Praising the One True God: Amen!

Um...these?

1) words aren't magic and if you use the word amen it doesn't mean you are worshipping the sun or anything for that matter. [my paraphrase] - Sure, seems straight forward.

2) laughing at ignorance - aimed in this case at such a wide and diverse group of people - is perhaps not something to be so proud of - Ok, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun sometimes.

3) it's another fringe theory - I'm not sufficiently versed in the field to know for sure the fringe from the nonfringe, but so far her main source does seem fringy. Better?
**************
M*W: Fringe theory? Hardly! Words do change meanings over time, and they are not necessarily meant to change into funny words or serious words. They just evolve. The point of my post on "amen", was
to give a little history on its historical usage.

According to Ellis, "Classically, the Aton is described as being the firs monotheistic religion, one that attempted to do away with the plethora of gods that were then in vogue in Egypt. Like Amun, it was essentially a solar worship, but modified in that it was not the Sun itself that was worshiped, but rather the power behind the Sun, as it has been called."

"Christian churches are orientated toward the east, as was the mobile Israelite temple, the Tabernacle."

"In the eighteenth century Viscount Bolingbroke, Charles F. Dupuis, and Count Volney dioscussed and wrote about the myth theory of Christian origins. In the early nineteenth century this propaganda was continued in England by the Reverend Robert Taylor. Reverend Taylor preached sermons in which he claimed that the Christian Savior was the Sun and that the story of his life was nothing more than the allegory of the passage of the solar orb through the twelve signs of the zodiac. As a result, Reverend Taylor was called the "Devil's Chaplain" and was sentenced to two years in jail for blasphemy. Taylor was an ordained minister, a surgeon, and a graduate of Cambridge University, but this did not save him from persecution. A Frenchman named Perez wrote a pamphlet to refute the Mythicists. As far as we know this tract was never translated into English, but a good digest of it was made by Herbert Cutner, whom I cite:"

'It was a Frenchman called Perez who, early last ccentury decided to annihilate the Sun Myth as appliec to Jesus. He wrote a pamphlet which is often . . . but few persons appear to have read it. Here then are some of the points it makes: First of all take the word "Napoleon." It is practically the same as "Apollon" or "Apollo," but if we take the spelling of this name as it appears on the column in the Place Veindome, Napoleon, the prefix Ne which is Greek is a participle of affirmation, shows that Napoleon is the true Apollo or the Sun Bonaparte, his other name, really is "bon part: that is, the good part of the day--the sun giving us the good part, or daylight, and the moon and stars, the bad part--the Night or Darkness.'

"The history of the sun is the history of Jesus Christ. The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. This is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increased, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross (according to Justin Martyr) when he passes the equator at the vernal equinox. These celestial images are what induced the learned Alphonso the Great to declare, that the whole history of Jesus Christ might be read in the stars."

"Julian, one of the noblest of the Roman rulers, was a devout sun worshipper. He tried to crush Christianity and restore paganism in the fourth century but failed gloriously. We may regret that he had no success. One of his modern scholarly admirers has pain him this tribute."

'The last stand for the worship of the Sun in antiquity was made by the Roman Emperor Julian. in a rhapsody addressed to the orb of day, the grave and philosophic Emperor professes himself a follower of King Sun. He declares that the Sus is the common Father of all men, since he begat us and feeds us and gives us all good things; there is no single blessing in our lives which we do not receive from him. And Julian concludes his enthusiastic panegyric with a prayer that the Sun, the King of the Universe, would be gracious to him, granting him as a reward, for his pious zeal, a virtuous life and more perfect wisdom, and in due time, an easy and peaceful departure from this life, that he might ascent to his God in Heaven, there to dwell with Him forever.'

Lang states that, "Take the word amen. Does it have a meaning? Well, it did at one time. The Hebrew amen can be translated as "So be it!" or "Yes, indeed!" or "Truly!" Used in worship, and in particularly at the end of prayers. Jesus himself used it often in his teaching, and it is sometimes translated "truly," as in "Truly, truly, I say to you . . ." It was a way of getting people's attention, like "Get ready, important message coming up . . ." Some later Bible translations have him saying, "I tell you the truth." In the Greek originals, he actually said, Amen, amen. Revelation 3:14 calls Christ "the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness." (This is why one contemporary hymn refers to Jesus as "God's Yes.") The Book of Revelation (and thus the whole Bible) ends in this way: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." (Rev. 22:21)

Lang asks, "Are most people aware of all this? Probably not. It might be worthwhile for pastors to take the time occasionally to explain to people just what amen is all about."

My Note: The Bible does not command people to say amen, but it would be helpful for pastsors to go beyond the word itself and find out the historic meaning of the word.

Gerald Massey states, "Amongst other mysteries declared by Marcus he taught that the restitution of all things occurred when all the numbers of the ineffable Name mixing in one letter should utter one and the same sound. Irenaeus, says Marcus, "imagined that the emblem of this utterance was found in "Amen" which we pronounce in concert. Marcus did not imagine--he knew, beint a Gnostic. "Amen" in Revelation is a title of the God (the Alpha-Omega); and in Egyptian both Amen and Iu mean "come," "to come" the "coming one."

Osman, in his recent book, discusses the "Amen." Plutarch, in his book about Isis and Osiris, states "the Roman historial of the second half of the first century AD, states that 'when the Egyptians name the supreme God, whom they believe to be one with the universe, they call him "Amun."

"The word amen, is used as a response to prayers, almost certainly has as its source the word "amun," used by Isaiah to mean "the hidden one." Both words were written amn in ancient Egyptian. The word "amen" is found in the Olt Testament ("And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands;and they bowed their faces to the ground" [Nehemiah 8:6]) and the New Testament, where it appears 77 times and St. Paul uses it in prayer ("when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest" [I Cor.14:16]). The word frequently rendered as "verily" or "truly" in English, is used as a response to both Christian and Jewish prayers and by Muslims after every recital of the first Sura (chapter) of the Koran."

In Panati's research about Egypt dated around 2500 BCE, he claimes one of the "most common religious utterances, "amen" makes 13 appearances in the Hebrew Bible, 119 in the New Testament, and is plentiful in Islamic writings."

"To the Hebrews, the word meant "so it is," expressing assent or agreement, and also signifying truth. Thus, a Hebrew scholar terminating a speech or sermon with "amen" assured his sudience that his statements were trustworthy and reliable. Also, in early times, many congregants were unable to read and thus join their spiritual leader in prayer; "amen" became the illiterates contribution to, and participation in, textual recitation. Sort of like signing one's name with an "X."

"The Talmud claims that "amen" is an acrostic, that is, in arrangement of the words in which certain letters in each line, such as the first or last, are used to spell out a motto. "Amen," it turns out, is an acrostic formed from the first letters of the Hebrew phrase El Melech Ne'eman, "the Lord is a trustworthy King."

"In the Bible, "amen" first appears in the Book of Numbers, in the "Ordeal for a suspected adultress":

'May the Lord make you an exampleof malediction. . . May this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your body and make your belly swell and your thighs waste away! And the woman shall say, "Amen, amen!" (Num. 5:21-22)

"Thus, the adultress gives her assent to the curse."

"The word then makes twelve appearances in Deuteronomy (chapter 27), as assent to "the twelve curses." For example: "Cursed be he who dishonors his father or his mother! And all the people shall answer, 'Amen!'" (Deut. 27:16)

"In ancient Egyptian theology, "Amun" was the Egyptian god of reproduction. His name means "hidden one," and it is the root of the word "amen."

"Actually, the word has pagan roots andoriginated in Egypt around 2500 BCE. To the Egyptians, Amun meant "hidden one" and was othe name of their highest deity, at one time worshiped throughout the Middle East. As later cultures invoked the god Jupiter with the exclamation "By Jove!," the Egyptians called on their deity, "By Amun!" The Hebrews adopted the affirmation, imbued it with fresh meaning, and passed it on to Christians."

"At the conclusion to the Our Father, it is customary to add "Amen." But as the Lord's Prayer is given in early vrsions of Matthew (6:9-13), the "so be it" response does not appear."

Professor Weigall states that of the gods of Egypt, "the presiding deity of Thebes, was the most powerful. He had been originally the tribal god of the Thebans, but when that city had become the capital of Egypt, he had risen to be the state god of the country. The sun-god Ra, or Ra-Horakhti, originally the diety of Heliopolis (Sun-city), not far from Cairo, had been the state god in earlier times, and the priest of Amon contrived to identify two deities under the name "Amon-Ra, King of the Gods."

References:

Cutner, Herbert.: Jesus: God, Man or Myth?,the Truth Seeker, NY 1950,

Ellis, Ralph.: Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs--The True History of Religion Revealed/I], EDFU Books, Bournermouth, UK, 1999.

Frazer, Sir James George.: Attis, Adonis, Osiris. New Hyde Park, University Books, NY 1961.

Higgins, Godfrey.: Anacalypsis. Vol.II, Green and Co., Longmans, London, 1836.
Taylor, Rev. Robert.: The Devil's Pulpit, Gilbert Vale, NY, 1884.

Jackson, John G.: Christianity Before Christ, American Atheist Press, Austin, TX 1985.

Lang, Stephen J.: What the Bible Didn't Say: Popular Myths and Misonceptions About the Good Book, Fall River Press, NY, 2003.

Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and They Mythical Christ: Separating Fact From Fiction, The Book Tree, CA, 2000.

Osman, Ahmed.: Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, Bear & Company, VT, 2005.

Panati, Charles.: Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions, Arkana, NY, 1996.

Weigall, Arthur.: The Life and TImes of Akhnaton: Pharaoh of Egypt, Cooper Square Press, London, 1922.
 
And the point I made about goodbye?

If atheists say goodbye, should I say they are calling out with requests to God and laugh at their ignorance?

YES!

Who cares? It is apparent that Juadism, Christianity, and Islam have evolved over time...each adapting to changing times and circumstances. If a religion gives someone comfort, what is wrong? If a person derives some personal benefit from a religious belief system, where is the error?

Personally, I seriously doubt that man is capable of understanding the Godhead. Man in the overall scope of things is pretty puny.

Unfortunately, there is much more to religion than personal benefit. Otherwise, atheists wouldn't have even 5% as much criticism.
1111
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. (As I said earlier in this thread.)
Yes & I enlightened them.
1111
You guys are so consistent. Do you think you've weeded out the words that have religious root meanings? Is this a goal you have?

By the way...you are also being consistent saying that I should laugh at atheist for somehow contradicting themselves or whatever it is if they use 'goodbye'. I just don't feel the urge. I think it is a strange way to look at language.
 
I hope I'm consistent. If ever I'm not, that's what I'd like pointed out so I can be certain I examine it well enough.
I have a goal to be as educated as I can & thus to use words in a sensible way.
I have an urge to try to educate the ignorant. Language & communication should make sense. When words "change meanings" via ignorant apathetic whims, languge DEvolves.
OK, I didn't intend that you SHOULD. Perhaps my approval was a bit strong. If you don't feel like doing it, don't. I usually do feel like it.
It is a strange way to look at language. It's strange because most people don't give a damn.
1111
 
And another word you used elsewhere....
Unfortunately, coming from fortune, which has to do with chance and luck. Some rationalists believe there is no chance or luck. I don't know if this applies here. a kind of pagan idea that is still with us.

If it is only words with religious roots research could probably clean up one's language to a great degree in not to long a time.

However if one wants to eliminate language that goes against one's principles the task is impossible. This is because so much of language is metaphorical at root.
 
I hope I'm consistent. If ever I'm not, that's what I'd like pointed out so I can be certain I examine it well enough.
I have a goal to be as educated as I can & thus to use words in a sensible way.
I have an urge to try to educate the ignorant. Language & communication should make sense. When words "change meanings" via ignorant apathetic whims, languge DEvolves.
OK, I didn't intend that you SHOULD. Perhaps my approval was a bit strong. If you don't feel like doing it, don't. I usually do feel like it.
It is a strange way to look at language. It's strange because most people don't give a damn.
1111
I've done a lot of college and graduate level research into language. If you clean up the language by going back to root meanings you will have a very hard time communicating with anyone. Reading Shakespeare or Chaurcer will show you the problems of using many of 'our' words in the old ways. And this is still English. For me, I have to face the fact that language changes and it is a tool not a map of objective reality.

Even a word like 'intend' has changed. It meant to bring one's attention to something.
'strange' used to be literal - from somewhere else, like another country.
'Should' used to include notions of obligation also, and hence 'oath'.
'Damn' took on religious meanings for a while, but the original ones were not religious.

As far as giving a damn, I love language, but language changes and that is part of the beauty of it. I have my pet peeves.

I don't like a lot of business world speak.

Like 'impact' as a verb and all the horrible nouns they make.

and so on.
 
Even a word like 'intend' has changed. It meant to bring one's attention to something.

Thanks for telling me something I didn't know.

I've done a lot of college and graduate level research into language. If you clean up the language by going back to root meanings you will have a very hard time communicating with anyone. Reading Shakespeare or Chaurcer will show you the problems of using many of 'our' words in the old ways. And this is still English. For me, I have to face the fact that language changes and it is a tool not a map of objective reality.

Even a word like 'intend' has changed. It meant to bring one's attention to something.
'strange' used to be literal - from somewhere else, like another country.
'Should' used to include notions of obligation also, and hence 'oath'.
'Damn' took on religious meanings for a while, but the original ones were not religious.

As far as giving a damn, I love language, but language changes and that is part of the beauty of it. I have my pet peeves.

I don't like a lot of business world speak.

Like 'impact' as a verb and all the horrible nouns they make.

and so on.

It seems to me we agree in principle but not degree.
The way in which most words change is ugly. There's no beauty in the ignorant masses misusing a word until that misuse is accepted to be correct.
I don't mean language should never change but the change should be for the better.
I certainly don't want us to go back to speaking & writing like Shakespeare, much less Chaucer.
I have no choice but to face the fact that not only does language change but that it changes in stupid ways as well as intelligent.
Language is a tool which is too often not used very well.
1111
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks and sorry about my nasty post before your last one. At most I should have said I did not feel welcome presenting (possible) new things to you.

It seems to me we agree in principle but not degree.
I am not advocating we go this far. In fact I don't think we really can. I think it is interesting to look at the root meanings of words and their origins, but I feel like we have woken up in the middle of a changing language and there is not much we can do about that fact. We can, of course, be conservative or liberal in certain areas in relation to changes or attempted changes of local uses.

The way in which most words change is ugly.
That's a point we disagree on. I think it is mostly neutral, sometimes ugly - my reaction to 'impact' - and sometimes interesting. But this is a matter of taste so we can't get far trying to 'educate' the other.

There's no beauty in the ignorant masses misusing a word until that misuse is accepted to be correct.
Sometimes I agree with this - perhaps without the phrase 'the ignorant masses'. But in the context of this thread we find ourselves in a society that is, by the definitions of our ancestors, misusing the language all over the place. Which was part of my problem with MW's OP. Pointing out that 'Amen' possibly comes from Egypt is interesting. The rest...well, I made myself clear on that.

I certainly don't want us to go back to speaking & writing like Shakespeare, much less Chaucer.
1111
(what does 1111 mean?)

Nor do I. I have to work hard with Shakespeare. It is worth it, but I do not want emergency room doctors or my wife speaking like that.

But let's start over.

Can you explain in practical terms, perhaps with some examples, how you think we should approach what you see as the misuse of language? And how does this relate to etymology?
 
Back
Top