> Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > charly Wrote:
> > -----
> > > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > >
> > > -----
> > > > I am sure you understand the point well
> > enough.
> > > > While some churches, chapels, abbeys and so
> > on
> > > may
> > > > have crypts for the deceased, these
> > > are
> > > > conceived and built primarily as
> > places
> > > of
> > > > religious worship and various other
> > > > ceremonies, baptisms, weddings, funerals
> > so
> > > > on. These buildings are not conceived for
> > > > primary function of burial.
> > >
> > > A while the pyramid was conceived and built
> > the
> > > tomb for the king,
> > You keep repeating this as if saying it over
> > over will make it true.
> Only reason I repeat it is because you don't get
You're right. I don't get why soemone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and think that by mere constant repetition will somehow make it true. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
> For it to be accepted as
> > true you will need EVIDENCE.
> There is plenty, presented time and again on this
> board and others, but of course as a good fringe
> you deny, ignore, forget this.
No. If that were the case then I and many others on this board would not feel the need to keep asking for this evidence. Opinons, assumptions, guesses are NOT evidence. Claiming the pyramid is a tomb simply because that is what you think, will NOT make it a tomb. If what passes as evidence to you is the best you have then understand that it falls far short of the level of evidence I and many like me would expect. All you appear to have is nothing more than a BELIEF bordering on a cult and like most cults, they are difficult to shake.
> I have presented to
> > you physical evidence which explains the
> > of the earth-filled stone container found by
> > Belzoni in G2. I have shown how this chthonic
> > ritual was carried on by later dynasties. In
> > short, I have shown you that the stone box in
> > (and by extension, all other pyramids with an
> > anonymous stone box) was never a QRSW (ie. a
> > sarcpphagus for the burial of a person such as
> > find in the QRSW of mastabas).
> Your "evidence" is a debris filled sarcophagus
> i.o.w. rubbish.
> Inventing "stone boxes" that aren't sarcophagi
> (when the typology and developpement is well
> known) doesn't help either.
No. An earth-filled anonymous stone box also containing framents of bull bones. The earth symbolising the earth/kingdom, the bull bones symbolising the fecundity of the earth. Placed therein as part of a sacred chthonic ritual. I didn't "invent" anything. The EVIDENCE was found and reported by Belzoni. Alas, however, Belzoni didn't quite understand the implication of what he had discovered. Had he known about the later miniature replicas of this earth-filled box then I am certain he would not have been so quick to declare what he had found was a king's sarcophagus. It wasn't and isn't.
> > various other parts of the
> > > pyramid complex were used for the numerous
> > aspects
> > > of the funeray cult.
> > >
> > Just because your books speak of a "funerary
> > does not make these temples funerary
> > These temples abutting the pyramids were, imo,
> > temples of life of a "rebirth cult" (of the
> > earth/kingdom). Just like the later dynasties
> > would build sun temples in which to recite
> > prayers, spells and incantations to bring about
> > the rebirth of the sun each day, so these
> > temples' with prayers and incantations said
> > day to bring about the desired rebirth of the
> > earth/kingdom (after the deluge).
> Your unsupported opinion.
No more "unsupported" than your "funerary cult". Except I have a piece of evidence--an earth-filled box--strongly indicating a chthonic function and rebirth (of the earth) ritual. Where's your mummy?
> > > > With the pyramid as an instrument not of
> > death
> > > but
> > > > of life and rebirth (for the
> > > why
> > > > wouldn't high-ranking people of that
> > > time
> > > > not want to be buried close to such
> > > > edifice?
> > > >
> > > > SC
> > >
> > > The pyramid was not only the tomb of the king
> > but
> > > also a resurection machine (rebirth),
> > And THAT is where I believe Egyptology has gone
> > awry. They were, imo, 'ressurection machines'
> > bring about the rebirth of the kingdom - that
> > what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition informs us
> > is what the evidence points to. This is not to
> > say, however, that in later dynasties when the
> > pyramid was regarded an 'instrument of rebirth'
> > this concept would be appropriated for the king
> > himself, thus all the confusion we have today.
> > they were FIRST the rebirth instruments for the
> > kingdom--16 (completed) pyramids that would, in
> > time, come to be seen as the body of Osiris
> > had been cut into 16 pieces and scattered
> > the land. This is what the Pyramid Texts say
> > "the pyramid is Osiris... the construction [of
> > pyramid] is Osiris." The Ka of Osiris is within
> > the pyramid (NOT the Osiris N. king's actual
> > body). The pyramid as the 'body of Osiris'
> > essentially serve as the Ka Double for kings of
> > this period.
> Folklore as evidence doesn't help either.
Yes--when the evidence goes against you then it is dismissed as "folklore". No doubt had this Coptic-Egyptian tradition stated these pyramids were conceived as tombs then you would have no problem using such texts to bolster your own argument. The FACT remains, these Coptic-Egyptian texts tell us these pyramids were constructed as 'recovery vaults' or 'arks'.
> pyramid Osiris thing exists only in your
> immagination, not a shred of evidence (well real
> evidence) to support your claims.
What is it you don't understand when the Pyramid Texts tell us quite explicitly that "This pyramid is Osiris... this construction [of the pyramid] is Osiris"? By extension every and all pyramids were regarded by the AEs as the 'body of Osiris'. This is why in later dynasties, as the number of pyramids increased, so too did the body parts Of Osiris--from 16 to 26 and then 42. So why wouldn't the first 16 pyramids not have been regarded as the 'body of Osiris'?
> > high-ranking
> > > people wanted to be buried close to the most
> > > important one.
> > >
> > No. They would want to be close to a structure
> > they knew to be an instrument of rebirth (of
> > kingdom). If the pyramid could bring about the
> > rebirth of the kingdom, it could surely bring
> > about their own rebirth. This is why an Osirian
> > rebirth is a fully corporeal event in the
> > realm and not regarded as a metaphysical
> > resurrection in the heavenly realm. It is a
> > corporeal rebirth because the rebirth or
> > 'reawakening' of the earth was a fully
> > event.
> Made up story, by you.
No--a reinterpretation of the EVIDENCE.
> > > If the pyramids of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
> > dyn
> > > weren't the tombs of the kings, where are
> > > tombs? Still hidden? What are the odds that
> > a
> > > single one of those "hidden" tombs has been
> > found?
> > Many early dynasty mastaba tombs of AE kings
> > raided numerous times. I suspect some of those
> > kings may well have been re-located in the
> > of the Ancestors.
> Hall of Ancestors, another story you made up.
Again--a reinterpretation of the EVIDENCE. I do not insist that it is correct. Only time may tell.
> But one would have thought
> > that the visibility of mastaba tombs would have
> > taught these early kings that underground
> > in an unmarked tomb was the safest way to
> > an uniterrupted afterlife (certainly NOT an
> > more highly visible pyramid).
> Again, no evidence of large scale looting before
> the FIP.
Evidence? And if that is so then why was it felt necessary that the kings suddenly needed a giant pyramid? One of the reasons often cited by orthodoxy is that the massive pyramids offered better security than the simple mastaba. But if, as you claim, mastaba tombs were never raided until the FIP, why then the need for the supposedly more secure pyramid?
> The underground tomb
> > of Khufu's mother at Giza was discovered only
> > the early 20th century after a freak accident.
> > suspect there may be other underground burials
> > be found.
> > SC
> Again, all those kings and not a single one found,
> what are the odds?
Em, that's kinda the whole point.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07-Jan-18 16:46 by Scott Creighton.