very much enjoyed this string of conversation I have had with
you. Knowledge shared is wisdom gained. Thank you for taking much time in
these replies. Hopefully, we can share more wisdom.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Medusa8S8S
>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>>You will find a similar (not identical) theory in O'Neill, Tarot
>>Symbolism 1986.
>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>>See O'Neill Chapter 8.
>Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on O'Neill. Sounds like someone
>level-headed who has spent much time researching connecting links.
>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
You are dense...
Celebrate!
KatyRose
Hav'ah
book comment that Bob/Gerry mentioned to me?
Hav'ah
Medusa8S8S wrote in message
<19990419020120...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>
>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
>>>You will find a similar (not identical) theory in O'Neill, Tarot
>>>Symbolism 1986.
>
>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
>>>See O'Neill Chapter 8.
>
>>Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on O'Neill. Sounds like someone
>>level-headed who has spent much time researching connecting links.
>
Medusa8S8S
>Hmmm... define what you mean by "dense", please. In regards to the O'Neill
>book comment that Bob/Gerry mentioned to me?
>
Never mind, you're hopeless.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
Hav'ah
defined several ways, and when asked to explain yourself on this simple
matter, you prove unable. I have now come to understand your comment, and
would like you to explain what I have said specifically that leads you to
make an assumption about me of that caliber.
It is easy to say someone is "dense" and "hopeless", yet quite another to
prove it. You seem so much more sure about all this, so explain to me how
you find specifics of my post to be deemed "dense", in your opinion, based
on factual or near-factual evidence of the topic discussed. Since you don't
know me personally, we have to conclude you make such statements based on
something I've written. So, if you somehow disagree with something I've
written, show me where it's wrong. I'll gladly take any information under
careful consideration.
Hav'ah
Medusa8S8S wrote in message
<19990419030841...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
Jack Humphry
Tarot deck, only that he had
>a deck of cards, as in playing cards. I should
have been more specific.
I would recomend you remdy this habit of being
specific after the fact. You see it has this nasty
effect of causing people to think you just hcnaged
your mind so as not to look stupid. If you don't
quit back pedalling, and present your points with
detail and specifics from the get go, I am afraid
that I and many others will begin to seriiously
doubt your integruty.
Jack
Jack Humphry
Medusa8S8S wrote in message
<19990419020120...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>
>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
>>>You will find a similar (not identical) theory
in O'Neill, Tarot
>>>Symbolism 1986.
>
>
>>>See O'Neill Chapter 8.
>
>>Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on
O'Neill. Sounds like someone
>>level-headed who has spent much time researching
connecting links.
>
>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
>You are dense...
KatyRose! LOL! HAHAHA! I have been patiently
waiting for him to figure this out for two days
now, and was about to do this exact thing. I
really can't beleive he never made the connection.
And Bob, what shameless self-promotion, ;-)
Jack.
Hav'ah
perfection, and none has the right to expect it. I do try to be quite
specific, though, as a rule. It will happen, that I slip up sometimes, so
I'll just clear the air and mention that now.
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message ...
>>Hmmm... I didn't mean the King of France had a
>Tarot deck, only that he had
>>a deck of cards, as in playing cards. I should
>have been more specific.
>
Hav'ah
claim to be here to share information, and when I ask, the reply is
basically a chortle. What's wrong? Can't you people just answer the
question? I told you from go I'm no Tarot expert. I don't do readings for
money, and I don't bother much with them anymore, so I obviously am not
up-to-date on the literature. So, what's up with this O'Neill thing, please?
Why is this such a hard question? I genuinely want to know and am asking
without derision. What's the problem here?
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message ...
>
>Medusa8S8S wrote in message
><19990419020120...@ng-fc1.aol.com>...
>>>From: "Hav'ah" <ha...@sstsystems.net>
>>
>>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>>
>>>>You will find a similar (not identical) theory
>in O'Neill, Tarot
>>>>Symbolism 1986.
>>
>>>Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>>
>>>>See O'Neill Chapter 8.
>>
>>>Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on
>O'Neill. Sounds like someone
>>>level-headed who has spent much time researching
>connecting links.
>>
Jack Humphry
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>Hmmm... define what you mean by "dense", please.
In regards to the O'Neill
>book comment that Bob/Gerry mentioned to me?
You might want to be a little less quick to prove
her point.
Jack.
Jack Humphry
>>I would recomend you remdy this habit of being
>>specific after the fact. You see it has this
nasty
>>effect of causing people to think you just
hcnaged
>>your mind so as not to look stupid. If you don't
>>quit back pedalling, and present your points
with
>>detail and specifics from the get go, I am
afraid
>>that I and many others will begin to seriiously
>>doubt your integruty.
I would like to extend my apoligies for my
sloppiness in this post. I was typing faster than
my ability allows. Hope it was at least readable.
Jack.
Jack Humphry
>Why is this such a hard question? I genuinely
want to know and am asking
>without derision. What's the problem here?
Bon/Gerry O'neil has more than once recomended you
read wroks by O'Niel. I think it should be obvious
tht he is promoting his own books. (Which are very
good by the way)
In case that wasn't clear, Bob/Gerry O'niell is
Bob O'niell, whose books he keeps recomending.
Hav'ah
perfection from anyone, and make a margin of error allowable always that is
within reason. I can only hope that others will find it to give a similar
leeway.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message <2fBS2.3026$JM2.1...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
Hav'ah
They are pseudonyms, at best, as a rule. And, I see something as "Bob/Gerry"
and I just figure they are a composite. I skipped straight to his post
following that. Besides, for me to ASSUME he is the one-and-same author as
that he references, just because they have the same last name (and a common
one, I might add), would certainly make me dense.
Thank you for just coming right out and saying it. Towards the end of
several posts, I got the impression Bob might be promoting his own work.
Personally, if the work is good, I don't see any problem with that, and so I
would not likely have bothered to regard this as smug or coy or something to
be snubbed. I am glad to hear you say his work is good. All the more reason
for me to want to access it.
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message <4fBS2.3027$JM2.1...@newsgate.direct.ca>...
Jack Humphry
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
any attention to full nicks.
>They are pseudonyms, at best, as a rule. And, I
see something as "Bob/Gerry"
>and I just figure they are a composite. I skipped
straight to his post
>following that. Besides, for me to ASSUME he is
the one-and-same author as
>that he references, just because they have the
same last name (and a common
>one, I might add), would certainly make me dense.
Not really. O'Neil is common, but how common is it
in the circle of tarot? Not very. And most
Pseudonyms would be the likes of "Medusa" or
"Alhendro Taptaptaptaptap...." When one used their
full name on a newsgroup, it is not illogical to
assume it to be their real name. And when someone
so pointedly points out that they have the same
name, as KatyRose did, it should of become very
obvious, and I am surprised it did not. So to
assume that Bob/Gerry and O'neil are the same,
most certainly does NOT make you dense, quite the
contrary.
Jack.
Hav'ah
I asked.
*shrug* That just has always proved more reliable.
:-)
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry wrote in message ...
Medusa8S8S
>And, I ask once again, to you this time, what are you talking about? You
>claim to be here to share information, and when I ask, the reply is
>basically a chortle. What's wrong? Can't you people just answer the
>question?
Each person is here for whatever reason s/he sees fit. Some may be here to
share information, but it is presumptious to state that all are, or any
individual is. Certainly is no one obligated to tell you anything.
> What's the problem here?
I think it is rather humorous that someone who claims to be such a researcher
is so apt to miss the obvious, even when it's spoonfed to you. It certainly
makes me wonder how much you miss in all that reading you claim to do.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
ilan pillemer
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Ilan...
>
> I'll start by saying that if you are going to answer my posts in this
> manner, don't bother. I won't even open them. But, to give the benefit of
> the doubt (maybe you're just having a cranky day and need to take it out on
> someone), I'll answerthis post... comments between...
I dont really care if you open them or not. I just enjoy playing with a
ball.
>
>
> ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, an imperfect Bible because it was penned by imperfect men.
> >
> >How do you not know that it was not written by imperfect women?
>
>
> adam=human being, same context using the word "men". However, the bible does
> not in itself profess to have been penned by women, strictly by males.
actually the Bible professes in itself to have been penned by Moses and
inspired by God. No imperfect men or women.
>
> >
> >> I am not
> >> questioning the validity of the bible here,
> >
>
> >Hey to break it to you. But you are.
>
>
> No, I wasn't.
yes, you were.
>
> >
> > > It doesn't matter if the bible records are true or not at this
> >> point
> >
> >At what point. You have not even made, reached or vaguely stumbled upon a
> >point.
>
> The question was never is the Bible accurate. The question was: what
> evidence is there that the first Tarot decks originated with Thoth?
there is none.
>
> >
> >> (that's for later)
> >
> >goody goody.
>
>
> You want to read about Biblical myths being dispelled, you can go to my
> site. .
you have a site. wow. A place of your own. A suppose going there must be
like exploring a schizophrenics mind.
>
> http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/
>
> This is a Tarot room. If you want to talk Bible, try
> alt.christian-biblestudy. You can find me there too.
I live in Jerusalem sweetie. I have much better resources for Bible study
then a newsgroup can offer. And the Hebrew Bible emerged from Ancient
Jewish culture. The Christian did not write it. Thirdly if you are the
kind of nut who wanders that newsgroup I think it would be worse than
taking acid in a reborn Christian happy-clappy gathering.
> > > > >>, what we are trying to establish firstly is
did the
> >> Tarot originate with the Christians, Semitic Egyptians, or with the
> ancient
> >> Egyptians?
> >
> >we are not trying to do anything of the sort. we are laughing at you.
> >semitic egyptians or ancient egyptians?
>
> Maybe you are laughing, but that just proves your ignorance. Study Classical
> Egyptian, early hieroglyphics, Pyramid Texts, etc. You cannot learn one
> without dabbling in the Semitic undertones and influences brought into Egypt
> by the ten tribes of Israel (Jacob's sons by Leah), prior to 1700 BC.
And I suppose Jacob's son by Rachel weren't semitic then? stupid idiot.
And Israel and Jacob are the same person.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Not, so much concerned about the Bible shedding light on Tarot
> definition,
> >> but, it would explain much of the qabalic numerology that is prevalent in
> >> the decks.
> >
> >Ahh. Kabbalah. Qabbalah. Cabbalah. (and other transliterations). Darling
> >where do you think the Kabalah originates? The Ancient Kingdom of Kongo?
>
> Qabala is one of the oldest mystic sciences in history. Read about it. You
> might learn some of their wisdoms.
ok. where do you suggest I begin?
>
> >
> >>
> >> It's just something I noticed over the years - a relationship between
> much
> >> of the pictorial Tarot and the bible records.
> >
> >pictorial Tarot as opposed to aural Tarot or invisible Tarot or Braille
> >Tarot?
>
> I said "pictorial" as some of the decks I have seen are the Bible stories in
> picture form. As opposed to a written bible, a pictorial version of key
> elements therein and expressed pictorally in the Tarot.
I suppose a picture book of the Bible would suit your capabilities much
better than one with all those tiny little words that can play so much
with consciousness. I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a
picture book.
Little me
>
> >
> >Little me
>
> Hav'ah
>
>
>
>
>
Medusa8S8S
>You make an oblique statement that can be
>defined several ways, and when asked to explain yourself on this simple
>matter, you prove unable.
1) My statement was hardly "oblique"; neither could it "be defined several
ways".
2) Because I choose not to explain, does not "prove" me "unable", it proves me
to be unwilling to state what should be the obvious.
>It is easy to say someone is "dense" and "hopeless", yet quite another to
>prove it.
The fact is that you have been proving yourself to rather dense and hopeless,
but because you are _dense and hopeless_, you quite dependably miss this
message that folks are sending you.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
ilan pillemer
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Hav'ah wrote:
> Third strike... you're out... Read the Bible account of Exodus. Then ask
> yourself this: if the Egyptians were murdering and sacrificing the Hebrew
> children, then why did a Hebrew woman send her son to the Pharaoh's house
> for safe-keeping? Do some research and studying before you answer posts like
> this. Now I must say that I am truly laughing at you.
think a bit. read the book again. In fact go see the cheesy Movie.
I suppose its probably healthy for you that you dont know how stupid you
are.
Little me
ilan pillemer
> The Renaissance era is called so because
> at that time in history, artwork went from 2D to 3D.
ahh. I always wondered why that period of time was called the Renaissance.
Thanks for clearing up that question so thoroughly and succintly.
Little me.
J. Karlin
> Third strike... you're out...
At least he's seen a bat and ball before.
I don't think you have.
> Read the Bible account of Exodus. Then ask
> yourself this: if the Egyptians were murdering and sacrificing the Hebrew
> children, then why did a Hebrew woman send her son to the Pharaoh's house
> for safe-keeping?
Because that is not what she did.
She actually let the basket float away without KNOWING where it
might go and what might happen to it. She did not plan that it
should be picked up by Pharaoh's daughter. The Hebrew woman
sent her own daughter to see what would happen to it.
As it turned out, the person who discovered the basket and who
expresses a sympathetic desire to take care of it (even though she
openly displays her understanding that it is a Hebrew child)
turned out to be Pharaoh's daughter. It is, on the surface,
purely a chance encounter. The child's sister, realizing
Pharaoh's daughter will want a nurse for the foundling, and ALSO
realizing that she seems to mean the child no harm just because
he is Hebrew, then offers her own mother to be a wet-nurse to
the baby.
And the Bible tells us that then the mother, who is either
installed in the royal household or in some other way provided
for so as not to endanger the child, only brings the child to
Pharaoh's daughter AFTER he is 'old enough'. At that point
Pharaoh's daughter adopts the child as her own and names
him 'Moses'.
All the way through, we are told that the mother, though she
recognized the need to send the child away, so it would not be
discovered at her home and killed by the Egyptians, nevertheless
did what she could to continue to insure his safety.
AND OF COURSE she is going to want the daughter of Pharaoh himself
to care for the child---what better protection for it could
there be? Recall that the command to destroy the new-born males
of the Hebrews went out to the entire Egyptian nation, not
merely to the soldiers. That means that the child, Moses,
could ONLY have been safe in Pharaoh's own household, in
the charge of his own family.
The masking of God's divine plan with an apparently coincidental
occurrence and then an ironic solution is a common motif in the
Bible. Things are always more than they seem.
However, if you don't even bother to read the story correctly in
the first place, it is no wonder you imagine everyone else's
understanding of it, and of the whole Bible, to be so confused
while yours is claimed to be so 'well-researched'.
You have demonstrated over and over again you do not know
what you are talking about.
Now we begin to see why that is.
You can't read.
Common condition it seems.
> Do some research and studying
Just shut up, moron.
You have no business instructing others to do what you've so
clearly NOT done yourself.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> >There is evidence for this in the possible Gnostic contributions to the
> >original Tarot designs. Whether or not these Gnostic sects actually had
> >the "truth" about God/Bible/Jesus is debatable, but THEY certainly
> >believed tht. See O'Neill Chapter 8.
>
> Seems like I'll have to check seriously in on O'Neill. Sounds like someone
> level-headed who has spent much time researching connecting links.
Now I get it, Hav'ah is Bob's shill.
(jk)
Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap
Entirely as an aside, the 2D-to-3D shift does have signifigance: 2D
art displayed all the objects portrayed at equal distance with equal
signifigance, and only their trappings to distinguish them. This was
to represent our world as seen through the eyes of god (not, as often
and mistakenly assumed, because medieval artists "just hadn't figured
it out yet.) (And this too corresponds with Platonic theories of the
effect of life on art and vice versa.)
The shift to perspective was a shift to art portraying life as seen
through the eyes of man. It was representative - although in no way
leading or inducing or aiding - of the shift from viewing the
individual as part of a system subservient to god and king. Instead,
Renaissance thinking put the individual at the center of his own
universe.
Compare the writings of Chaucer or Mallory with those of Rabelais, for
some readily available examples.
--
A copper blade
Infinitely many strings.
sqrt email
Hav'ah
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>
>
>> >How do you not know that it was not written by imperfect women?
>>
>>
>> adam=human being, same context using the word "men". However, the bible
does
>> not in itself profess to have been penned by women, strictly by males.
>
>actually the Bible professes in itself to have been penned by Moses and
>inspired by God. No imperfect men or women.
The comment you made was "written by". The bible was not written by God.
>>
>> You want to read about Biblical myths being dispelled, you can go to my
>> site. .
>
>you have a site. wow. A place of your own. A suppose going there must be
>like exploring a schizophrenics mind.
Shows your level of research tactics. If you had even taken a moment to
glance at what is there, you would find that every point is footnoted with
complete source quote, page number and bibiographic detail. So, to say that
it is schizo, is the same as saying that all the reference sources are from
schizo minds.
>
>>
>> http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/
>>
>> This is a Tarot room. If you want to talk Bible, try
>> alt.christian-biblestudy. You can find me there too.
>
>I live in Jerusalem sweetie. I have much better resources for Bible study
>then a newsgroup can offer. And the Hebrew Bible emerged from Ancient
>Jewish culture. The Christian did not write it. Thirdly if you are the
>kind of nut who wanders that newsgroup I think it would be worse than
>taking acid in a reborn Christian happy-clappy gathering.
So what? From what I have read, you understand Hebrew and Semitics about as
well as you understand English. But, since you have such a wealth of
resource, why not begin using it and tells us what you find out? You might
surprise yourself. And, I never said that the Christians wrote the bible.
>> >we are not trying to do anything of the sort. we are laughing at you.
>> >semitic egyptians or ancient egyptians?
>>
>> Maybe you are laughing, but that just proves your ignorance. Study
Classical
>> Egyptian, early hieroglyphics, Pyramid Texts, etc. You cannot learn one
>> without dabbling in the Semitic undertones and influences brought into
Egypt
>> by the ten tribes of Israel (Jacob's sons by Leah), prior to 1700 BC.
You are so funny. You crack a comment about semitic egyptians and yet when
proof is offered, you race over to something else petty. If you knew
anything, you would know that I didn't include Joseph in that statement,
because he was already King of Egypt UNDER Pharoah!
>
>And I suppose Jacob's son by Rachel weren't semitic then? stupid idiot.
>And Israel and Jacob are the same person.
I am not dealing with grade three children, am I, that I need to state that
Jacob and Israel are one and the same. I did not, however, state that they
were different people. If you bothered to take the time and really read what
I put above, you would see this.
>> >Ahh. Kabbalah. Qabbalah. Cabbalah. (and other transliterations). Darling
>> >where do you think the Kabalah originates? The Ancient Kingdom of Kongo?
Funny, for someone who lives in Jerusalem, you don't even know the correct
spelling of qabalah, and why it is spelled this way. Tell me, do you even
know why it is sometimes spelled "kabbalah"? Of course not! Where did the
double "b" come from? The British translations. Do some research!
>>
>> Qabala is one of the oldest mystic sciences in history. Read about it.
You
>> might learn some of their wisdoms.
>
>ok. where do you suggest I begin?
Oh, wise one, you need me to tell you???? But, you're the one who lives in
Jerusalem! I would have thought you would have jumped up and down at the
opportunity to tell me! Anyway, out of courtesy, I offer these references:
the Zohar, Zolar, the Midrash, the Hagadah, Pseudepigrapha, etc...
>Little me
Yes, you are small.
Hav'ah
again it is one thing to state such a thing, and quite another to prove it.
I have stated quite plainly, that I do not profess to know everything and
that I am more than eager to absorb shared knowledge. It would be
appreciated, that if something I post does not seem right or accurate, that
you counter with some proof from some noteworthy resource. You seem to me
like someone who spends much time sharing information with people. I'm
asking that you share it with me too. I share the details of the information
I have gathered through reliable resource materials. I have 3 tarot decks
and quite a number of books on the subject, as well as texts in the original
languages they were written (i.e.: Hebrew Torah, Greek Septuagint, Egyptian
Book of Coming Forth By Day, etc.). I have copies of pieces of work like the
Borsippa Inscription of King Neb'zr, etc., etc.. I have over 2,000 books in
my personal library! So, if someone wants to tell me that what I have
written is incorrect, I have no objections. What I do expect is that they
give some legitimate source for their comment. If I read correctly, and if
it was your post I read above on another topic, then I believe you are not
unfamiliar with showing a specific reference by quote, page number and
bibliographic reference data (i.e.: publisher and publishing date).
I came in here to "share" information. Why are you here? Why are any of us
here? To learn, to share, to expand "eyn sof" within ourselves. I have read
many posts here. The only person I find belligerent is ilan. I would like to
hear your wisdom, your experience, your knowledge. Why do you find this so
negative?
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
worthwhile to share. What you wrote about the awareness of ourselves being
seen in a transitional stage during the "renaissance" was quite on the mark.
Hav'ah
Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap wrote in message
<371b65df....@news.teleport.com>...
Hav'ah
insulted constantly. They become defensive and insulting back. I did not
come in here and insult people, or jump on people calling them names. I am
simply asking that you be a little kinder in your responses. You state that
something I've written is "dense", and yet you fail to explain why when I
ask. Yes, I understand that no one is obligated to tell any one any thing.
That's a given. But then, why bother being here?
You were talking about Path 26, something new to me. I read through your
posts and those of ilan. You seemed very confident in what you wrote and
showed your supporting documentation. I thought to myself that this was very
encouraging. You'll give details to someone who insults you and calls you
"stupid" and "idiot", and yet when someone simply asks you to explain
something, and asks with courtesy and respect, you treat them in a demeaning
fashion. Why is this?
I have learned not to assume anything in a post. Sometimes the meaning is
lost in the post or unclear or simply not understood by the reader. I have
always found it better to just ask what was meant. This is courtesy. I am as
capable as the next person to hurl insults, though I won't. I think it is
demeaning to the person hurling them. I just wanted to converse with you
rationally, politely. I thought you were capable of that. I understand that
you are probably used to people hurling insults at you, but I was not, and
am not, one of them.
It seems perhaps we've started off on the "wrong foot". So, to avoid further
convolution, I'll ask you now: could we please just have a conversation?
That was all I wanted. I do not claim perfection. And yes, sometimes I do
miss what you might consider "obvious". I was not about to assume anything.
Which is why I asked. I thought this preferred to just hurling insults back,
which I won't stoop to. I'll tolerate it to a degree, but when, for example,
someone like ilan just always posts abusive comments, then I just don't even
bother with them. From what I have seen, most people here are not like ilan.
Please, just talk to me in a civil manner. I am not your enemy.
Sincerely,
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
to that?
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
handmaid fetches the basket, not the Pharaoh's daughter (2). I suggest you
obtain an original Hebrew writing of the account. You might be enlightened.
Ex. 2:8 "And the Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Go.' And the maiden went
and called the child's mother."
Ex. 2:5 "...and she saw the ark among the flags, and sent her handmaid to
fetch it."
Hav'ah
Jack Humphry
What decks are they?
>and quite a number of books on the subject
Would you mind listing your books (Only Tarot
books)?
Jack.
benedicthassell
>>> >Ahh. Kabbalah. Qabbalah. Cabbalah. (and other transliterations).
Darling
>>> >where do you think the Kabalah originates? The Ancient Kingdom of
Kongo?
>
>Funny, for someone who lives in Jerusalem, you don't even know the correct
>spelling of qabalah, and why it is spelled this way. Tell me, do you even
>know why it is sometimes spelled "kabbalah"? Of course not! Where did the
>double "b" come from? The British translations.
There is no 'correct' spelling of a transliteration from another alphabet.
A literal transliteration (sic) would be QBLH and that's a bit difficult to
pronounce in most of the languages using this alphabet.
There are various different spelling conventions which Ilan notes.
>Do some research!
Acquisition of knowledge and interpretation of it are two different things,
as many of your previous posts demonstrate.
--
Ben H
J. Karlin
> Hardly. Though I've been told his work is quite good. You have a resentment
> to that?
I see you read people as 'well' as you read the Bible.
(jk)
MLYoung
>that he references, just because they have the same last name (and a common
>one, I might add), would certainly make me dense.
Oh, dear, and here I was hoping you
might be tongue-in-cheek--particularly,
when KatyRose and Jack made a
point of underscoring Bob's last
name.
You know, if you can't get that obvious
a clue, do you really think you're up
to ferreting out the great occult secrets
of history?
--margaret
J. Karlin
> The daughter, Miriam, was one of Pharaoh's daughter's maidens (1).
Wrong.
Miriam is sent by the child's mother to observe him 'at a
distance'.
That's why she is present when Pharaoh's daughter finds the
basket.
> The handmaid fetches the basket, not the Pharaoh's daughter (2).
But Pharaoh's daughter is the one who first sees it. Not the
slave.
The Bible specifically says the sister 'took her stand at
a distance to see what would happen to him (the child)'
(Exodus 2:8). This is before Pharaoh's daughter and her
ladies-in-waiting came down to bathe.
Why would she do this if she were certain about what would
happen because she was already a member of the royal
household?
The Bible makes it quite clear this was no plan on the part
of the child's mother or sister. It says nothing like the mother
and the sister intended the child to be adopted by Pharaoh's
family, and indeed, such an intent might have appeared
like treason, unless it was treated as a chance (or divine)
occurrence.
> I suggest you obtain an original Hebrew writing of the account.
> You might be enlightened.
> Ex. 2:8 "And the Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Go.' And the maiden went
> and called the child's mother."
The sister, 'Miriam', did this, yes. But she is the one who was
sent to watch, 'at a distance'.
> Ex. 2:5 "...and she saw the ark among the flags, and sent her handmaid to
> fetch it."
The Bible does not say that Miriam is the slave.
That may be the way you read it, but the point is that you've ignored
the fact that the mother DID NOT, as you tried to claim, leave the
child with Pharaoh's daughter. She instead left the child to an
unknown fate, which however was only apparently so, since God had
chosen this child to lead the Hebrew people to freedom.
Again, your inept reading of even such a simple scripture as
this draws into question any ability you might claim to reliably
read pertinent sources.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> Medusa...
>
> again it is one thing to state such a thing, and quite another to prove it.
> I have stated quite plainly, that I do not profess to know everything
You don't even know the basics of tarot.
(jk)
MLYoung
>art displayed all the objects portrayed at equal distance with equal
>signifigance, and only their trappings to distinguish them.
Incorrect. While the trick of perspective
was not used, the size of objects and
people was used to denote both distance
and importance. Also, some figures were
placed in front of others--so, obviously,
they are "closer" to the viewer. You
won't find anyone blocking Christ on
the cross.
This was
>to represent our world as seen through the eyes of god (not, as often
>and mistakenly assumed, because medieval artists "just hadn't figured
>it out yet.) (And this too corresponds with Platonic theories of the
>effect of life on art and vice versa.)
But you've made a fundamental
error about medieval art.
>
>The shift to perspective was a shift to art portraying life as seen
>through the eyes of man. It was
Here, too, is a fundamental error.
The eyes of man don't see from a
single perspective. It shifts constantly.
The use of a vanishing point to create
depth does not actually coincide with
how we actually see. There's an interesting
painting by David Hockney--well, large
group of paintings that, together, depict the Grand Canyon. In each small
painting, the perspective differs
representative - although in no way
>leading or inducing or aiding - of the shift from viewing the
>individual as part of a system subservient to god and king. Instead,
>Renaissance thinking put the individual at the center of his own
>universe.
Oh, boy. Checked out some of those
pictures of Renaissance royalty?
Absolute monarchy was the name of the
game and Renaissance art repeatedly
glorifies the absolute monarch (not
surprising given who paid the bills).
>
>Compare the writings of Chaucer or Mallory with those of Rabelais, for
>some readily available examples.
To what end? Chaucer and Mallory are
quite different in their characterizations
and certainly humanity is the center of
the Canterbury Tales--that's one of its
ironies. The pilgrims may all be tromping
to Canterbury, but they're *all* far more
interested in themselves than their
pilgrimage.
So, what are you trying to say here?
--margaret
J. Karlin
> It is my experience, that people in ngs are accustomed to being "dissed" and
> insulted constantly.
Especially if they act like you.
> They become defensive and insulting back. I did not
> come in here and insult people,
Of course you did.
You presumed that everyone here would just be delighted
to hear about the results of your dumb research because it
was not in your tiny brain's capacity to imagine that anyone
might actually know a great deal more than you about---anything.
You were wrong.
> or jump on people calling them names. I am
> simply asking that you be a little kinder in your responses.
I see the new meat is starting to get tender.
> You state that something I've written is "dense",
Not just something---most everything.
> and yet you fail to explain why when I
> ask.
It's more fun that way.
> Yes, I understand that no one is obligated to tell any one any thing.
You could have read the FAQ of course.
I did give you the address.
> That's a given. But then, why bother being here?
You're a gameball.
> You were talking about Path 26, something new to me. I read through your
> posts and those of ilan. You seemed very confident in what you wrote
Uh-oh, I detect some envy in the meat.
> and
> showed your supporting documentation. I thought to myself that this was very
> encouraging. You'll give details to someone who insults you and calls you
> "stupid" and "idiot", and yet when someone simply asks you to explain
> something, and asks with courtesy and respect, you treat them in a demeaning
> fashion. Why is this?
Because you're an idiot.
And more than this, a NEW idiot.
> I have learned not to assume anything in a post.
Liar---that's all you do.
> Sometimes the meaning is
> lost in the post or unclear or simply not understood by the reader. I have
> always found it better to just ask what was meant.
I asked you what you 'meant'. You did not answer. Indeed, you did
not answer Paul either on a number of his points concerning your
'interpretations' of Egyptian-Biblical syncretism. And he was
polite to you---although that also was a trick.
> This is courtesy. I am as capable as the next person to hurl insults,
I don't think so.
I think you are a little dog that likes to bark at bugs and think
that he's bigger than he really is.
> though I won't. I think it is demeaning to the person hurling them.
Then you should not be giving us a whiny speech about it,
should you? You sound like the 'injured' party here.
> I just wanted to converse with you
> rationally, politely.
Nonsense, you wanted people to take delight in your dumb theories.
> It seems perhaps we've started off on the "wrong foot".
You started off with your foot in your mouth. You have since
swallowed your leg and everything else up to your neck.
Not much left.
> So, to avoid further
> convolution, I'll ask you now: could we please just have a conversation?
She can't. You've been anointed 'gameball'.
> That was all I wanted. I do not claim perfection.
Then you should not act like you possess it.
> And yes, sometimes I do
> miss what you might consider "obvious". I was not about to assume anything.
> Which is why I asked. I thought this preferred to just hurling insults back,
> which I won't stoop to.
You already have stooped to it.
> I'll tolerate it to a degree,
And what you 'tolerate' is supposed to be of interest to
us because?
You have a lot to learn---someone might even teach it to you
here.
(jk)
MLYoung
>worthwhile to share. What you wrote about the awareness of ourselves being
>seen in a transitional stage during the "renaissance" was quite on the mark.
>
>Hav'ah
But, of course, it's actually nowhere
that simple--what we got were glib
assumptions. I point this out because
you also make many, many assumptions.
You may have 2,000 books, but you
think poorly.
You, for example, are so eager to make
an *Egyptian* connection that you squeeze
bits of evidence into holes where they do
not fit, while there are several direct
questions about your sources that you
do not answer.
For example, you can't seem to grasp
that the allusions to Egyptian symbols in
the late 19th and 20th century occult
decks were put there deliberately by
the Victorian occultists--that they were a
late, intentional addition to a symbolic
system that evolved in the late Middle
Ages/early Renaissance. There is no
indication whatsoever that prior to the
additions of the occultists that there was
any sort of direct link to the beliefs of
Ancient Egypt. At most, you might be
able to trace the history of an idea that
showed up in several places, but that
really doesn't mean all that much.
By the way, be particularly leery of
making connections between mythical
systems. Motifs about dying and reborn
gods and shamans can be found
everywhere. Part of being a God is
control over dying.
--margaret
Tarotpoppa
writes:
>
>It is my experience, that people in ngs are accustomed to being "dissed" and
>insulted constantly. They become defensive and insulting back. I did not
>come in here and insult people, or jump on people calling them names.
<snip a bunch of self-serving nonsense>
I'll tolerate it to a degree, but when, for example,
>someone like ilan just always posts abusive comments, then I just don't even
>bother with them. From what I have seen, most people here are not like ilan.
>Please, just talk to me in a civil manner.
OK, I will, although I think that is better than you deserve.
You came here trotting out a bunch of gratuitous claims about the bible and
tarot. Gratuitous claims can, and (in this group) usually will be vigorously
challenged. This is exactly what happened here. You would have known this if
you had lurked for a month or so, and read the faq for the ng. This is good
practice for any ng.
I have been studying tarot intensely for a little less than a year. But even
I, who have somewhat less than 2,000 books, know that there is no evidence that
tarot was invented in the 1100's. When you were called on that, you said that
you meant that playing cards were invented then. OOPS #1
You said that ALL of the bible was stolen from Egyptian writings. When called
on this you said you meant that SOME of the bible was stolen. OOPS #2
You said that all the tarot cards labled #2 had two pillars on them. Then you
admitted that some didn't. OOPS #3
You come here claiming to be a serious scholar, but you are, at best, sloppy
and at worst, deceitful in your first encounter with us, then you bitch at us
about our "rudeness."
I have no idea why you came here with your ridiculous claims and assertions,
but I suspect some hidden agenda. Maybe to get visitors to your website, or
recruit for your christian bible study group, I don't know. Why don't you tell
us?
I subscribe to this group to gain knowledge and understanding. (Well, OK, some
of the flame wars are damned amusing.) I also have other demands in my life,
so I have to limit the time I spend on tarot accordingly. What really PISSES
ME OFF is when someone like you, claiming to be a scholar, comes here and
wastes my time and everybody else's time with the kind of nonsense you are
selling here! People, like me, with less than a year's study of the subject,
can tell that you don't know diddly about tarot or the bible. Your knowledge
of QBLH seems even less, if that is possible.
> I am not your enemy.
>
On the contrary, I think you are. I have only so much time in my life and you
have wasted far too much. When too many like you start spewing their bs here,
I end up having to unsub because I don't have time to weed the garden. Please
take agenda to where it might be appreciated. You have no credibility here.
Make your OBES (that is, your Obligatory Bold Exit Statement).
>Sincerely,
>
I doubt that you have a sincere bone in your body.
>Hav'ah
Patrick
"Know when to fold 'em. ... Know when to run." K. Rogers
Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap
>>Entirely as an aside, the 2D-to-3D shift does have signifigance: 2D
>>art displayed all the objects portrayed at equal distance with equal
>>signifigance, and only their trappings to distinguish them.
>
>Incorrect. While the trick of perspective
>was not used, the size of objects and
>people was used to denote both distance
>and importance. Also, some figures were
>placed in front of others--so, obviously,
>they are "closer" to the viewer. You
>won't find anyone blocking Christ on
>the cross.
I think it's fairly safe to say Christ is a special exception.
As for the rest, give me some examples. The tapestry of Bayeux or even
the works of Giotto provide evidence of my points.
> This was
>>to represent our world as seen through the eyes of god (not, as often
>>and mistakenly assumed, because medieval artists "just hadn't figured
>>it out yet.) (And this too corresponds with Platonic theories of the
>>effect of life on art and vice versa.)
>
>But you've made a fundamental
>error about medieval art.
Correct it. So far you've only said what's wrong with it, and provided
no counterexamples and no alternate postulates. Tell me why medieval
art is 2-D and Renaissance art is 3-D.
>>The shift to perspective was a shift to art portraying life as seen
>>through the eyes of man. It was
>Here, too, is a fundamental error.
>The eyes of man don't see from a
>single perspective. It shifts constantly.
>The use of a vanishing point to create
>depth does not actually coincide with
>how we actually see. There's an interesting
>painting by David Hockney--well, large
>group of paintings that, together, depict the Grand Canyon. In each small
>painting, the perspective differs
This is nitpicking, Margaret. Yes, our perspectives shift constantly,
but if we're holding still and staring steady, we see a single
perspective.
You're shifting over to the difference between Renaissance and
post-Renaissance thought - Renaissance where the individual was made
central and the later thoughts and schools which identified the
individual's many other perspectives.
To put it another way:
Pre-modern thought, Renaissance and medieval and so forth included, is
Copernican: there is a center, whether god or king or man. Post-modern
thought is quite the opposite: there is no center, only the mingle and
mash of everything around us.
Modern thought forced a center in growing recognition that there was
none. The "modern" period, roughly corresponding to the Industrial
Revolution with a decade or two tacked on in either direction, was the
time in which the notions that supported centralization were
challenged (and finally undermined.)
>representative - although in no way
>>leading or inducing or aiding - of the shift from viewing the
>>individual as part of a system subservient to god and king. Instead,
>>Renaissance thinking put the individual at the center of his own
>>universe.
>
>Oh, boy. Checked out some of those
>pictures of Renaissance royalty?
>Absolute monarchy was the name of the
>game and Renaissance art repeatedly
>glorifies the absolute monarch (not
>surprising given who paid the bills).
Exactly. The guy who paid the bills got the spiff pitchures.
When wasn't that true?
The very hallmark of the Renaissance was the spread of knowledge,
which informed feudal peasants of the vast worlds which lay beyond the
villages in which they spent their whole lives. It was in this period
that the middle class finally got underway. It was in this period - so
very aptly personified in Rabelais' Pantagruel - that the concept of
"living live to the fullest" usurped the notion of serving the divine
nobility.
>>Compare the writings of Chaucer or Mallory with those of Rabelais, for
>>some readily available examples.
>
>To what end? Chaucer and Mallory are
>quite different in their characterizations
>and certainly humanity is the center of
>the Canterbury Tales--that's one of its
>ironies. The pilgrims may all be tromping
>to Canterbury, but they're *all* far more
>interested in themselves than their
>pilgrimage.
>
>So, what are you trying to say here?
Chaucer's subjects are carefully considered in light of their social
rank. They may be interested in themselves, but they exist only to
convey stories to us: cogs in a wheel. Mallory's characters are
puppets in a puppet-show. (Though neither author deprives his
characters of humanity, in both cases the focus is on the character's
doings rather than his internal workings.) The characters of
Shakespeare and Rabelais - a thousand times more richly drawn - spill
out their thoughts and emotions, and these thoughts and emotions are
both proactive and reactive. They are satisfying because of who they
are, not what they do.
It's nothing less than a shift from the question "what" or "how" to
the question "why", and Man is at the middle of it.
Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap
wrote:
>Thank you. It is nice to read a post from someone who actually has something
>worthwhile to share. What you wrote about the awareness of ourselves being
>seen in a transitional stage during the "renaissance" was quite on the mark.
I can't recall saying anything about "awareness of ourselves".
What, exactly, is "awareness of ourselves"?
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
> ...The Renaissance era is called so because
> at that time in history, artwork went from 2D to 3D...
Can you give me a source for that statement?
I believe it is incorrect.
I believe the term was coined to refer to the reawakening of interest in
the classics.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
> Well, from my research I have ascertained that Card 11 cannot be strength.
> It must be Wisdom, commonly called Justice.
Okay, then, lets take Justice. The Justice card has been assigned
number 8 (Tarot de Marseille), 7 (Vievil deck ~1650), 20 (Steele
Manuscript 1470), and 9 (15th century Rosenwald sheet). The first time
it was numbered 11 was in the Golden Dawn's Cipher manuscript, most
likely dating from the late 19th century. The specific reason for
assigning this number appears to be that when they lined up the cards
and the astrological signs, they ended up with Leo - Justice and Libra -
Fortitude, so they switched the numbers.
> >If you mean the cards that represent Fortitude/Strength - then the
> >oldest deck we have shows a man with a club about to kill a lion - the
> >only common feature is the lion. I agree with your principle of looking
> >for the common features - but across the range of interpretations, there
> >is almost nothing that is common to ALL decks.
>
> Which is why I am so perplexed. For such an important medium, the Tarot has
> been skewed so many times. Obviously, this has been done intentioanlly...
Be careful, those are judgments and not statements of fact -
Were they skewed or did they evolve and change? How would you decide if
the changes revealed more of the symbolism or distorted it? In fact its
not at all 'obvious' that there was any 'intention' whatever. So be
careful you don't decide soemthing is wrong just because it doesn't
correspond to your theory - it is also possible thta your theory is
wrong.
> ...my research shows that throughout
> history, many people have had to disguise their truths in order for them to
> survive...
But many, many more people simply got it wrong. So its pretty flaky to
argue that the evidence doesn't fit my theory because they were
disguising the truth. There is always a simpler answer - the theory is
wrong and the truth is elsewhere.
> ...Though I
> don't believe the Tarot is of Gnostic origin...
First look at the evidence in the book and only after that decide.
> >> ...Card 12 - Peter the martyr...
> >
> >(1) There is a break in your logic here - if the Tarot was designed by
> >ancient Egyptians, how could they know about Peter?
> >(2) In the 15th century when the tarot was designed, someone hung upside
> >down was a common representations of a traitor - lots of examples.
>
> I didn't say it was designed by the egyptians...
Sorry, I thought that was what you were maintaining. So do you think
thta the Hangedman image proves thta the imagery does NOT trace back to
ancient Egypt? Although there is some variation, that symbol is pretty
consistent through the history of the Tarot deck - doesn't tht mean its
'accurate' (by your criterion of consistency)?
> However, considering I have found much information in the Bible that is
> blatanly Egyptian 3000 BC, it is not unlikely that the image of Peter
> hanging upside down was borrowed from another Egyptian myth or legend. I am
> still working on that, though not enduringly since I haven't gotten to that
> as being a priority.
Perhaps you should move it up in the priorities - if its not in the
ancient Egyptian imagery, doesn't that disprove your theory?
> ...If you look up Ahkenaton and the city he built to God,
> Ahketaton, you will learn about the tablets discovered under his city.
will do
> If you are interested, I just finished posting a complete and supported
> research article called "Moses did not write the first five books of the
> Bible", and you can view it at:
>
> http://www.sstsystems.net/~havah/mosauthr.html
I'll get back to you after I have a chance to look at it.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
>
> >>... The crusades began in 1096, and all the writings
> >> were being burned and destroyed...
> >
> >Where did you get that impression? What was burned? Where?
>
> The early christian writings were burned as heretic. This is not uncommon.
> The new religion always destroys the works of the old religion, as much as
> they can anyway. This has been done right through history.
Tell me where you got the impression that "...all the writings were
being burned and detroyed..." Because I don't know of any connection
between the Crusades and book-burning. If you have a source, tell me.
> Anyway, the research I have done concludes that the modern playing deck of
> cards was taken from the Tarot. This would mean that the tarot deck
> pre-dated the playing cards, by some time, though it is uncertain by how
> long exactly. And so the mystery remains unsolved, and specualtion rules.
That's another old error that has been corrected. The reasons why the
error cropped up are discussed in some detail in Dummett: The Game of
Tarot, 1980 - but I think you can find all the references you need in
Kaplan. It seems pretty clear now that playing cards entered Europe
first and the Trumps were added later.
>... From my personal research, I think that I have found
> >> evidence which would like a tarot-type of group of writings (symbolic and
> >> pictorial) with Thothmes III, but I'm still working with that data. I'll
> let
> >> you know if I find anything substantial. :-)
> >
> >What is the source of your information?
...
Nothing in what you gave us says anything about "...a tarot-type group
of writings (symbolic and pictorial)..."
> ...My sources?...I have first-hand knowledge and accounts of discoveries that don't
> even make it to print for years.
It doesn't really matter what you have - if its not available for
critical examination and possibly alternative interpretations, then it
doesn't exist as far as this dialogue is concerned.
Bob/Gerry O'Neill
> I have the entire encyclopedia volumes from Budge...there are some Pyramid
> paintings that closely
> resemble certain Tarot deck cards, that the relationship cannot be ignored.
Interesting - where can I find these pyramid painting - are they in
Budge?
I have been through dozens of volumes of Egyptian imagery and have found
nothing that resembles the Tarot. What specific decks do you have in
mind by "...resemble certain Tarot deck cards..."?
>...other information about the transliterations has come to light in
> the last 100 years, I would have to say that there are errors in his
> transliterations. Though the bul of his work seems intact, there are
> problems with it...
Can you give me a citation that discusses this? I was under the
impression tht his dictionary was still being used - is there an updated
version?
MLYoung
>
>>>Entirely as an aside, the 2D-to-3D shift does have signifigance: 2D
>>>art displayed all the objects portrayed at equal distance with equal
>>>signifigance, and only their trappings to distinguish them.
>>
>>Incorrect. While the trick of perspective
>>was not used, the size of objects and
>>people was used to denote both distance
>>and importance. Also, some figures were
>>placed in front of others--so, obviously,
>>they are "closer" to the viewer. You
>>won't find anyone blocking Christ on
>>the cross.
>
>I think it's fairly safe to say Christ is a special exception.
>
>As for the rest, give me some examples. The tapestry of Bayeux or even
>the works of Giotto provide evidence of my points.
Oh, let's see, Sassetta, Pisanello, Orcagna,
Don Lorenzo Monaco, Uccello
(The Battle of San Romano), Fra Angelico,
Fra Filippo Lippi . . . Do you want me to
go on? I haven't even wandered north
of Italy.
>
>> This was
>>>to represent our world as seen through the eyes of god (not, as often
>>>and mistakenly assumed, because medieval artists "just hadn't figured
>>>it out yet.) (And this too corresponds with Platonic theories of the
>>>effect of life on art and vice versa.)
>>
>>But you've made a fundamental
>>error about medieval art.
>
>Correct it. So far you've only said what's wrong with it, and provided
>no counterexamples and no alternate postulates. Tell me why medieval
I don't have to provide alternative
theories (by the way, you've misused
both "alternate" and "postulates.") I
have now provided you with several
examples that contradict your character-
isation of medieval art.
>art is 2-D and Renaissance art is 3-D.
Once again, I don't need to in order
to point out the error in your statement.
>
>>>The shift to perspective was a shift to art portraying life as seen
>>>through the eyes of man. It was
>>Here, too, is a fundamental error.
>>The eyes of man don't see from a
>>single perspective. It shifts constantly.
>>The use of a vanishing point to create
>>depth does not actually coincide with
>>how we actually see. There's an interesting
>>painting by David Hockney--well, large
>>group of paintings that, together, depict the Grand Canyon. In each small
>>painting, the perspective differs
>
>This is nitpicking, Margaret. Yes, our perspectives shift constantly,
>but if we're holding still and staring steady, we see a single
>perspective.
No, it's a great deal more than nitpicking
as your classic perspective painting
involves a great deal more than what
one sees from a single perspective.
Renaissance paintings show an
artificial or forced perspective.
>
>You're shifting over to the difference between Renaissance and
>post-Renaissance thought - Renaissance where the individual was made
>central and the later thoughts and schools which identified the
>individual's many other perspectives.
No, I'm trying to point out that whatever
simple summaries of history you learned
in school fall far short of the complex
events and relationships that existed.
The Renaissance is a good 250 years
prior to "All men are created equal."
>
>To put it another way:
>
>Pre-modern thought, Renaissance and medieval and so forth included, is
>Copernican: there is a center, whether god or king or man. Post-modern
>thought is quite the opposite: there is no center, only the mingle and
>mash of everything around us.
Oh, dear. You want to do something about
the 500 years in-between? Medieval
thought is, of course, by definition, not
Copernican. Post-modernism, which
must be one of the most misused terms
on this newsgroups, deals with . . . oh,
hell, you're so out of it on that one, I'm
not sure I feel like going into it. Hell,
figure out what occurred in the intervening
500 years before we get into Pomo territory.
>
>Modern thought forced a center in growing recognition that there was
>none. The "modern" period, roughly corresponding to the Industrial
>Revolution with a decade or two tacked on in either direction, was the
>time in which the notions that supported centralization were
>challenged (and finally undermined.)
Kiddo, ya gotta get your nose out of
that grade school history book.
>
>>representative - although in no way
>>>leading or inducing or aiding - of the shift from viewing the
>>>individual as part of a system subservient to god and king. Instead,
>>>Renaissance thinking put the individual at the center of his own
>>>universe.
>>
>>Oh, boy. Checked out some of those
>>pictures of Renaissance royalty?
>>Absolute monarchy was the name of the
>>game and Renaissance art repeatedly
>>glorifies the absolute monarch (not
>>surprising given who paid the bills).
>
>Exactly. The guy who paid the bills got the spiff pitchures.
>
>When wasn't that true?
Oh, try the disappearance of the human
figure as a serious subject of art post
WWII. Look, just accept the fact
you really don't have a clue, here.
>
>The very hallmark of the Renaissance was the spread of knowledge,
>which informed feudal peasants of the vast worlds which lay beyond the
>villages in which they spent their whole lives.
Er, no. Feudalism did decay and city-
states did become more powerful,
but peasants remained illiterate.
It was in this period
>that the middle class finally got underway. It
No. This began earlier--thanks in
part to the black death, which upset
the economic underpinnings of
feudalism by wiping out large chunks
of its workforce.
was in this period - so
>very aptly personified in Rabelais' Pantagruel - that the concept of
>"living live to the fullest" usurped the notion of serving the divine
>nobility.
Is this the latest rendition of Corey
Connor?
>
>>>Compare the writings of Chaucer or Mallory with those of Rabelais, for
>>>some readily available examples.
>>
>>To what end? Chaucer and Mallory are
>>quite different in their characterizations
>>and certainly humanity is the center of
>>the Canterbury Tales--that's one of its
>>ironies. The pilgrims may all be tromping
>>to Canterbury, but they're *all* far more
>>interested in themselves than their
>>pilgrimage.
>>
>>So, what are you trying to say here?
>
>Chaucer's subjects are carefully considered in light of their social
>rank. They may be interested in themselves, but they exist only to
>convey stories to us: cogs in a wheel.
In other words, you've not read Chaucer.
Indeed, you seem to be unaware that
he wrote anything besides the Canterbury
Tales.
Mallory's characters are
>puppets in a puppet-show. (Though neither author deprives his
>characters of humanity, in both cases the focus is on the character's
>doings rather than his internal workings.)
Or Malory.
The characters of
>Shakespeare and Rabelais - a thousand times more richly drawn - spill
How are they more richly drawn than
Chaucer's? Oh, and *do* be specific.
And let's compare apples and apples, here:
how are the characters of Spenser's
The Faerie Queene more real than those of
Malory's Morte d'Arthur?
>out their thoughts and emotions, and these thoughts and emotions are
>both proactive and reactive. They are satisfying because of who they
>are, not what they do.
You know, next time you should
read the stuff instead of glosses on
it. The thinness of your knowledge
is painfully apparent.
--margaret
>
>It's nothing less than a shift from the question "what" or "how" to
>the question "why", and Man is at the middle of it.
>
>
>--
>
>A copper blade
>Infinitely many strings.
>
>sqrt email
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Thoth....
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!newsrouter.icnc.com!euro
pa.clark.net!europa.netcrusader.net!209.113.65.250!korova.insync.net!nntp.
teleport.com!news1.teleport.com!not-for-mail
>From: alep...@hotmailsquared.com (Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap)
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Organization: Theodoxus' Burgundy Flytrap Cab Co.
>Message-ID:
Alehandro Taptaptaptaptap
I didn't ask you to point out the error in my statement. You've
already done that. I asked you to tell me why medieval art is 2-D and
Renaissance art is 3-D.
And to what do you attribute the difference between medieval art that
portrays figures equally and those, as you claim, that do not?
>>
>>>>The shift to perspective was a shift to art portraying life as seen
>>>>through the eyes of man. It was
>>>Here, too, is a fundamental error.
>>>The eyes of man don't see from a
>>>single perspective. It shifts constantly.
>>>The use of a vanishing point to create
>>>depth does not actually coincide with
>>>how we actually see. There's an interesting
>>>painting by David Hockney--well, large
>>>group of paintings that, together, depict the Grand Canyon. In each small
>>>painting, the perspective differs
>>
>>This is nitpicking, Margaret. Yes, our perspectives shift constantly,
>>but if we're holding still and staring steady, we see a single
>>perspective.
>
>No, it's a great deal more than nitpicking
>as your classic perspective painting
>involves a great deal more than what
>one sees from a single perspective.
>Renaissance paintings show an
>artificial or forced perspective.
If this is so, then what is the reasoning behind it?
>>
>>You're shifting over to the difference between Renaissance and
>>post-Renaissance thought - Renaissance where the individual was made
>>central and the later thoughts and schools which identified the
>>individual's many other perspectives.
>
>No, I'm trying to point out that whatever
>simple summaries of history you learned
>in school fall far short of the complex
>events and relationships that existed.
>The Renaissance is a good 250 years
>prior to "All men are created equal."
I said nothing about "All men are created equal." I said something
about the Renaissance fostering a mindset of doing the best for one's
self.
>>
>>To put it another way:
>>
>>Pre-modern thought, Renaissance and medieval and so forth included, is
>>Copernican: there is a center, whether god or king or man. Post-modern
>>thought is quite the opposite: there is no center, only the mingle and
>>mash of everything around us.
>
>Oh, dear. You want to do something about
>the 500 years in-between? Medieval
>thought is, of course, by definition, not
>Copernican. Post-modernism, which
>must be one of the most misused terms
>on this newsgroups, deals with . . . oh,
>hell, you're so out of it on that one, I'm
>not sure I feel like going into it. Hell,
>figure out what occurred in the intervening
>500 years before we get into Pomo territory.
Post-modernism is decentralization.
If you're not willing to "go into it", then I remain unconvinced.
Now if there's pre-modern, post-modern, and modern, what time is left
unaccounted for?
>>
>>Modern thought forced a center in growing recognition that there was
>>none. The "modern" period, roughly corresponding to the Industrial
>>Revolution with a decade or two tacked on in either direction, was the
>>time in which the notions that supported centralization were
>>challenged (and finally undermined.)
>
>Kiddo, ya gotta get your nose out of
>that grade school history book.
Give me reasons why. Give me other explainations and other examples.
And if I am so much the ignorant unworthy, then why are you wasting
your time on this discussion?
>>
>>>representative - although in no way
>>>>leading or inducing or aiding - of the shift from viewing the
>>>>individual as part of a system subservient to god and king. Instead,
>>>>Renaissance thinking put the individual at the center of his own
>>>>universe.
>>>
>>>Oh, boy. Checked out some of those
>>>pictures of Renaissance royalty?
>>>Absolute monarchy was the name of the
>>>game and Renaissance art repeatedly
>>>glorifies the absolute monarch (not
>>>surprising given who paid the bills).
>>
>>Exactly. The guy who paid the bills got the spiff pitchures.
>>
>>When wasn't that true?
>
>Oh, try the disappearance of the human
>figure as a serious subject of art post
>WWII. Look, just accept the fact
>you really don't have a clue, here.
I'll readily accept the fact that you read without thinking, and that
you like saying "No" without saying "why." You're uniformly
unconvincing when you do that.
If you would like to have a portrait painted of yourself, then you may
pay to have it done. The artist you have paid clearly has a vested
interest in seeing that you're pleased with his rendition.
How much more so the Renaissance artist must have been invested in
pleasing his royal subject: not only his livelihood, but his very life
was often at stake.
>>
>>The very hallmark of the Renaissance was the spread of knowledge,
>>which informed feudal peasants of the vast worlds which lay beyond the
>>villages in which they spent their whole lives.
>
>Er, no. Feudalism did decay and city-
>states did become more powerful,
>but peasants remained illiterate.
Show me where I said "and the peasants all learned to read."
> It was in this period
>>that the middle class finally got underway. It
>
>No. This began earlier--thanks in
>part to the black death, which upset
>the economic underpinnings of
>feudalism by wiping out large chunks
>of its workforce.
Yes, it began earlier, in much the same way that the internet began
earlier than the WWW.
>was in this period - so
>>very aptly personified in Rabelais' Pantagruel - that the concept of
>>"living live to the fullest" usurped the notion of serving the divine
>>nobility.
>
>Is this the latest rendition of Corey
>Connor?
No.
>>>>Compare the writings of Chaucer or Mallory with those of Rabelais, for
>>>>some readily available examples.
>>>
>>>To what end? Chaucer and Mallory are
>>>quite different in their characterizations
>>>and certainly humanity is the center of
>>>the Canterbury Tales--that's one of its
>>>ironies. The pilgrims may all be tromping
>>>to Canterbury, but they're *all* far more
>>>interested in themselves than their
>>>pilgrimage.
>>>
>>>So, what are you trying to say here?
>>
>>Chaucer's subjects are carefully considered in light of their social
>>rank. They may be interested in themselves, but they exist only to
>>convey stories to us: cogs in a wheel.
>
>In other words, you've not read Chaucer.
>Indeed, you seem to be unaware that
>he wrote anything besides the Canterbury
>Tales.
I'm quite aware of it. The Canterbury Tales is the work I was assuming
that - as I see you have assumed with me - you were familiar with.
>Mallory's characters are
>>puppets in a puppet-show. (Though neither author deprives his
>>characters of humanity, in both cases the focus is on the character's
>>doings rather than his internal workings.)
>
>Or Malory.
You're terribly wise to correct my speeling.
>The characters of
>>Shakespeare and Rabelais - a thousand times more richly drawn - spill
>
>How are they more richly drawn than
>Chaucer's? Oh, and *do* be specific.
>And let's compare apples and apples, here:
>how are the characters of Spenser's
>The Faerie Queene more real than those of
>Malory's Morte d'Arthur?
Do you know Guenivere or Titania the better?
>>out their thoughts and emotions, and these thoughts and emotions are
>>both proactive and reactive. They are satisfying because of who they
>>are, not what they do.
>
>You know, next time you should
>read the stuff instead of glosses on
>it. The thinness of your knowledge
>is painfully apparent.
You have shown great breadth, but little or no depth. Unless you can
give me concrete counterexamples, I have no reason to depart from my
position.
If you are not arguing to convince me, then what's your point? Are you
ensuring that nobody else buys my trash? Or are you vainly preening
for the mirror?