Discover The Lost History of ‘Hidden Wisdom’

By on October 16, 2010 in News 12

Here’s author and Freemason Tim Wallace-Murphy speaking at the Chancellor Robert R. Livingston Masonic Library of the Grand Lodge of New York in May 2010. This presentation is based on his book Hidden Wisdom: Secrets of the Western Esoteric Tradition.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • nemoide

    This is a really great lecture!

  • Anonymous

    This is a really great lecture!

  • chinagreenelvis

    As far as I can tell, the idea that Akhenaten and Moses are the same person directly contradicts mainstream Egyptology. The field has in no way “settled” the question of whether or not Moses was a pharaoh. He claims that the work of Freud and others point “unerringly” to a “98%” chance of the above being true. I shouldn’t have to point out that there are no probabilities in history and therefore using a statistic to suggest accuracy is in and of itself ridiculous, but to convince anybody that any of Sigmund Freud’s contributions to the world could be without error would require either complete ignorance of the history of psychology or extreme gullibility on the part of anyone who was familiar with it. Non-withstanding what should go without saying, this claim is plainly wrong: Freud’s best guess was that Moses was the high priest of Aten and nowhere does he attempt to equate him with Akhenaten/Amenhotep.

    • Jan

      You are probably familiar with Zecariah Sitchin”s Earth Chronicles. Evidence of Akhenaten and Mose being one and the same is there.

  • chinagreenelvis

    As far as I can tell, the idea that Akhenaten and Moses are the same person directly contradicts mainstream Egyptology. The field has in no way “settled” the question of whether or not Moses was a pharaoh. He claims that the work of Freud and others point “unerringly” to a “98%” chance of the above being true. I shouldn’t have to point out that there are no probabilities in history and therefore using a statistic to suggest accuracy is in and of itself ridiculous, but to convince anybody that any of Sigmund Freud’s contributions to the world could be without error would require either complete ignorance of the history of psychology or extreme gullibility on the part of anyone who was familiar with it. Non-withstanding what should go without saying, this claim is plainly wrong: Freud’s best guess was that Moses was the high priest of Aten and nowhere does he attempt to equate him with Akhenaten/Amenhotep.

  • Fast

    Thx for this great lecture
    :)

  • Fast

    Thx for this great lecture
    :)

  • Jan

    You are probably familiar with Zecariah Sitchin”s Earth Chronicles. Evidence of Akhenaten and Mose being one and the same is there.

  • Mesoanarchy

    @chinagreenelvis: Because all of mainstream history and too much of alternative history is written with an eye on ensuring that ancient and indigenous peoples are perceived as primitive and is therefore based on lies, using probability statistics to assess the likelihood of an event given the prehistoric/historic information available, archaeological evidence, cross-cultural references, etc. is as valid a way to “prove” that a certain event did or did not take place as are mentions of or disavowals of an event in academic journals.

  • Mesoanarchy

    @chinagreenelvis: Because all of mainstream history and too much of alternative history is written with an eye on ensuring that ancient and indigenous peoples are perceived as primitive and is therefore based on lies, using probability statistics to assess the likelihood of an event given the prehistoric/historic information available, archaeological evidence, cross-cultural references, etc. is as valid a way to “prove” that a certain event did or did not take place as are mentions of or disavowals of an event in academic journals.

  • KewGardensNYC

    Akhetaten and Moses being one and the same is idiocy. First of all, if Moses existed at all–we have only one reference-the chronology to the single Egyptian reference to the Israelites is several hundred years out of synch. Secondly, Akhetaten was certainly not a monotheist in any sense: this is a 19century fantasy. The Aten was a V Dynasty solar cult and the accepted evidence for Akhetaten’s revolution was him trying to get more and more power by going backwards to the period when pharaoh was regarded as god on earth–the IV-V Dynasties. The goddess Ma’at and a few others essential for the cult of pharaoh were not prosecuted in his new order; in fact, altars to them were discovered in Akhetaten’s new city, Amarna. A new favorite (new) god mean new priesthoods and new men who owed everything to pharaoh. Thus, the powerful god Amun and his incredibly wealthy clergy under Akhetamun’s father Amunhotep III was disenfranchised. It is and was, a simple example of politics and power, and that is how modern Egyptologists regard it.

    As for the alledged monotheism of the Israelites, see The Hebrew Goddess, now in its 3rd edition. Seems that this loose ethnic group wasn’t monolithic either and only by going back, destroying or ignoring the archaeology and creating a fantasy, can moderns in any sense come up with the idea of one god. After all, who the hell was the Golden Calf, if not Hathor (the Golden One who took cow form). And read Kings: there is continual mention of “foreign” gods being worshipped.

  • Anonymous

    Akhetaten and Moses being one and the same is idiocy. First of all, if Moses existed at all–we have only one reference-the chronology to the single Egyptian reference to the Israelites is several hundred years out of synch. Secondly, Akhetaten was certainly not a monotheist in any sense: this is a 19century fantasy. The Aten was a V Dynasty solar cult and the accepted evidence for Akhetaten’s revolution was him trying to get more and more power by going backwards to the period when pharaoh was regarded as god on earth–the IV-V Dynasties. The goddess Ma’at and a few others essential for the cult of pharaoh were not prosecuted in his new order; in fact, altars to them were discovered in Akhetaten’s new city, Amarna. A new favorite (new) god mean new priesthoods and new men who owed everything to pharaoh. Thus, the powerful god Amun and his incredibly wealthy clergy under Akhetamun’s father Amunhotep III was disenfranchised. It is and was, a simple example of politics and power, and that is how modern Egyptologists regard it.

    As for the alledged monotheism of the Israelites, see The Hebrew Goddess, now in its 3rd edition. Seems that this loose ethnic group wasn’t monolithic either and only by going back, destroying or ignoring the archaeology and creating a fantasy, can moderns in any sense come up with the idea of one god. After all, who the hell was the Golden Calf, if not Hathor (the Golden One who took cow form). And read Kings: there is continual mention of “foreign” gods being worshipped.