Talk:Atenism

message: The following passage sounds like it's criticizing the other Egyptian gods:  In contrast to the old gods, Aten appears primarily to have been seen as a loving and protective god, whose primary goal was not to punish and demand allegiance and sacrifice but to support his people through his presence. This ignores how many gods, like Anubis, supposedly helped people reach the afterlife, and it sounds like an opinion. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other gods mean? 

message: :it is equivalent perhaps to a new Pope declaring an obscure African deity the supreme God of Catholicism, building a new Vatican City somewhere in Canada, and abolishing all bishops as well as banning the symbol of the Cross, defacing all churches to remove all reference to Jesus, and banning any personal veneration of Jesus.
That's a powerful image.
It reminded of the relation of Islam to Byzantine Christianity and Arabic paganism. --Error 22:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with Catholicism

message: This article seems to repeat itself a lot, but I'm too sleepy at the moment to fix it myself, added cleanup notice. - Cymydog Naakka 04:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The Discovery Channel advocated a position that Moses was an Atenist Prince, and rebel son of Ramses (and thus not a Jew from the rushes) who killed his brother, the sub-King, whom would be the Pharoah who drown in the Red Sea... (and thus not a real Pharoah) ... Should this be integrated into the article and sourced as an origin for Judaism?
:This is a very interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence (including one of the psalms found engraved inside a tomb) and doesn't seem to be covered at wikipedia, as far as I can see. I'm going to have a look at the evidence and come back when I've done enough research. If anyone has any ideas or sources about this could they comment here and I'll keep it on my watchlist. thanks, --Sachabrunel 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds interesting and I like it since it at least doesn't go into the "Moses didn't exist" idea. I sounds a little fishy to be because, I might be wrong, but I think it's based off of some second century AD historian who didn't get his history correct in other places. I don't beleive that Exodus ever mentions the pharoh ever actually leading the effort to catch Moses though. While a bit of an apologetics book (though  I don't understand what's so wrong with defending what one beleives with evidence since everyone else can do it) Kenneth A. Kitchen (Egyptologist) gives what I think is the best evidence of the Exodus and he places it around 1260 BC I think. That's too late for Moses to be an Atenist but certainly allows enough space for Akhenaten to be influenced by the Hebrews. Kitchen's book seems to be part of a dueling triad with Finkelstein's and Dever's books on the same subject but I've read all three and I would have to say that the latter two overlook quite a bit of evidence. While not being an expert in the rest of the Old Testament, being an Egyptologist does give him an edge over the other two regarding Israel in Egypt and Moses.69.254.76.77 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is speculative. If any more than Ove von Spaeth mentions it, it might deserve mentioning. Till then Ove von Spaeth's site. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to a years old claim, there are no psalms in the Amarna tombs. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moses

message: I am proposing a Wikiproject to enhance articles on Egyptian Religion.... please check it out and see if you want to add yourself.
KV 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Egyptian_Religion|Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion]] 

message: Wasn't Nefertiti supposed to be a non-egyptian princess ? It is seen as possible that she was an Hebrew princess... And she may have influenced her husband and founded a new branch of monotheism. It's just a theory, but it doesn't look too weird, and that would prove the link between atenism and judaism for good. Would it be worthy to mention this theory ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.71.84.46 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source it reliably, certainly. SamEV 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There aren't any sources for that theory. Nefertiti was once considered to be the same as Gilukheppa, a mitannian princess, but that theory hasn't been supported in over 50 years, and she is now almost universally considered to be the daughter of Ay and the Granddaughter of Yuya and Tjuya. Definitly not a Hebrew princess, because the Hebrews were at the very best only in Canaan for 20-40 years, and at the worst still in Egyptian slavery or (if one buys the minimalist interpretation) not yet a people group at all. In none of these scenarios could there be a state enough to define one of them as a "princess." Ask any reputable archaeologist or historian from this time period and you'll get that answer. Thanatosimii 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nefertiti's Role 

message: Section Amarna art, from text "However, according to some controversial theories," the section starts to hallucinate and give bizarre accounts. Now: these controversial theories can stand, but the structure of the text must be improved so that it is stressed that each of these "theories" (if that would be the name of one mans/womans talkative speculation) are very speculative, and have no general acceptance. Reading about Marfan's syndrome give no indication to me that forms of  those affected are more feminine than otherwise. Wild speculations are wild speculations – they're sort of WP:trivia, unless supported by a scientific argumentation. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody have improved it, nor presented any references, so I removed it as undue speculation, a.k.a. one editor's fable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Marfan's syndrome" – Hey!! 

message: I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to post something promotional, just the facts.  Is there a different, and better, way I could have written it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.132.193 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe you aren't related to the earlier editor - the blog site would normally be against our guidelines. I see the same text is at Kemetism. The problem is references, have you got a reliable source (WP:RS)for this - and notability, see WP:Notability and in particular WP:Group - if a religion doesn't satisfy those criteria, it really doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revival of Atenism

message: Just a question/suggestion, but would Tutankhamen: Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism be a good reference for this article?  It can be found online through sacred-texts.com.  (Odd considering it isn't a sacred text, but I cannot admit to knowing the site all that well.) 98.215.132.193 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its by E. A. Wallis Budge and was published in 1923 so it will be outdated at best and blatantly inaccurate at worst Merytat3n (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference