I know that this topic has been touched on many times before in other threads but I don't ever recall if it was ever given a thread of its own so I'll do honors...
I'm sure many of you are familiar with if not have read past books postulating that Christianity has its origins in Egypt.
Here are just several of the most popular books on the subject:
And really I believe the precursor to it all was none other than co-father of Egyptology E. A. Wallis Budge with his work on the Osirian religion.
I've only read Jackson's and Gadalla's books but from what I remember their theories tend to be inaccurate in regards to Egyptian religion (Jackson) or inaccurate in regards to Christian religion (Gadalla), or they put forward conjectures on to practices that were not solely Egyptian.
That said, I would love Tukuler's input due to his Judaic knowledge and since Christianity is a derivation of the Judaean religion. Tukuler claims Christianity to be the result of Hellenic 'mystery religion' yet many scholars have noted far more similarities with Egyptian religion than with Greek.
The two main aspects Christianity shares with ancient Egyptian religion are:
1. Man as divine king
2. Immaculate birth from a Holy Mother
These are the two things that stand out as Egyptian in the Christian faith. Orthodox Christian anthropologist Dr. Alice C. Linsley in her blog Just Genesis believes that these two ancient concepts held in African-Nilotic systems was but a precursor to the true faith.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Certainly there are AE theologies imbeded in nascent Israelite tribal theology.
The Gospels, Letters, Apocalypse are in Koine Greek thus Hellene ideology pervades them.
The Church however is another matter and would incorporate ideals from all over the wide expanse of the entire Roman empire.
I hope you realize religionist are going to contradict the rational foundations of your thread and I think I will bow out rather than shake the faith of "Believers"
I recall you getting testy over the fact there was universal Canon before Constantine (and there still is no universal canon).
Then there's the guy who completely lost it and began personally attacking me when I showed him a photo of the oldest known page of Christian Greek Scripture.
posted
^ I don't want this thread to turn into a religious feud or bash, but want to keep it scholarly and open-minded. Religionists don't have to take anything at heart or personal especially if they are supposedly strong in their faith.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Gospels, Letters, Apocalypse are in Koine Greek thus Hellene ideology pervades them.
Just because the oldest known copies of these texts were written in Greek does not mean the themes of these text are Greek.
In fact research by so-called 'Hebrew Roots' and 'Messianic Jews' are showing that Aramaic versions of these texts as found in the Syriac Church are far more accurate and eliminate all the inconsistencies found in the Greek translations.
The themes of mortal Holy Mother and divine king that would redeem the world is not Hellenic.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Also Christianity(at least what it became) has nothing to do with a Mortal Holy Mother and Divine King, (I mean sure its there but its just a side story....I.E Mary is not the main focus, She has little to no relevance within the core of Christian deliverance and Jesus is not even King but the Son who sits at the right hand of God in the Throne Room)
its about a Dying/Rising god...(Without that, The Crucifixion/Resurection, there is no Christianity....)which was seen in some form/shape prior to Christianity...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't want this thread to turn into a religious feud or bash, but want to keep it scholarly and open-minded. Religionists don't have to take anything at heart or personal especially if they are supposedly strong in their faith.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Gospels, Letters, Apocalypse are in Koine Greek thus Hellene ideology pervades them.
Just because the oldest known copies of these texts were written in Greek does not mean the themes of these text are Greek.
In fact research by so-called 'Hebrew Roots' and 'Messianic Jews' are showing that Aramaic versions of these texts as found in the Syriac Church are far more accurate and eliminate all the inconsistencies found in the Greek translations.
The themes of mortal Holy Mother and divine king that would redeem the world is not Hellenic.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, as far as I know the oldest Christian literature is all in Koine Greek, even if Aramaic sources are more clear, they're not older than the Greek sources....as far as I know the scholarly opinion is(again Im not 100% sure) that there ONLY are Koine Greek origin literature for Christianity.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my thing, with as advanced as the Egyptian religion was, and its supposed "Origin of Christianity"...where are the commentaries or theological cannon of texts...something similar to the Talmud. We know little to nothing of the A. Egyptian religion except what was believed by the masses/lay person. Am I just thinking about this from a Western/Judeo-Xtian POV...I mean even the Buddhists/Hindus and others had Commentaries/Theological texts on their religion...
IDK, just makes no sense to me.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christianity is a large branching institution with various offshoots and beliefs. The issue isn't about the institution and all the other rules and procedures that have come into play over the last thousand years as being from the Nile Valley. It is about core concepts that are the basis of the scriptures and belief itself.
So here is list of some of the things that first occurred in the Nile Valley but then later show up in Christianity:
From the Bible you have the cosmology of "in the beginning was the word" which is very similar to the cosmology of Ptah or any of the other deities of creation such as Amun or Ra where in the beginning there was nothing and then light appeared.
The concept of trinity as being man, woman and child embedded in all of the various temples to major deities as all of whom had 3 deities representing this. Ausar, Auset and Heru are the most famous of the "holy families" but there are many others, representing the idea that the masculine and feminine principles in nature are the key to life and reproduction.
Of course! I never denied any Greek influence on the texts but only that the main concepts found therein are not Greek but very much Judean if not Asiatic and/or Egyptian.
In fact back in college when I took a comparative religions course, I read David E. Aune's seminal paper The Gospels as Hellenistic Biography. It was Aune and other scholars who supported the now popular 'dual origins' theory of the Gospels and other New Testament works. That is, the versions we are all familiar with are Greek copies or translations that were made to appeal to the Gentile populations at that time but these works were based on older Aramaic works meant to appeal to Judaeans first.
I also recommend you look up videos by Jay Dyer. For the record I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make excellent argument on how original Christian doctrines are against the Hellenistic beliefs at that time:
quote:Also Christianity(at least what it became) has nothing to do with a Mortal Holy Mother and Divine King, (I mean sure its there but its just a side story....I.E Mary is not the main focus, She has little to no relevance within the core of Christian deliverance and Jesus is not even King but the Son who sits at the right hand of God in the Throne Room)
Christianity is based on Christ that is a man who is believed to be God incarnate in human flesh. While Jesus Christ is obviously the focus of the religion, his mother Mariam or 'Mary' is still significant as she was the one chosen to be the 'theotokos' or god-bearer, that is the person whom Christ took his mortal flesh from. This is why the oldest church traditions from the oldest Protestant factions from their mother Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian etc. all share the tradition of Mary being matron saint of the church and queen of saints. She is believed to be the 'New Eve' who fulfilled the prophecy in Genesis and corrected the error made by Eve in Eden. Eve was made from Adam's flesh; God the son's flesh was made from Mary's flesh. Eve brought corruption and death by consuming the forbidden fruit of knowledge, while Mary brought wholesomeness and life by bearing the fruit of life (her son) etc.
Christ is king because he is God. He is part of the trinity-- Father, Son, and Spirit all distinct persons but all of the same essence i.e. divinity. The 'Father' is fountainhead or source of the other two entities. The Son is the icon of the Father that is God that can be seen or beheld by mortals (originally as an angel) but later made flesh. The Spirit is for the most part the invisible entity that pervades connects the Father to the Son and all living. Because Jesus is king, his mother then is the queen mother who in Middle Eastern and Judaic tradition acted as ambassador for her ruling son.
quote:its about a Dying/Rising god...(Without that, The Crucifixion/Resurection, there is no Christianity....)which was seen in some form/shape prior to Christianity...
Yeah, I almost forgot about that. The theme of dying and resurrecting god is indeed a very ancient concept in the Middle-East, Africa, and other parts of the world though such a deity was associated with the agricultural cycle. Then again Christian believers in the New Testament are compared to wheat ready to be harvested.
quote: BTW, as far as I know the oldest Christian literature is all in Koine Greek, even if Aramaic sources are more clear, they're not older than the Greek sources....as far as I know the scholarly opinion is (again Im not 100% sure) that there ONLY are Koine Greek origin literature for Christianity.
You are correct. The oldest extant copies of NT texts, especially the Gospels are indeed in Greek but because the Aramaic versions show far more accuracy and clearness, it is hypothesized that the Aramaic form came first, hence the 'dual origin' hypothesis. But until evidence is found of Aramaic texts just as old or older, it remains only a hypothesis.
By the way, with so many church denominations due to schisms, one could argue that the oldest existing Christian denomination is the Syriac Orthodox Church. This is the church that succeeded the original Judean Church that was destroyed due to Jewish persecution, and protected by the Prince of Edessa. It is the Syriac Orthodox Church whose liturgy was the basis of the Greek Orthodox Church to which Roman Catholicism is derived. It is the Syriac Church that preserves many ancient traditions. For example they have among the oldest traditions of desert monks next to Egypt. They even preserve traditions not found in other churches for example there is a monastic order based on the Holy Parents comprised of old married couples who live together as celibates.
quote: Here's my thing, with as advanced as the Egyptian religion was, and its supposed "Origin of Christianity"...where are the commentaries or theological cannon of texts...something similar to the Talmud. We know little to nothing of the A. Egyptian religion except what was believed by the masses/lay person. Am I just thinking about this from a Western/Judeo-Xtian POV...I mean even the Buddhists/Hindus and others had Commentaries/Theological texts on their religion...
Indeed the writings of Paul in the NT can be considered the first commentaries of the Gospels and what they mean against the Pharisaic doctrines.
Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, same thing. A man claiming to be both divinity and king.
This is one of the biggest theological divisions between Christians and Jews. To Jews the messiah was only a man who ruled by divine right but Christians believe him to be God incarnate as man.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Christianity is a large branching institution with various offshoots and beliefs. The issue isn't about the institution and all the other rules and procedures that have come into play over the last thousand years as being from the Nile Valley. It is about core concepts that are the basis of the scriptures and belief itself.
Unfortunately Christianity's true and original true form has been diluted and corrupted over time. The Church doctrine is based on both scripture and tradition, one without the other leads to corruption. But many scholars especially Dr. Alice Linsley agree that many elements of Christianity are found in the Nile Valley which was transmitted to Israelite/Judean religion which Christianity arose.
quote:So here is list of some of the things that first occurred in the Nile Valley but then later show up in Christianity:
From the Bible you have the cosmology of "in the beginning was the word" which is very similar to the cosmology of Ptah or any of the other deities of creation such as Amun or Ra where in the beginning there was nothing and then light appeared.
Not to mention the primordial waters identified as Nun in Egypt.
quote: You have various wisdom texts from the Nile Valley such as the book of wise sayings which are very similar in form to the passages of books like Proverbs.
quote:The concept of trinity as being man, woman and child embedded in all of the various temples to major deities as all of whom had 3 deities representing this. Ausar, Auset and Heru are the most famous of the "holy families" but there are many others, representing the idea that the masculine and feminine principles in nature are the key to life and reproduction.
But this is NOT the same as the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Though ironically the Quran identifies the trinity with Allah, Mary, and her son Issa (Jesus?).
quote:Halos have often been described as originating with the solar discs found over the heads of various Nile Valley deities.
And that is just a few things but there are many more.
solar discs are only associated with solar deities. These aren't the same as halos which are actually described in both Old and New Testaments holy auras which are found in many religions throughout the world.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This is one of the biggest theological divisions between Christians and Jews. To Jews the messiah was only a man who ruled by divine right but Christians believe him to be God incarnate as man.
Actually the split is bigger than that and goes back to the early years AD and is the reason for the Council of Nicene itself. Prior to this when the Greek Church Fathers (Greek "Papas", ie. Popes) spoke of "the Christ" they were talking of the "logos" or idea of man as having a divine soul or nature as an archetype. From that came many splits including those such as Arianism around the exact nature of the flesh and blood divinity of "Jesus Christ". All of that had to be reconciled by the Council of Nicea where the core doctrine of modern Christianity was established. And that core doctrine is that to be a Christian you must believe that Jesus Christ was literally a god who was born in the flesh as a man. And again, all of this is to elevate Christianity as a theology above the "paganism" of other religions and their various symbolic deities. This is elaborated clearly by many of the said early popes of Alexandria in their "apologies", because they were accused of copying older concepts in making Christianity.
quote: As Leslie W. Barnard says,
The Apologists did not hesitate to use technical philosophic terms which were the current stock-in-trade of educated pagans. It is however; an error to believe that in doing this they so hellenized Christianity as to dilute central doctrines. They were first and foremost churchmen and their object was to christianize Hellenism, not to hellenize Christianity... We should not, therefore, expect in their writings a full exposition of the Christian Faith such as would be given to Christians. Their purpose was apologetic and we cannot therefore reconstruct from their writings, with the possible exception of Justin Martyr, a systematic statement of their beliefs.
Quite apart from the apologetic writings' effect on the pagans to whom it might, or might not, be delivered, it had the effect of supplying less educated and less experienced Christians with arguments to use when they were exposed to persecution. Thus one finds that the work of Athenagoras carries arguments and turns of phrase which appear again in the Acts of the martyr Appolonius who was put to death in Rome by Commodus in 185 A.D.
The Apologists set before themselves three objectives:
1. They challenged the widely current calumnies and were at particular pains to answer the charge that the Church was a peril to the State.
2. They exposed the immoralities of paganism and the myths of its divinities, at the same time demonstrating that the Christian alone has a correct understanding of God and the universe. Hence they defended the dogmas concerned with the unity of God, monotheism, the divinity of Christ and the resurrection of the body.
3. Not content with merely answering the arguments of the philosophers, they went on to show that this very philosophy, because it had only human reason to rely upon, had either never attained truth, or that the truth it had attained was but fragmentary and mingled with numerous errors. Christianity offers the absolute truth, since the Logos, the Divine Reason Himself, comes down upon earth, and Christianity is the divine Philosophy. Their method was to exhibit Christianity to emperors and to the public as politically harmless and morally and culturally superior to paganism.
The problem with the modern scholarship on this, especially from Christian circles, is that the foundation of these arguments for Christianity themselves are based on older cosmological doctrines. So for example, there were numerous "sun gods" in the ancient world and Jesus Christ is often shown with a halo like many of these older deities, taking on that Solar Symbolism. Not to mention many early Churches clearly depicted Christ with the Sun Cross as his halo and in the very dome of the Churches as the sun itself. And there is the original philosophy of Christ (the logos) as the incarnation of "the word" which is also a much older cosmological doctrine. The only difference is that in Christianity they base all of their belief on Jesus being a real flesh and blood person, while those other deities were not flesh and blood creatures. If anything they were archetypes of nature and the power of life itself, which is the basis of the god concept in the first place as an evolution of human cognitive thought. As such you see this in the writings of St Athanasius:
quote: (1) In our former book1 we dealt fully enough with a few of the chief points about the heathen worship of idols, and how those false fears originally arose. We also, by God's grace, briefly indicated that the Word of the Father is Himself divine, that all things that are owe their being to His will and power, and that it is through Him that the Father gives order to creation, by Him that all things are moved, and through Him that they receive their being. Now, Macarius, true lover of Christ, we must take a step further in the faith of our holy religion, and consider also the Word's becoming Man and His divine Appearing in our midst. That mystery the Jews traduce, the Greeks deride, but we adore; and your own love and devotion to the Word also will be the greater, because in His Manhood He seems so little worth. For it is a fact that the more unbelievers pour scorn on Him, so much the more does He make His Godhead evident. The things which they, as men, rule out as impossible, He plainly shows to be possible; that which they deride as unfitting, His goodness makes most fit; and things which these wiseacres laugh at as "human" He by His inherent might declares divine. Thus by what seems His utter poverty and weakness on the cross He overturns the pomp and parade of idols, and quietly and hiddenly wins over the mockers and unbelievers to recognize Him as God.
Now in dealing with these matters it is necessary first to recall what has already been said. You must understand why it is that the Word of the Father, so great and so high, has been made manifest in bodily form. He has not assumed a body as proper to His own nature, far from it, for as the Word He is without body. He has been manifested in a human body for this reason only, out of the love and goodness of His Father, for the salvation of us men. We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.
This is the result of the Catechetical School of Alexandria being the first school of Theology as an aspect of Greek Philosophy. Theology the word is derived from the Greek terms "Theos" ad "Logos" and as such was a discourse on the nature of divinity. This is an evolution of the earlier doctrines of cosmology from other cultures that were synthesized by the Greeks in Alexandria into a comprehensive understanding of the god concept. Again, a heavy debt has to be paid to the Nile Valley because the "logos" is nothing more than a variation of the cosmology of Ptah and Djehuti, which by that time had become very complex and sophisticated. As such the Greek school of Theos Logos owes as much to the Nile Valley as it does to the Platonic school in formulating their cosmology of Christ Logos.
quote: The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bce philosopher Heraclitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in humans. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bce), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria), a 1st-century-ce Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists (philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of Plato), the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.
As such in using the logos to defend Christ they are only showing their debt to the Greeks and other ancient cultures from which those concepts first arose and were formalized. And this is why there was such outrage against Christianity, especially when the Romans made it the state religion and persecuted all those who previously worshiped other deities within the Empire. In actuality, the persecution was primarily against those who were then deemed as "pagans" even though those religions were the dominant force of god worship for thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Unfortunately Christianity's true and original true form has been diluted and corrupted over time. The Church doctrine is based on both scripture and tradition, one without the other leads to corruption. But many scholars especially Dr. Alice Linsley agree that many elements of Christianity are found in the Nile Valley which was transmitted to Israelite/Judean religion which Christianity arose.
There was never a single "original" form of Christianity it was always full of various sects and beliefs. This is why there is a split between the Eastern Church and the Western church on the very nature of Christ himself in Diophysitism vs Monophysitism.
I wasn't trying to provide an exhaustive list, but hoping others would fill in more to support the topic of the thread.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But this is NOT the same as the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Though ironically the Quran identifies the trinity with Allah, Mary, and her son Issa (Jesus?).
Didn't say it was the exact same. I said it is the first example of a trinity as the basis for life in a cosmology. It represents the core principle of how life continues in perpetuity through the cycle of birth from the core masculine and feminine principle as created by the demiurge. The Christian trinity elevates that concept to only refer to the nature of Christ as the monad, the logos or supreme demiurge from which all other elements arose.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: solar discs are only associated with solar deities. These aren't the same as halos which are actually described in both Old and New Testaments holy auras which are found in many religions throughout the world.
A solar disc is a symbol of the power of the sun which gives heat and light and as such took on a symbolism of their own within cosmology. "The light" also is a symbol of consciousness or "god consciousness" as it first arose from the primordial waters and therefore is equivalent to the Greek Logos. A halo in Chrisianity is a symbol of the sun and the life force as again Jesus is the Logos and therefore represents the life force symbolized by the sun as the logos.
And that monad version of the trinity is a reflection of the platonic school of cosmology or philosophy. Whereas in the Nile Valley there was always a supreme demiurge (the one/monad) that created all things, the first thing created was the principle of opposites, ie duality: up/down, good/evil, hot/cold, male/female, etc. And from the interaction of all these elements you get everything in the physical universe. The Platonic school had a different interpretation of this which they called the Monad and Infinite Dyad, which concerns the relationship between the idea of something and its physical manifestation.
And even beyond that you have influence from other schools of Greek thought such as the Stoics:
quote: Zeno of Citium (l. c. 336 – 265 BCE) was the founder of the Stoic School of philosophy in Athens which taught that the Logos (Universal Reason) was the greatest good in life and living in accordance with reason was the purpose of human life.
If one lived according to the instinct of impulse and passion, one was no more than an animal; if one lived in accordance with universal reason, one was truly a human being living a worthwhile existence. This philosophy would later be developed by the stoic philosopher Epictetus (l.c.50-130 CE) and others and would have a significant impact on the people of Rome, most notably the emperor Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180 CE). Stoicism would eventually become one of the most popular and influential philosophies in the Roman world.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually the split is bigger than that and goes back to the early years AD and is the reason for the Council of Nicene itself. Prior to this when the Greek Church Fathers (Greek "Papas", ie. Popes) spoke of "the Christ" they were talking of the "logos" or idea of man as having a divine soul or nature as an archetype. From that came many splits including those such as Arianism around the exact nature of the flesh and blood divinity of "Jesus Christ". All of that had to be reconciled by the Council of Nicea where the core doctrine of modern Christianity was established. And that core doctrine is that to be a Christian you must believe that Jesus Christ was literally a god who was born in the flesh as a man. And again, all of this is to elevate Christianity as a theology above the "paganism" of other religions and their various symbolic deities. This is elaborated clearly by many of the said early popes of Alexandria in their "apologies", because they were accused of copying older concepts in making Christianity.
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was called to make to make clear what the actual Christian Creed was as opposed to distortions and heresies. The idea of 'logos' had nothing to do with "man" as in mankind but Jesus himself! Thus Logos was the Word of God the Father who was also God that was transmitted to mankind. This creed was written down years earlier in Cappadocia and was based on older works from Antioch.
The sources you cite are correct that the early Church fought a war on two fronts so to speak-- one against pagans and the other against proto-Judaism. The concept of trinity was a polemic against both.
quote:The problem with the modern scholarship on this, especially from Christian circles, is that the foundation of these arguments for Christianity themselves are based on older cosmological doctrines. So for example, there were numerous "sun gods" in the ancient world and Jesus Christ is often shown with a halo like many of these older deities, taking on that Solar Symbolism. Not to mention many early Churches clearly depicted Christ with the Sun Cross as his halo and in the very dome of the Churches as the sun itself. And there is the original philosophy of Christ (the logos) as the incarnation of "the word" which is also a much older cosmological doctrine. The only difference is that in Christianity they base all of their belief on Jesus being a real flesh and blood person, while those other deities were not flesh and blood creatures. If anything they were archetypes of nature and the power of life itself, which is the basis of the god concept in the first place as an evolution of human cognitive thought. As such you see this in the writings of St Athanasius:
Jesus was NOT a sun or solar deity, and the Christian cross was NOT based on European solar crosses but on the ancient Semitic letter t or tov meaning 'good'. Thus Jesus was a deity of goodness. In fact there are Egyptian paintings showing Canaanites wearing tov amulets i.e. 'crucifixes'! Light another aspect of divinity but not that of the sun itself.
Yes I'm aware that the concept of Logos originally came from the Greeks but was likely transmitted to Judaean thought by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Though there are some who argue that such concepts existed in proto-kabbalistic thought.
quote:There was never a single "original" form of Christianity it was always full of various sects and beliefs. This is why there is a split between the Eastern Church and the Western church on the very nature of Christ himself in Diophysitism vs Monophysitism.
Incorrect. Christianity began from a single sect of Judaean religion. This sect interestingly shares striking elements with Kabbalistic sects of Judaism today for example, the Hassidic belief that the Messiach can ressurect from death and that he can bring's God's light to the world to redeem it.
quote:Didn't say it was the exact same. I said it is the first example of a trinity as the basis for life in a cosmology. It represents the core principle of how life continues in perpetuity through the cycle of birth from the core masculine and feminine principle as created by the demiurge. The Christian trinity elevates that concept to only refer to the nature of Christ as the monad, the logos or supreme demiurge from which all other elements arose.
Actually the Trinity is the 'Father' as source, Son as and Spirit proceeding from the father create and pervade the universe respectively.
quote:A solar disc is a symbol of the power of the sun which gives heat and light and as such took on a symbolism of their own within cosmology. "The light" also is a symbol of consciousness or "god consciousness" as it first arose from the primordial waters and therefore is equivalent to the Greek Logos. A halo in Chrisianity is a symbol of the sun and the life force as again Jesus is the Logos and therefore represents the life force symbolized by the sun as the logos.
The solar disc is just that-- solar. Hence it was only portrayed on solar deities not all Egyptian deities were solar hence not portrayed with discs. The concept of halos or nebula have nothing to do with the sun but was a concept of spiritual powers of light.
quote:And that monad version of the trinity is a reflection of the platonic school of cosmology or philosophy. Whereas in the Nile Valley there was always a supreme demiurge (the one/monad) that created all things, the first thing created was the principle of opposites, ie duality: up/down, good/evil, hot/cold, male/female, etc. And from the interaction of all these elements you get everything in the physical universe. The Platonic school had a different interpretation of this which they called the Monad and Infinite Dyad, which concerns the relationship between the idea of something and its physical manifestation.
Again, orthodox Christian theology is against Hellenistic or even Egyptian concepts of dialectics and Hellenistic concept of simplistic divinity. This is why Church Fathers like Origen of Alexandria were declared heretics because their Hellenist- Neo-Platonic views are contrary to Christian views.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Christianity is a derivation of the Judaean religion.
Is there Egyptian influence on the Hebrew bible/ Old Testament in your opinion Or is the book a rejection of Egyptian ways?
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: A divine king or full fledged god?
A divine king IS/WAS a full fledged god. Hence the term 'divine'. In Egypt and in other cultures where divine kingship is practiced there is a belief that common people outside of the royal court can be struck blind if they lay eyes on the king!
quote:Also claimed God as his Father or him as the son of God.
Early Christians debated whether or not the the were the same
For Early Christians there was no debate. Father and Son are two members of the Godhead and are equally divine, along with the Holy Spirit.
quote:Is there Egyptian influence on the Hebrew bible/ Old Testament in your opinion Or is the book a rejection of Egyptian ways?
Obviously there was influence as many of the rituals of not only the Israelite priesthood but even the Levite tribe was influenced by Egyptian hm-neter and wab class from which the former derives. Even the Ark of the Covenant is based on Egyptian arks that contain the sacred relics of the deity it belonged to, so too was the Tabernacle based on nomadic cults in Egypt and the temple based on sedentary cult bases etc.
I believe the Judaic Torah rejects those aspects of Egyptian religion it was at odds with i.e. idolatry, magic, and other pagan practices, while agreeing with certain perennial aspects i.e. those truths which are eternal and found in other religions and cultures throughout the world.
According to Dr. Linsley, religions who practiced divine kingship have their basis in the true divine kingship of Christ Jesus and were merely mimic precursors to the spiritual reality. Interestingly enough during the New Kingdom there arose a cult of the god Shed meaning 'Salvation' who is depicted as a princely youth subduing dangerous animals like snakes and scorpions but can also promise salvation in the next life. Such animals are also symbols of spiritual dangers in the form of demons etc.
This bears a striking resemblance to Yeshuah (Salvation) i.e. Jesus who also promises the same type of salvation. Shed was not only a protective patron of kings but was especially popular with common people in Egypt yet interestingly he never had any temples dedicated to him suggesting that his worship was never quite formal but open to anyone perhaps in peoples' homes or other gatherings.
This also brings me to the issue of the 'Holy Mother'. Also in the New Kingdom we find the trend of the 'Mammisi' or Nativity Shrines which show goddesses giving birth to their sons. Nativities and birthdays of princely deities was very popular at that time however the mothers of these deities were not holy in the sense that they conceived them parthenogenetically as their husband gods were often stated to be the fathers. Indeed there were very few goddesses who were holy mothers in the sense of immaculate conception.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I believe the Judaic Torah rejects those aspects of Egyptian religion it was at odds with i.e. idolatry, magic, and other pagan practices, while agreeing with certain perennial aspects i.e. those truths which are eternal and found in other religions and cultures throughout the world.
what about rejection of multiple gods?
It's one thing to be a god among many gods but another to be the one and only god
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A video about Judaisms polytheistic roots. Among other things discussed is the question if Jahve from the beginning had a female consort
quote: Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou asks whether the ancient Israelites believed in one God as the Bible claims. She puts the Bible text under the microscope, examining what the original Hebrew said, and explores archaeological sites in Syria and the Sinai which are shedding new light on the beliefs of the people of the Bible. Was the God of Abraham unique? Were the ancient Israelites polytheists? And is it all possible that God had another half?
Another video about the origins of ancient Isrealite religion (with archaeologist Dr. Aren Maeir)
quote:In this presentation Dr. Aren Maeir guides us into the very origins of Ancient Israel, their identity and the very foundations of their religion.
In this presentation the great scholar Dr. Maeir takes us into the origins of the religion of the ancient Israelites.
He will address these points:
Canaanite pagan influences on the Israelite religion such as El and Baal.
Discusses the ideological framework of the Israelite texts and the worship of a singular deity, and points out the big question which is "is this the original form and practice of the Israelite religion or did this monotheistic approach come much later?"
He discusses male and female figurines of the Iron Age that depict their God.
He also discusses the evidence of more than one God and even a Goddess in Israelite society and religion and also he points out that we tend to see not necessarily monotheism in ancient Israel but rather monolatrism.
We also ask a harder question and that is, when does Monotheism take root as a dominant ideology in ancient Israel and whether or not this was influenced by the religious reform of Atenism or Zoroastrianism?
How old is Judaism? How is it different today?
We will also discuss religious violence and ethnic cleansing in ancient Israel and the issues of using modern terms on the past in a world where they did things quite differently.
And finally we arrive to the subject of Human Sacrifice in ancient Canaan and even in Ancient Israel and how we may see a conflict between those who partook in human sacrifice and those who did not like it and who in turn wrote stories like "Abraham and Isaac at the Mount" in an attempt to show that we don't believe in that form of practice.
posted
^ I have to watch the episodes, but according to tradition God revealed himself to Abraham when he and family were pagans. It's still unclear what exactly were the ethnic differences between the Israelites and Canaanites as archaeology does indeed show the former to be a subgroup of the latter. As for God having a wife, there is the chief Canaanite god El who was married to Asherah but then there was El-Elyon the supreme creator who made all life including the gods. There was Yhwh and there was another deity called Iahu or Yahu who maybe cognate to the Babylonian Ea and was worshiped by the Shasu people of Edom.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about rejection of multiple gods?
It's one thing to be a god among many gods but another to be the one and only god
Yes, I think that's covered in idolatry. The pharaoh was a god incarnate in human form to be a bridge between humanity and the other gods.
The Christian doctrine is that Jesus was the human incarnation of God the Son who was known as 'The Angel of the Lord' in Tanakh.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of did 'God have a wife?', I would like to get back to the 2nd most important person in Christianity that being the 'Theotokos' the Holy Mother Miriam or 'Mary'. She is the second most significant figure in Christianity because while all the major holy days of the liturgical calendar are dedicated to Christ, all the minor holidays are dedicated to the saints but the saint with the most holidays was Mary who called 'Mother of the Church'.
Tukuler postulates that the Christian tradition of holy mother or divine birth came from pagan Hellenism with myths of mortal women being impregnated by gods. However, Miriam did not conceive through sexual intercourse but immaculately or parthenogenetically through the power of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, there are very ancient Greek myths of goddesses immaculately conceiving and giving birth, though the resulting offspring is more often than not female either a fantastic beast or creature or a younger double of the mother-- the latter makes biological sense as parthenogenesis among organisms yields genetically identical daughters. There are very few instances of the offspring being male, and when it is the being is either monstrous or deformed.
By the way, scholar Marguerite Mary Rigoglioso has done excellent work on the cult of divine birth in her trilogy of books:
Yet it is in Egyptian religion where we find cults of divine mothers who give birth to sons, albeit all these cults were of primordial mother goddesses-- Mehetweret who bore the sun god Re, Nit who bore crocodile god Sobek, Iusaaset mother of Atum. But these are all goddesses, what about mortal women? Apparently, Plutarch said this about Egyptians, "The Egyptians thought it plausible that a woman can be approached by a divine spirit and made pregnant". This sounds very much like the Christian belief. My only question is were such beliefs held by Asiatics, particularly Levantines/Judaeans??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Belated Merry Christmas to all.
I know that this topic has been touched on many times before in other threads but I don't ever recall if it was ever given a thread of its own so I'll do honors...
I'm sure many of you are familiar with if not have read past books postulating that Christianity has its origins in Egypt.
Here are just several of the most popular books on the subject:
And really I believe the precursor to it all was none other than co-father of Egyptology E. A. Wallis Budge with his work on the Osirian religion.
I've only read Jackson's and Gadalla's books but from what I remember their theories tend to be inaccurate in regards to Egyptian religion (Jackson) or inaccurate in regards to Christian religion (Gadalla), or they put forward conjectures on to practices that were not solely Egyptian.
That said, I would love Tukuler's input due to his Judaic knowledge and since Christianity is a derivation of the Judaean religion. Tukuler claims Christianity to be the result of Hellenic 'mystery religion' yet many scholars have noted far more similarities with Egyptian religion than with Greek.
The two main aspects Christianity shares with ancient Egyptian religion are:
1. Man as divine king
2. Immaculate birth from a Holy Mother
These are the two things that stand out as Egyptian in the Christian faith. Orthodox Christian anthropologist Dr. Alice C. Linsley in her blog Just Genesis believes that these two ancient concepts held in African-Nilotic systems was but a precursor to the true faith.
You are correct on as number of points as to Jackson and Gadallah as you state above- and there is some putting forward of practices not Egyptian while claiming they are. Another similar aspect is seen online where various claimants assert that Akhenaten's monotheist "Atenism” format is the “real” or “true” Egyptian religion, and also for all black people. They only problem with this formula is that Akhenaten's approach was ultimately deemed heretical by important successors in Egypt’s priesthoods and religious establishments, and in time, they were rejected and rolled back. How then can they be the “true” Egyptian religion when they so soon vanish, and/or opposed/rejected by a deep seated allegiance to Egypt's traditional polytheistic religion?
Huge sections of ancient Egyptian religion in addition are also diametrically opposed to the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity, which for example reject the numerous deities, including animal deities, and the worship of kings etc that appear in much of ancient Egypt religion.
Another similar issue arises where assorted claimants assert that there is a specific Egyptian “Mystery System” that said Egyptians followed when in fact the particular ”mystery system” they are arguing for is really a mix of European esoteric practices and cultic formats that appropriate symbols or seeming partial memes of the ancient religion for European purposes, in order to gain the prestige of being associated with ancient Egyptian practices. Alongside such appropriation can be a mix of natural admiration or genuine adoption of Egyptian symbols and themes as in the “Isis” cults of the ancient Mediterranean.
Another problem with various unqualified and unbalanced “invented in Egypt” claims is the problem of “parallelomania”- whereby SOME elements from a common regional base are asserted as from a monolithic “Egyptian” source from which much else including Christianity is derived. Parallemomania has a number of severe problems, not the least of which is that using the same “parallel” approach, practices asserted to be “Egyptian” can be held as being “really” Babylonian or Mesopotamian, not Egyptian. Hence the Egyptians ”copied” the notion or offering sacrifices from Mesopotamia because “parallels” are found for various sacrifices in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, and so on. Using the “parallel” approach, then Judaism and Christianity can be sourced to Mesopotamia, Babylon, the Ugaritic marches or even India, depending on how far particular claimants want to stretch the parallels.
Note none of the above denies that there are common regional cultural elements in the Mesopotamian, Egyptian region- various aspects of pastoralism, agricultures, language, memes and so on. The peoples of the region for example did not embrace atheism, and they all recognized the concept of sacrifice, or the concept of higher powers than man and so on.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about rejection of multiple gods?
It's one thing to be a god among many gods but another to be the one and only god
Indeed. And this is what set Judaism apart from the other regional religious beliefs. Time and time again the Jewish prophets assert this and condemn those Hebrews/Israelites who follow after other Gods.
Some years ago on Reloaded, a poster appeared who asserted the complete derivation of Judaism and Christianity from Ancient Egyptian religion. I pointed out that he was gonna run into a hornet's nest of problems making such sweeping claims, particularly when he stepped outside the friendly audiences he was used to. and that he had better be ready for some serious challenges where more than rhetoric would be needed to establish his claims.
A recap shown below as it touches on some of thee issues. This is not a theological primer. Many are already familiar with the basic assertions of Christianity which are little elaborated save as quick background. The recap DIRECTLY addresses some of the common "Egypt is the source" arguments:
------------------------------ -------------------- HORUS BORN OF VIRGIN?
In the most common version of the Egyptian story, Osiris is murdered by Set and cut into 14 pieces. Isis his wife, who has had relations with her husband before, retrieves all of the pieces, save one, his penis. So Isis makes a wooden penis, hooks it up with the reconstituted Osiris, has sex, and then gives birth to Horus. Set attempts to anally rape Horus later but Horus catches the semen in hand and escapes crying to Isis. Isis helps Horus later to have an erection, masturbate and smear some of the semen on Set's food as payback. A number of other similar virgin birth claims appear in other peoples, such Zeus spilling his semen on the side of a mountain which eventually became a pomegranate tree, after which a pomegranate falls on a woman below who becomes pregnant. Objectors will point out that none of these "virgin birth" stories is even remotely close to that described in the Christian scriptures. If Isis for example, was the wife of Osiris to begin with and had relations with him, then the reconfigured penis, how credibly could this qualify as any sort of "virgin birth" as argued by Egypto-centric advocates?? And this is only ONE of several problems with this claim.
THE CRUCIFIXION CAME FROM EGYPT VIA HORUS/OSIRIS?
In Christianity, as is commonly known, the crucifixion is the process by which Jesus, who is seen as God in human condition, taking on all of mankind's sins upon himself, thus securing God's forgiveness, and covering men from all the sins and failures, thus allowing men a chance to go free from the judgment to come after death. A number of Egypto-advocates argue that all this came from Egypt for Horus likewise died a horrible death, though in various versions he doesn't die at all, is merely stung by a scorpion, or his death is conflated or combined with the death of Osiris. But parallels seem a stretch say objectors. Neither Osiris or Horus was nailed to a wooden tree or cross, and their deaths had nothing to do with saving mankind from all their sins. Osiris torn to pieces *prior" to being raised from the dead, while Horus is stung by a scorpion before he comes back. And the mere presence of art where the gods are shown with arms outstretched, does not equal "crucifixion." If this were the case anytime someone in ancient art shows up with outstretched arms such as Athena, or Dionysus drinking some wine and waving his arms wide, then we should all consider them "crucified"?
THE RESURRECTION CAME FROM EGYPT?
In Christianity, the Resurrection from the dead is the demonstration of the power of God in raising the atoning sin-bearer from death to assume his place in heaven, having accomplished redemption for all mankind- with those believing on him slated for a day of resurrection in glory, without any charge or judgment against them for the sins and falsehoods committed in this life. In other words, the death and resurrection of Christ guarantees the believer in Christ, a clean slate on the other side, exempt from the JUDGMENT OR RECKONING TO COME. This is basic stuff taught in most Sunday schools. In the Biblical narrative, the resurrected Christ walks among his followers for 40 days, affirming the fact that his sacrifice which will cover them against judgment after death, appearing to some 500 at one time during one occasion, and at the end of this period, ascends up to heaven, affirming his own future return and their own resurrection among the redeemed. So is this core doctrine of Christianity from Ancient Egypt?
Objectors point out that there are a number of claimants asserting that their ancient resurrection stories are what has supplied Christianity, but in almost all cases, there is no clear instance of a dying and rising deity. In some cases, deities returned but have not died. In other cases, the gods die, but do not return.
Osiris did not rise from the dead and return to this world as did Jesus. instead he was made king of the underworld. Certainly both the ancient Egyptians and the Christians agree that there is a judgment to come based on the actions of the body and the motives of the heart. The outcome of that judgment will determine one's existence in the afterlife. Cultures the world over believe that there is a final reckoning or judgment to come that will reflect earthly motives and actions. But this basic human religious beliefs are no monopoly of Egypt.
PHARAOH AS THE INCARNATE GOD LIKE CHRIST?
It is true that the pharaohs were sometimes seen as deities, and mediators between the various gods and man. This "divine kingship" aspect appears in several places in Africa. But is it really the "true" source for standard Christian beliefs? For one thing, in Christian belief, multiple gods are deemed to be false. People may believe on them and offer sacrifices etc, but such multiple gods or entities are seen as false representatives. Hence in Christian belief, Christ is God, come in human CONDITION, to take on all the many sufferings and failures, and sins of man. There is no shape-shifting one moment, then something else at other times like Zeus and the others in Greek religion. Thus pharaoh as one of the gods would be deemed false in both Christianity and Judaism, and on top of that, many pharaohs worshipped multiple entities. Hence pharaoh could not be a credible source of Christian beliefs which expressly forbid rebellion, multiple gods worship etc..
Second the human pharaohs all die and are not resurrected in a glorified form, and they too are subject to the dread Day of Judgment or dread weighing upon the scales." Christ by contrast, is seen as God and having divine power and authority is in Christian belief, Master of the Day of Judgment. Those who believe on him, and accept his sacrifices for their sins do not appear on the dread day, to be weighed on the scales. This Christ himself asserts in John 5 that all judgment is committed to him. The Apostle Paul who gives us the earliest writings of the New Testament affirms the claim, asserting in Acts 17 that God a day has been set as to the judgment of "the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead." No pharaoh could make such a claim, indeed no mere human could make such a claim, or have such power. If such be the case as argued in Christianity, then the entire future existence of the human soul on the other side of death is in the hands of Christ, and indeed the whole habitable earth, at the time appointed. No mere pharaoh, all of whom would die, and themselves would face judgment, could make any claim even beginning to approach the sweeping scope of the Christ. Until the time appointed, men are of course perfectly free to accept or reject the Christ, and his atoning work. Nothing similar could be said of any mere pharaoh.
But could it not be objected that in the Books of Moses, pharaoh is recognized as a ruler with power, the same as God who is himself asserted as ruler of all existence in Jewish belief? Indeed. And did not the self same whom the Hebrews called "Jehovah" (among other titles) engage in a contest with pharaoh over the fate of said Hebrews in Egypt, ruler to ruler? Quite true. But in all these cases pharaoh, while recognized as a king with power, still remains a disobedient human, subject to the chastisement of God. Said human pharaoh is firmly put in his place by God, who uses him to demonstrate divine power, as every credible Jewish Bible commentary notes. Thus in the contest pharaoh is given scope to use many of his powers, not only military, but including magical ones. These however are limited and ultimately fail as shown in the Passover, and at the Red Sea. Even the magics of pharaoh's servitors, permitted in Exodus 7:12, result in the serpents of Egypt being swallowed up by the serpent of Moses' staff. Thus the most prominent appearance of an Egyptian pharaoh in Biblical text, is of a disobedient and rebellious man humbled and put in his place by God. Hence no pharaoh role serves as a credible forerunner or example of the Christ. Quite the opposite.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: A divine king or full fledged god?
A divine king IS/WAS a full fledged god. Hence the term 'divine'. In Egypt and in other cultures where divine kingship is practiced there is a belief that common people outside of the royal court can be struck blind if they lay eyes on the king!
quote:Also claimed God as his Father or him as the son of God.
Early Christians debated whether or not the the were the same
For Early Christians there was no debate. Father and Son are two members of the Godhead and are equally divine, along with the Holy Spirit.
quote:Is there Egyptian influence on the Hebrew bible/ Old Testament in your opinion Or is the book a rejection of Egyptian ways?
Obviously there was influence as many of the rituals of not only the Israelite priesthood but even the Levite tribe was influenced by Egyptian hm-neter and wab class from which the former derives. Even the Ark of the Covenant is based on Egyptian arks that contain the sacred relics of the deity it belonged to, so too was the Tabernacle based on nomadic cults in Egypt and the temple based on sedentary cult bases etc.
I believe the Judaic Torah rejects those aspects of Egyptian religion it was at odds with i.e. idolatry, magic, and other pagan practices, while agreeing with certain perennial aspects i.e. those truths which are eternal and found in other religions and cultures throughout the world.
According to Dr. Linsley, religions who practiced divine kingship have their basis in the true divine kingship of Christ Jesus and were merely mimic precursors to the spiritual reality. Interestingly enough during the New Kingdom there arose a cult of the god Shed meaning 'Salvation' who is depicted as a princely youth subduing dangerous animals like snakes and scorpions but can also promise salvation in the next life. Such animals are also symbols of spiritual dangers in the form of demons etc.
This bears a striking resemblance to Yeshuah (Salvation) i.e. Jesus who also promises the same type of salvation. Shed was not only a protective patron of kings but was especially popular with common people in Egypt yet interestingly he never had any temples dedicated to him suggesting that his worship was never quite formal but open to anyone perhaps in peoples' homes or other gatherings.
This also brings me to the issue of the 'Holy Mother'. Also in the New Kingdom we find the trend of the 'Mammisi' or Nativity Shrines which show goddesses giving birth to their sons. Nativities and birthdays of princely deities was very popular at that time however the mothers of these deities were not holy in the sense that they conceived them parthenogenetically as their husband gods were often stated to be the fathers. Indeed there were very few goddesses who were holy mothers in the sense of immaculate conception.
Indeed. I think certainly some parallels can be drawn from a common regional or cultural background, like the need for mediation, the concept of sacrifice, the concept of divine retribution for bad behavior/theft/murder etc, plus common economic aspects, common sayings, proverbs etc in the region. I also think there is a common human yearning or desire to be linked to a higher, more pure power, something greater than the all too common human condition of violence, deceit, corruption, failure etc. Man as the measure of all things often yields dismal results.
A problem arises however when people want to go beyond reasonable links and assert absolutist claims re "Egypt as the source." Its like some "enthusiasts" who assert Egypt as the source of all civilization in Africa, which is simply not the case.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno about the Horus = Jesus narrative, but I can see the trope of a man being a god's earthly incarnation as was claimed for Jesus having a connection to Egyptian traditions of the god-king. And it does seem likely to me that the Egyptians influenced Hebrew religion and theology. The commandment "don't take God's name in vain" could be connected to the Egyptian belief that names had special power, including the names of divine entities.
Also, does anyone else see at least a superficial similarity between the Egyptian ankh symbol and the Christian crucifix?
posted
^ Obviously the resemblance is superficial. I discovered some years ago that depictions (including from Egyptians) of Canaanites wearing crucifixes around their necks like modern Christians, only to find out that these these were symbols of good to ward away evil. In fact the letter 't' in the Canaanite alephbet is called 'tov' meaning good. This is different from the Egyptian cross or ankh which means life.
Thus I believe that the first Christians began wearing tovs not just as a symbol of Yeshuah's crucifixion but as a revival of the ancient pre-Christian tradition of wearing the symbol of toviah (goodness).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Jesus) also claimed God as his Father, or himself as the son of God.
Early Christians debated whether or not the the were the same
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: For Early Christians there was no debate. Father and Son are two members of the Godhead and are equally divine, along with the Holy Spirit.
@zarahan, do you agree?
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel in any academic or secular discussion about Jesus (which allows freedom of scholarly discussion not afforded by religion), two things should be kept separate. The historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus. These are not the same. The bible leaves out Jesus' formative years, which anyone who has studied religious figures knows are indispensable. Imagine records of Siddhartha Gautama being mostly reduced to the last years of his life. It's my view that obscurantism is at play here. for whatever reason.
The bible picks up after this period of missing years and proceeds to narrate only the last 3 years of his life. New testament texts were written by people who include a former enemy of Jesus' followers, and no actual family members who knew him. Due to these missing years, and with his family members silent, the early Christian community, who did not know Jesus intimately, force us to take their word for it that Jesus was who they say he was.
Since Jesus' formative years are lost to history, ideologues can, and have, turned Jesus into everything imaginable, from an orthodox Jew, to a demigod, to God himself, to a messiah/Davidic figure, to a prophet, to an archangel, to an anti-Roman revolutionary, to a miracle worker, to a non-historical figure, and so on. So, I feel that, for students of history like me who just want answers, the omission of Jesus' formative years is a loss that complicates everything, including possible links to other religions.
You can see where this is going. People claiming links between Jesus and Egyptian figures are often a part of the aforementioned circus where everyone goes beyond the evidence to make Jesus what they want him to be. Though I have never looked into the subject, which has always appeared to me as just as ridiculous as Jesus = Krishna plagiarism claims, I'm going to bookmark to this thread to see where this is going, since I respect your knowledge on a wide range of subjects.
As far as this discussion, I see many things I disagree with so far. I will only add that I happen to know the views of the Sicilian author you've posted @Djehuti. And she does, in fact, hold Jesus as an example of Greek/eastern Mediterranean parthenogenesis. She even uses one of the lost gospels as evidence. Though her views contradict yours on this issue, I'm impressed that you have such wide ranging/erudite academic interests.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another possible Egyptian source of influence on Christianity is the idea of judgment in the afterlife. Just as God is supposed to judge whether a soul rises to heaven or descends to hell, Osiris and his court use the scale of Ma’at to judge whether the deceased should be admitted to the Field of Reeds or have their heart devoured by Ammit. Though, mind you, Greek ideas of the Fields of Elysium and the punishments of Tartarus are also similar to Christian ideas.
posted
^ No surprise there. Again, the problem is not many people are as familiar with what the actual ancient Egyptian beliefs were or even what actual Christian doctrines taught, so of course they view similarities as one younger religion being derived from an older.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Another possible Egyptian source of influence on Christianity is the idea of judgment in the afterlife. Just as God is supposed to judge whether a soul rises to heaven or descends to hell, Osiris and his court use the scale of Ma’at to judge whether the deceased should be admitted to the Field of Reeds or have their heart devoured by Ammit. Though, mind you, Greek ideas of the Fields of Elysium and the punishments of Tartarus are also similar to Christian ideas.
Actually the belief in good souls going to heaven and bad ones going to hell is inaccurate and stems from pagan religious influence.
The true Christian doctrine is that when a person dies his/her soul goes to the underworld (Hebrew: Sheol; Greek: Hades; Old English: Hell) where the soul sleeps until the Day of Judgment. On that day, the souls of the dead will be resurrected and judged alongside those living at that time. The Kingdom of Heaven will actually manifest physically on Earth following Jesus's descent. So those that are judged not guilty will becomes citizens of that kingdom here on Earth not in the heavens in the sky (or rather spirit realm), and those guilty will be executed by being thrown into a Lake of Fire that will be created on Judgement Day and doesn't exist yet, whose purpose is similar to the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) in Jesus's time where garbage was burnt. The wicked won't burn forever but until they are destroyed while the fires of the pit will burn forever because they are fueled by God's energy. The purpose of the eternal flames is to subdue Satan and the fallen angels forever.
There are exceptions to the rule of the dead souls slumbering in Hell (the underworld, not the burning pit) in regard to the saints whose souls will be sent to heaven to be in communion with Jesus while they await their physical incarnation once Jesus returns to Earth.
The only thing similar between Jesus the Judge and Osiris the Judge is that the guilty will truly be eradicated from all existence. Jesus does not weigh one's heart on a scale but will judge by his omniscient knowledge alone.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I feel in any academic or secular discussion about Jesus (which allows freedom of scholarly discussion not afforded by religion), two things should be kept separate. The historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus. These are not the same. The bible leaves out Jesus' formative years, which anyone who has studied religious figures knows are indispensable. Imagine records of Siddhartha Gautama being mostly reduced to the last years of his life. It's my view that obscurantism is at play here. for whatever reason.
The bible picks up after this period of missing years and proceeds to narrate only the last 3 years of his life. New testament texts were written by people who include a former enemy of Jesus' followers, and no actual family members who knew him. Due to these missing years, and with his family members silent, the early Christian community, who did not know Jesus intimately, force us to take their word for it that Jesus was who they say he was.
Since Jesus' formative years are lost to history, ideologues can, and have, turned Jesus into everything imaginable, from an orthodox Jew, to a demigod, to God himself, to a messiah/Davidic figure, to a prophet, to an archangel, to an anti-Roman revolutionary, to a miracle worker, to a non-historical figure, and so on. So, I feel that, for students of history like me who just want answers, the omission of Jesus' formative years is a loss that complicates everything, including possible links to other religions.
You can see where this is going. People claiming links between Jesus and Egyptian figures are often a part of the aforementioned circus where everyone goes beyond the evidence to make Jesus what they want him to be. Though I have never looked into the subject, which has always appeared to me as just as ridiculous as Jesus = Krishna plagiarism claims, I'm going to bookmark to this thread to see where this is going, since I respect your knowledge on a wide range of subjects.
I actually totally agree with your assessment. To separate the historical Jesus from the Biblical/mythical Jesus is the best objective means to go by. This is why I like to look at what all the mythical/religious influence were on the Biblical personage of Jesus and his mother.
For anyone wondering, while I am a Christian I tend to be agnostic or rather contrarian to the origin or basis of some Christian doctrines. My strongest belief is in the existence of God or a supreme being but how that being is portrayed or said to manifest exactly in regards to man or angel is the question.
quote:As far as this discussion, I see many things I disagree with so far. I will only add that I happen to know the views of the Sicilian author you've posted @Djehuti. And she does, in fact, hold Jesus as an example of Greek/eastern Mediterranean parthenogenesis. She even uses one of the lost gospels as evidence. Though her views contradict yours on this issue, I'm impressed that you have such wide ranging/erudite academic interests.
Yes, I'm aware that Dr. Rigoglioso holds that the devotion of Mary is based on ancient divine birth cults. I haven't read her book on Mary so I don't know what her views exactly on how divine birth became part of Judaean beliefs if just the Christian sect. I know that her views stem from divine birth as a power of mother goddesses and not a monotheistic deity whose is the source of all life.
Welcome back by the way, and happy new year! I hope you can help raise the level of discussion in this forum again without conflict with other posters that is.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26367 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually the belief in good souls going to heaven and bad ones going to hell is inaccurate and stems from pagan religious influence.
Perhaps so, but it is the version you see represented in pop culture. Also, the general trope of a deity judging the fate of souls in the afterlife is still shared between Christian, Egyptian, and Greek religious beliefs. It might have been a common one swirling around the eastern Mediterranean in ancient times, even if specific details varied from one culture to another.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I feel in any academic or secular discussion about Jesus (which allows freedom of scholarly discussion not afforded by religion), two things should be kept separate. The historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus. These are not the same. The bible leaves out Jesus' formative years, which anyone who has studied religious figures knows are indispensable. Imagine records of Siddhartha Gautama being mostly reduced to the last years of his life. It's my view that obscurantism is at play here. for whatever reason.
The bible picks up after this period of missing years and proceeds to narrate only the last 3 years of his life. New testament texts were written by people who include a former enemy of Jesus' followers, and no actual family members who knew him. Due to these missing years, and with his family members silent, the early Christian community, who did not know Jesus intimately, force us to take their word for it that Jesus was who they say he was.
Since Jesus' formative years are lost to history, ideologues can, and have, turned Jesus into everything imaginable, from an orthodox Jew, to a demigod, to God himself, to a messiah/Davidic figure, to a prophet, to an archangel, to an anti-Roman revolutionary, to a miracle worker, to a non-historical figure, and so on. So, I feel that, for students of history like me who just want answers, the omission of Jesus' formative years is a loss that complicates everything, including possible links to other religions.
You can see where this is going. People claiming links between Jesus and Egyptian figures are often a part of the aforementioned circus where everyone goes beyond the evidence to make Jesus what they want him to be. Though I have never looked into the subject, which has always appeared to me as just as ridiculous as Jesus = Krishna plagiarism claims, I'm going to bookmark to this thread to see where this is going, since I respect your knowledge on a wide range of subjects.
I actually totally agree with your assessment. To separate the historical Jesus from the Biblical/mythical Jesus is the best objective means to go by. This is why I like to look at what all the mythical/religious influence were on the Biblical personage of Jesus and his mother.
For anyone wondering, while I am a Christian I tend to be agnostic or rather contrarian to the origin or basis of some Christian doctrines. My strongest belief is in the existence of God or a supreme being but how that being is portrayed or said to manifest exactly in regards to man or angel is the question.
quote:As far as this discussion, I see many things I disagree with so far. I will only add that I happen to know the views of the Sicilian author you've posted @Djehuti. And she does, in fact, hold Jesus as an example of Greek/eastern Mediterranean parthenogenesis. She even uses one of the lost gospels as evidence. Though her views contradict yours on this issue, I'm impressed that you have such wide ranging/erudite academic interests.
Yes, I'm aware that Dr. Rigoglioso holds that the devotion of Mary is based on ancient divine birth cults. I haven't read her book on Mary so I don't know what her views exactly on how divine birth became part of Judaean beliefs if just the Christian sect. I know that her views stem from divine birth as a power of mother goddesses and not a monotheistic deity whose is the source of all life.
Welcome back by the way, and happy new year! I hope you can help raise the level of discussion in this forum again without conflict with other posters that is.
As someone who went from AE to increasingly ancient subjects (I got up to human/sapiens origins), I'm no stranger to lonely subjects. So I know opportunities to discuss things don't really come up in real life (and I like it that way, anyway). But Rigoglioso is even more unlikely to come up in public, hence my shock to see her here and why I had to tip my hat.
Happy new year to you too.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^^ this is the channel page, many videos and the channel header are in Arabic but these videos are in English, just type the video title in the search there at the channel or in the regular youtube search field
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was called to make to make clear what the actual Christian Creed was as opposed to distortions and heresies. The idea of 'logos' had nothing to do with "man" as in mankind but Jesus himself! Thus Logos was the Word of God the Father who was also God that was transmitted to mankind. This creed was written down years earlier in Cappadocia and was based on older works from Antioch.
The sources you cite are correct that the early Church fought a war on two fronts so to speak-- one against pagans and the other against proto-Judaism. The concept of trinity was a polemic against both.
The split was based on the "nature of Christ" himself as stated by the participants. In other words, how can a flesh and blood mortal be a god. It is a cosmological and philosophical contradiction in terms as again most ancient religions did not consider deities as humans. However, they could represent aspects of human "nature" as archetypes but were not considered "mortal" in any sense. In other words they were "supernatural", which means they were eternal and not mortal and could not be killed like humans.
As such the heresies of the early Christianity are explicitly arguing that the Christians made up this idea of Christ as a divine being who lived in the flesh based on plagiarizing older deities and concepts from other religions. And the council of Nicea is simply reaffirming the core tenet of Christianity that you MUST believe that god came down to earth as a flesh and blood human named Jesus Christ to be a Christian.
quote: The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the Father as the "one God" and as the "Almighty," and Jesus Christ as "the Son of God", as "begotten of [...] the essence of the Father," and therefore as "consubstantial with the Father," meaning, "of the same substance"[15][16] as the Father; "very God of very God." The Creed of 325 does mention the Holy Spirit but not as "God" or as "consubstantial with the Father." The 381 revision of the creed at Constantinople (i.e., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), which is often simply referred to as the "Nicene Creed," speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed, formulated about a century later, which was not the product of any known church council and not used in Eastern Christianity, describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The earlier Apostles' Creed, apparently formulated before the Arian controversy arose in the fourth century, does not describe the Son or the Holy Spirit as "God" or as "consubstantial with the Father."[17]
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that the phrase for us men, and for our salvation was to refute the error of Origen, "who alleged that by the power of Christ's Passion even the devils were to be set free." He also stated that the phrases stating Jesus was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit was to refute the Manicheans "so that we may believe that He assumed true flesh and not a phantastic body," and He came down from Heaven was to refute the error of Photius, "who asserted that Christ was no more than a man." Furthermore, the phrase and He was made man was to "exclude the error of Nestorius, according to whose contention the Son of God ... would be said to dwell in man [rather] than to be man."[18]
You haven't challenged this, as opposed to misrepresent the core reason for the council in the first place. The issue here is if the story of Jesus is simply a tale told by the apostles bearing witness to his life, then none of these ontological philosophical discussions would be necessary and neither would any of these councils. Either you believe the word of the apostles in the scripture or you don't. The fact that they had these councils and that there were so many heresies shows that early Christianity is largely a result of the evolution of the god concept requiring a formal ontology (theological/cosmological/philosophical definition of terms and concepts). And this evolution was centered on Greek thought as a process of syncretism by which the modern word theology (greek theologos, literally 'gods word' or 'word of god' or 'discourse on the nature of god and creation'). This evolution started hundreds of years before Christianity and there are too many elements of these pre Christian concepts to ignore if one is purely looking at this from a historical perspective, including the concept of Christ Logos, which in it purest sense means that the "life of Christ" is an archetype for man himself. Meaning all men should seek to join themselves to the "holy spirit" and follow the "god the father" in their every day life using Jesus' life as an example. But that is a more introspective and spiritual approach (almost Eastern like), whereas the other approach is purely dogmatic (you must believe in the reality of christ vs believing in the idea and meaning of Christ's story as a parable for your own life). As such the idea of "logos" and "the word" is nothing more than a reflection of the idea of the ancient deity Djehuti who was the representation of the power and mystery of "the word" through writing and thought in the act of creation.
quote: What is the Logos?
Logos is broadly defined as the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
The concept of the Logos has had a crucial and far-reaching influence upon philosophical and Christian thought. The term has a long history, and the development of the idea it embodies is really the unfolding of man's conception of God. To understand the relationship of the Deity to the world has been the goal of all religious philosophy. While diverging views as to the Divine manifestation have been conceived, the Greek word logos has been used with a certain degree of agreement by a series of thinkers to express and define the nature and form of God's revelation.
Logos means in classical Greek both "reason" and "word." The translation "thought" is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it indicates, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both concepts of thought and its outward expression are closely connected.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Jesus was NOT a sun or solar deity, and the Christian cross was NOT based on European solar crosses but on the ancient Semitic letter t or tov meaning 'good'. Thus Jesus was a deity of goodness. In fact there are Egyptian paintings showing Canaanites wearing tov amulets i.e. 'crucifixes'! Light another aspect of divinity but not that of the sun itself.
Yes I'm aware that the concept of Logos originally came from the Greeks but was likely transmitted to Judaean thought by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Though there are some who argue that such concepts existed in proto-kabbalistic thought.
I am talking about this which is the ancient form of Christ Pantocrator which was common in Eastern Christianity from an early period.
quote:The image of Christ Pantocrator was one of the first images of Christ developed in the Early Christian Church and remains a central icon of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the half-length image, Christ holds the New Testament in his left hand and makes the gesture of teaching or of blessing with his right. The typical Western Christ in Majesty is a full-length icon. In the early Middle Ages, it usually presented Christ in a mandorla or other geometric frame, surrounded by the Four Evangelists or their symbols.
The oldest known surviving example of the icon of Christ Pantocrator was painted in encaustic on panel in the sixth or seventh century, and survived the period of destruction of images during the Iconoclastic disputes that twice racked the Eastern church, 726 to 787 and 814 to 842. It was preserved in Saint Catherine's Monastery, in the remote desert of the Sinai.[9] The gessoed panel, finely painted using a wax medium on a wooden panel, had been coarsely overpainted around the face and hands at some time around the thirteenth century. When the overpainting was cleaned in 1962, the ancient image was revealed to be a very high-quality icon, probably produced in Constantinople.
This has nothing to do with the Western European sun cross iconography.
As such, the iconography of this image, appearing in the top of a church dome is clearly solar in nature, and reinforced by the rainbow surrounding the image. And the sun cross behind the head is related to Mesopotamian depictions of solar crosses associated with various sun deities such as Ashur the basis of names like Ashurbanipal. See: en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur_%28god%29
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually the Trinity is the 'Father' as source, Son as and Spirit proceeding from the father create and pervade the universe respectively.
There was no single form of Christianity in the early Christian era. This idea of the trinity representing a mortal that is also divine is simply reinforcing the "nature of christ" as divine and mortal, even though the scriptures literally says that his life is meant to be a parable and he himself taught in parables. And there is still split between the diophysites and monophysites on this topic of Christ's nature to this very day.
quote: Dyophysite Christians believe that there is complete and perfect unity of the two natures in one hypostasis and one person of Jesus Christ. For the Chalcedonians, the hypostatic union was the center of Jesus's unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Chalcedonian definition saw his nature as the point of unity. The miaphysites upheld the idea of one nature in Christ based on their understanding of Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas, namely number 4 which states "If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema." Since the term dyophysitism is used for describing the Chalcedonian positions, it has a distinctive opposite meaning to the terms monophysite (the notion that Christ has only one, divine nature) and miaphysite (the notion that Christ is both divine and human, but in one nature). [3]
Dyophisitism has also been used to describe some aspects of Nestorianism, the doctrines ascribed to Nestorius of Constantinople. It is now generally agreed that some of his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial among churches.[4]
The belief in Jesus Christ being true Man and true God was embedded in the Chalcedonian Creed.[5] Later it was integrated in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, the basic article of the faith of all Chalcedonian Christian denominations. Spread
Development of dyophysite Christology was gradual; Dyophysitism tradition and its complex terminology were finally formulated as a result of long Christological debates that were constant during the 4th and 5th centuries. The importance of dyophysitism was often emphasized by prominent representatives of the Antiochene School.[6] After many debates and several councils, dyophysitism gained its official ecclesiastical form at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon in 451.[7]
Not to mention all the gnostic sects of early Christianity:
quote: According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians believed that at the beginning there was a Pleroma (literally, a 'fullness'). At the centre of the Pleroma was the primal Father or Bythos, the beginning of all things who, after ages of silence and contemplation, projected thirty Aeons, heavenly archetypes representing fifteen syzygies or sexually complementary pairs. Among them was Sophia. Sophia's weakness, curiosity and passion led to her fall from the Pleroma and the creation of the world and man, both of which are flawed. Valentinians identified the God of the Old Testament as the Demiurge,[8] the imperfect creator of the material world. Man, the highest being in this material world, participates in both the spiritual and the material nature. The work of redemption consists in freeing the former from the latter. One needed to recognize the Father, the depth of all being, as the true source of divine power in order to achieve gnosis (knowledge).[9] The Valentinians believed that the attainment of this knowledge by the human individual had positive consequences within the universal order and contributed to restoring that order,[10] and that gnosis, not faith, was the key to salvation. Clement wrote that the Valentinians regarded Catholic Christians "as simple people to whom they attributed faith, while they think that gnosis is in themselves. Through the excellent seed that is to be found in them, they are by nature redeemed, and their gnosis is as far removed from faith as the spiritual from the physical".[11]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The solar disc is just that-- solar. Hence it was only portrayed on solar deities not all Egyptian deities were solar hence not portrayed with discs. The concept of halos or nebula have nothing to do with the sun but was a concept of spiritual powers of light.
The solar disc represents the power of the sun as attributes of the solar deity. And the cosmology around these 'powers of the sun' regarding creation is found in the various ancient texts. As such "let there be light" is the Christian analog to the sun being a symbol of god's presence and creative power. It is the same kind of symbol found in the ben ben stone or pyramidion at the top of the pyramids which was covered in gold ad literally represented Ra at the beginning of creation (ie. the light or first spark or chain of events leading to the creation of all that is). And on a basic practical level, the sun is responsible for life on this planet, not only in the basic biological sense, but also in the sense of the development of agriculture based on the seasons and movement of thesun as being key to the cycles of life on this planet.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, orthodox Christian theology is against Hellenistic or even Egyptian concepts of dialectics and Hellenistic concept of simplistic divinity. This is why Church Fathers like Origen of Alexandria were declared heretics because their Hellenist- Neo-Platonic views are contrary to Christian views.
When I say monad I mean statements like "I am the alpha and omaga" or everything that is and ever shall be. That expression itself embodies the principle of the monad along with the Christian concept of trinity. The monad concept is a very well understood philosophical and cosmological term.
quote:The term monad (from Ancient Greek μονάς (monas) 'unity', and μόνος (monos) 'alone')[1] is used in some cosmic philosophy and cosmogony to refer to a most basic or original substance. As originally conceived by the Pythagoreans, the Monad is the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. In the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, there are infinite monads, which are the basic and immaterial elementary particles, or simplest units, that make up the universe.[2]
en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) forum doesn't like parentheses in URLs so you have to go to the link manually.
And in the cosmology of the Nile Valley there are plenty examples of deities expressing this concept of monad such as Atum or Atum-Re and of course the Aten. By the way here is one of the heiroglyphs for Re:
Orthodox Theology is Greek to begin with as most of the Church Fathers were of Greek origin and wrote in Greek. And the word Pope is literally derived from Greek "Papa" which means father. So the idea of the early Church fathers of Alexandria means they were the first popes of Christianity, such as Origen. And even though many of his works are considered "heretical" that doesn't change the historical significance of his works and others like him at the time. And the term "Ecumenical" is also Greek, just as the word Christ is also Greek. You cannot take the huge influence of Greece out of early Christian thought.
First paragraph of Origen's "On Fist Principles":
quote: 1. I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find it said, that "our God is a consuming fire;" and in the Gospel according to John, that "God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they have to say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as John writes in his Epistle, "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." Truly He is that light which illuminates the whole understanding of those who are capable of receiving truth, as is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, "In Your light we shall see light." For what other light of God can be named, "in which any one sees light," save an influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himself, who is called the truth? Such is the meaning of the expression, "In Your light we shall see light;" i.e., in Your word and wisdom which is Your Son, in Himself we shall see You the Father. Because He is called light, shall He be supposed to have any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how should there be the slightest ground for imagining, that from that corporeal light any one could derive the cause of knowledge, and come to the understanding of the truth?
2. If, then, they acquiesce in our assertion, which reason itself has demonstrated, regarding the nature of light, and acknowledge that God cannot be understood to be a body in the sense that light is, similar reasoning will hold true of the expression "a consuming fire." For what will God consume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what in this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire, consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God does indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way into the minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son those souls which are rendered capable of receiving His word and wisdom, according to His own declaration, "I and the Father shall come, and We shall make our abode with him?" He makes them, after all their vices and passions have been consumed, a holy temple, worthy of Himself. Those, moreover, who, on account of the expression "God is a Spirit," think that He is a body, are to be answered, I think, in the following manner. It is the custom of sacred Scripture, when it wishes to designate anything opposed to this gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as in the expression, "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life," where there can be no doubt that by "letter" are meant bodily things, and by "spirit" intellectual things, which we also term "spiritual." The apostle, moreover, says, "Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart: nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." For so long as any one is not converted to a spiritual understanding, a veil is placed over his heart, with which veil, i.e., a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or thought to be covered: and this is the meaning of the statement that a veil was placed over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e., when the law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual knowledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures.
The issue with Origen and many of the other early Church fathers is the fact that there was no single form of early Christianity and this is why the later ecumenical councils had to establish an orthodoxy.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I dunno about the Horus = Jesus narrative, but I can see the trope of a man being a god's earthly incarnation as was claimed for Jesus having a connection to Egyptian traditions of the god-king. And it does seem likely to me that the Egyptians influenced Hebrew religion and theology. The commandment "don't take God's name in vain" could be connected to the Egyptian belief that names had special power, including the names of divine entities.
Also, does anyone else see at least a superficial similarity between the Egyptian ankh symbol and the Christian crucifix?
There are some similarities, and I think a common cultural base of memes etc in the region stretching from Mesopotamia to Egypt would no doubt supply a number of connections and links. One key point of the Hebrew religion/moral format though was Separation from the regional culture with its multiple gods, goddesses etc to sole worship of one God who was beyond the physical creation, and thus was not to be worshiped through such. i.e. sun or moon gods/goddesses etc..
I think you are right- there is at least a superficial similarity re the ankh. When you get down to the moral and spiritual aspects however, the ankh and the Christian cross of course teach different lessons. One a symbol of elemental life via the gods, the other representing deep redemptive suffering to clear sin and bring about eternal life for men who accept that redemptive sacrifice, and so on. Various connections can be drawn depending on the various levels you look at. Per Wiki on the ankh:
"The ankh was one of the most common decorative motifs in ancient Egypt and was also used decoratively by neighbouring cultures. Coptic Christians adapted it into the crux ansata, a shape with a circular rather than oval loop, and used it as a variant of the Christian cross. The ankh came into widespread use in Western culture in the 1960s, and it is often used as a symbol of African cultural identity, Neopagan belief systems, and the goth subculture."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Another possible Egyptian source of influence on Christianity is the idea of judgment in the afterlife. Just as God is supposed to judge whether a soul rises to heaven or descends to hell, Osiris and his court use the scale of Ma’at to judge whether the deceased should be admitted to the Field of Reeds or have their heart devoured by Ammit. Though, mind you, Greek ideas of the Fields of Elysium and the punishments of Tartarus are also similar to Christian ideas.
Indeed, and the fact that many of these cultures hold that there is an afterlife and a reckoning to come. would indicate not only a common regional base but a common human religious/moral base or set of general moral concepts, for Many cultures the world over hold that there is a life to come after death, and a reckoning for deeds thoughts and motives done in this life. You find such concepts among the Yoruba for example which speak of a area of sadness or desolation for the unjust/wicked etc a wasteland of broken pots, apt metaphor for human ambition, pride, unjust dealing etc.. For others the standard is whether certain rituals or rites were done properly etc.. There is of course much diversity and variation in he general mix.
Some Near Death (NDE) experiences also speak of wastelands, or zones of shadow and darkness, menace, sadness etc, where souls are cut off from divine light. There is variation in these accounts, but a general concept of accountability seems to appear widely, whether of good or bad deeds, or whether the individual carried out certain proper rites or rituals on earth when they were alive.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Djehuti: To separate the historical Jesus from the Biblical/mythical Jesus is the best objective means to go by. This is why I like to look at what all the mythical/religious influence were on the Biblical personage of Jesus and his mother.
I don't think the Biblical and historical Jesus can be separated so easily. They are both one and the same. The fact that we know very little about the early life of Jesus save for his birth and some incidents recorded in the gospels is hardly a reason for separation. In fact it is quite common for many historical figures to have little said about their childhood or teen or 20-something years. They come to prominence based on their particular influential mission or life's works.
If details on early life is a standard then we would be carving hundreds of historical figures into artificial pieces. The apostles of Jesus did not split him in two- they walked with him, suffered with and for him, and recorded his words, which were well known and accepted as from the same historical person. The writings of Paul which occur within a few decades of Jesus passing are the earlies writings of the New Testament, and in them Paul affirms and quotes from the words of Jesus, and he could only do so because there was a commonly accepted body of beliefs among the early Christians. Likewise Peter who walked with Jesus and studied under him makes no dual separation, and in his own epistle, he supports the work of Paul. There is detailed scholarship on this. As Peter himself says:
“.. even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” –-2 Peter 2: 15-16
A position splitting out a historical versus a biblical/mythical Jesus seems incompatible or inconsistent with core fundamentals of the Christian faith. There are several documented non-biblical sources by the way for (a) the historicity of Jesus, (b) what he and his followers believed. Hostile opponents of Christianity, ironically, sometimes provide evidence on what the followers of Jesus believed. Roman historian Suetonius for example, records Christians as being in Rome less that 20 years after his death, and that they were suffering and dying for their conviction that Jesus Christ had really lived, died, and risen from the dead. He records the disturbances wrought by the Jews over the teachings of "Chrestus", another spelling of Christus, and notes that Claudius expelled all the Jewish troublemakers, (all Jews in fact) from Rome, an event recorded in Acts 18, circa AD49. Indeed Suetonius approvingly notes that: “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26. 2)
Greek opponent Lucian spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians- and their "novel rites" on which account said Christ was crucified, and the "misguided creatures" who follow the his doctrines. These people sneers Lucian even believe in ‘brotherhood’ - quote: "then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith..” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)
See Mcdowell. The New Evidence That demands A Verdict. Pp 116-137 for at least 8 non-biblical sources on the matter.
For anyone wondering, while I am a Christian I tend to be agnostic or rather contrarian to the origin or basis of some Christian doctrines. My strongest belief is in the existence of God or a supreme being but how that being is portrayed or said to manifest exactly in regards to man or angel is the question.
Indeed. Which is where faith comes in. There is a ton of scholarship showing the generally accepted parameters of the Christian faith and of the commonly accepted writings, long before any popes or church councils showed up. To go with faith is a detailed scholarship on foundational writings. Core foundations are not those dictated by popes centuries later but based on:
(a) acceptance of fundamental teachings by the bulk of early Christian believers some of whom had seen and heard Christ and his apostles, (b) consistency of doctrine with that of the words spoken by Jesus and/or apostles who had directly heard and received it from Jesus, (c) writings of the apostles, (d) the approval of the apostles. The principle of consistency for example would quickly expose people showing up claiming to be Christians yet denying the resurrection or redemptive work. Such inconsistency would be rejected or have little credibility with the bulk of the believers who were quite familiar with the fundamental core doctrines, and little credibility with the Apostles or early church fathers/elders. In fact various teachers and their doctrines considered false are condemned in the New Testament, in almost all of the Apostolic writings. Scholars such as those below and many others lay out heavy detail: Craig S. Keener - Acts_ An Exegetical Commentary Volume 2 (3_1-14_28) (2013) Josh McDowell The Evidence that Requires a Verdict 1999, pp. 17-139
Rigoglioso holds that the devotion of Mary is based on ancient divine birth cults. I haven't read her book on Mary so I don't know what her views exactly on how divine birth became part of Judaean beliefs if just the Christian sect. I know that her views stem from divine birth as a power of mother goddesses and not a monotheistic deity whose is the source of all life.
Rigoglioso has a point, in that some Catholic teachings seem to have appropriated aspects of the ancient cults, gods, goddesses, etc. In fact this was one of the reasons cited in various stages of the Protestant Reformation, that the Catholic Church, aside from many other problems, such as selling soul-saving indulgences for cash, had further corrupted Christianity by including what was considered pagan.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
And that monad version of the trinity is a reflection of the platonic school of cosmology or philosophy. Whereas in the Nile Valley there was always a supreme demiurge (the one/monad) that created all things, the first thing created was the principle of opposites, ie duality: up/down, good/evil, hot/cold, male/female, etc. And from the interaction of all these elements you get everything in the physical universe. The Platonic school had a different interpretation of this which they called the Monad and Infinite Dyad, which concerns the relationship between the idea of something and its physical manifestation.
Keep in mind that as shown on several detailed threads that core foundational doctrines of the Christian faith do not depend on Platonist though, logos, Egyptian materialist deities like the sun and so on. In fact many of these concepts are incompatible with the foundations, and are condemned in the New Testament. Likewise the Hebrews rejected several regional cultural elements such as child sacrifice, multiple gods and goddesses, etc as incompatible with the worship of one God. It is fairly easy to find superficial symbols and similarities, but most are incompatible. Some versions of these “influence” arguments are like saying that since the swastika symbol is found in non-Western cultures before Hitler showed up, then Hitler and Nazi racism was “due to” or “influenced by” the swastika of peoples ranging from Indians to Native Americans, or even Africans. You could make a case that catholic regimes and other elements incorporated elements of such incompatibilities- one of the most loud complaints of the Reformation and some people before the reformation. But that would be a case of corrupting influence.
One important angle as to Egypt’s influence on Christianity is that Egyptian theologians and librarians stoutly defended parameters of the faith, the parameters of the commonly accepted scriptural texts, and used the Alexandrian library as a vital depository in the region for many of those texts. Thus the real influence of Egypt on Christianity may not be the ancient beliefs of Horus, Set, Isis etc, but the vigorousactivity of Egyptian theologians, teachers and scribes. The life of Athanasius of Egypt for examples shows some of this important role. As one history notes:
“Egypt’s role in the formation of the canon of the Scriptures was of the utmost importance, owing to the natural advantages of its position and the conspicuous eminence of its great teachers during the third century, particularly Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church to the New Testament canon is generally uniform. In addition to the acknowledged books, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received there as divine scripture, even by those who doubted their immediate apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistle of Saint John were well known and commonly received, but no one except Origen, so far as can be discovered, was acquainted with the Second Epistle of Peter.
The first reference to the complete canon, however, is found in the Thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Saint Athanasius (fourth century), where the books are listed in the following order:
Old Testament-, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Esdras (I and II), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
New Testament-. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles (James; I and II Peter; I, II, and III John; Jude), fourteen Pauline Episdes (Romans, I and II Corinthians, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thcssalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon), and the Apocalypse.”
--FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p40-42
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Jesus's childhood is described in the The New Testament apocrypha and early Christian pseudepigrapha
Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Syriac Infancy Gospel, among other sources
So these texts could also be compared to Egyptian beliefs, that could be interesting also
Sure, the various rejected texts can be plumbed for ancient Egyptian links or arguments. But those books or origin writings were rejected by most of the Christian community and leaders before any church councils showed up. A key problem aside from the credibility and source issues is incompatibility with what Jesus taught, and the commonly held faith of the early church and apostles. Things like "the Gospel of Pontius Pilate" or "Gospel of Judas" and others have little credibility.
Judaism likewise has been plagued by various pseudo writings claiming to be authoritative (James Davila, “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background to the New Testament,” The Expository Times 117.2 (2005): 53-57.) and a number of scholars dispute that Moses was even a real person, and that monotheism is something "imposed" by a domineering cabal, and so on. If these claims are accepted then many core foundations of Judaic religion would have to be tossed out.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
1.You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall make no idols. 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. 5. Honor your father and your mother. 6. You shall not murder. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10. You shall not covet.
_________________________________
The 24 Negative confessions varies from tomb to tomb
You probably won't see elsewhere on the internet 3 versions all together and with numbers
If you want to compare easily open up a new window and reduce the window size and overlap to this one
The first list on that page is the famous one, the papyrus of Ani
I see these fairly good matches (B = bible) (NC = Negative confessions)
B3 = NC26 B6 = NC4 B7 = NC12 B8 = NC3 B9 = NC16
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 6. You shall not murder. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
^ None of these is very unique, many cultures would have these. These seem like people forming groups would come up with this naturally
___________________________________
what I do see in the Bible 10 Commandments but NOT in the Negative confessions
1.You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall make no idols. 4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. 5. Honor your father and your mother. 10. You shall not covet.
The Declaration of Innocence from the Book of the Dead Translated by E.A. Wallis Budge c.1240 BCE
1.I have not committed sin. 2.I have not committed robbery with violence. 3. I have not stolen. 4.I have not slain men and women. 5.I have not stolen grain. 6.I have not purloined offerings. 7.I have not stolen the property of the gods. 8.I have not uttered lies. 9.I have not carried away food. 10. I have not uttered curses. 11.I have not committed adultery 12. I have made none to weep. 13. I have not eaten the heart [i.e., I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse]. 14. I have not attacked any man. 15. I am not a man of deceit. 16. I have not stolen cultivated land. 17. I have not been an eavesdropper. 18.I have slandered [no man]. 19. I have not been angry without just cause. 20. I have not debauched the wife of any man. 21. I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god). 22. I have not polluted myself. 23. I have terrorized none. 24. I have not transgressed [the Law]. 25. I have not been wroth. 26. I have not shut my ears to the words of truth. 27. I have not blasphemed. 28. I am not a man of violence. 29. I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace). 30. I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste. 31. I have not pried into matters. 32. I have not multiplied my words in speaking. 33. I have wronged none, I have done no evil. 34. I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King). 35. I have never stopped [the flow of] water. 36. I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger). 37. I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God. 38. I have not acted with evil rage. 39. I have not stolen the bread of the gods. 40. I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead. 41. I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city. 42. I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In Christianity, as is commonly known, the crucifixion is the process by which Jesus, who is seen as God in human condition, taking on all of mankind's sins upon himself, thus securing God's forgiveness, and covering men from all the sins and failures, thus allowing men a chance to go free from the judgment to come after death.
This ultimate forgiveness for transgressing laws in Christianity seems unique to me:
1. there is a heaven and hell (or an afterlife and non-existence)
2. Of these two options a person will wind up with one of them according to following or not following a clearly stated set of laws
3. but if you sincerely ask God (in his incarnation of Jesus) for forgiveness and vow to change your ways you can be allowed into heaven (or have an afterlife as opposed to non-existence)
In Christianity this is not presented as metaphoric but instead as very real
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In Christianity, as is commonly known, the crucifixion is the process by which Jesus, who is seen as God in human condition, taking on all of mankind's sins upon himself, thus securing God's forgiveness, and covering men from all the sins and failures, thus allowing men a chance to go free from the judgment to come after death.
This ultimate forgiveness for transgressing laws in Christianity seems unique to me:
1. there is a heaven and hell (or an afterlife and non-existence)
2. Of these two options a person will wind up with one of them according to following or not following a clearly stated set of laws
3. but if you sincerely ask God (in his incarnation of Jesus) for forgiveness and vow to change your ways you can be allowed into heaven (or have an afterlife as opposed to non-existence)
In Christianity this is not presented as metaphoric but instead as very real
Well bear in mind that the 2 options you list are not the 2 that show up in Christianity. There is heaven, and there is not non-existence, but an areas of grief, sorrow, recrimination, darkness menace etc, where souls go based on their motives and conduct in this life. Contrary to popular conceptions of all sweetness and light, some Near Death Experiences speak of these mournful or negative areas. Some researchers say about 20% of NDS are "negative" i.e. some sort of distressing factor or scenario is experienced of varying intensity and variety, but still representing what is dark or negative. It seems a lot of cultures in the broad region have the concept of some sort of reckoning and accountability after death.
But not only Medit/Mideast but also parts of Africa, i.e. the gloomy, dark wasteland of broken pots. Likewise in parts of India, accountability on the karmic cycle for deeds done etc. It is argued by some for example that it may take hundreds or millions of negative lifetime cycling to clear away various sins. Such negatives may include time in various hells- like Buddhism's 8 punishing hells.
What makes Christianity unique is not the concept of accountability/reckoning, but the fact that an individual can have a clean slate on crossing death's portal, through the redemptive work of Christ. Belief on a Savior is also established by faith, not works or rituals. Just doing some good works or making declarations, or meditating, or chanting rituals are not enough, because such does not erase sin in the Christian view, and sin is the baggage carried over to the other side. Another unique feature of Christianity is that there is no endless cycle of rituals and good works, or seeming good works trying to get things right. Belief on the redemptive work of the Savior is the thing- one and done. This does not of course exempt one from trying to live a decent life, correcting mistakes, adjusting for wrongs done, trying to do better, etc, etc..
If this widely held concept of reckoning/ accountability is looked at humans have a threefold problem to overcome. --thoughts --motives --deeds
Almost all of these moral/religio systems above in some way recognize the 3 or combine 1 or more, and the difficulty is how to you reconcile accountability and settle righteousness given universal human failure, corruption, deceit, etc?
The tripartite (or combo) problem makes it hard, for people can live a perfectly exemplary OUTWARD life, but INWARDLY motives and thought are quite the opposite. Hence various Mafia bosses on death are often hailed as fine community men, good family men, church attendees and so on, but what were they INWARDLY and what evil did they do where no one else can see? Likewise various people may earn praise for charity work, but what was their true motive, genuinely helping others, or doing it for the favorable publicity, and payoff?
The Egyptians had insight into various aspects of the problem. Thus in the judgment in the hall of Maat, the heart was weighed on the scales against the feather of Maat. Thus not only actions & statements were taken account of, but motives, including the hidden or secret ones. Merely reciting various spells or formulas was not the end stage. The scales and feather of Maat would divine the true picture and the true status of the human soul on the scales. This of course means that the true nature of a person comes out. This nature may be easy to mask or conceal in the present life, but not so on the scales of reckoning which expose the truth.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This ultimate forgiveness for transgressing laws in Christianity seems unique to me:
1. there is a heaven and hell (or an afterlife and non-existence)
2. Of these two options a person will wind up with one of them according to following or not following a clearly stated set of laws
3. but if you sincerely ask God (in his incarnation of Jesus) for forgiveness and vow to change your ways you can be allowed into heaven (or have an afterlife as opposed to non-existence)
In Christianity this is not presented as metaphoric but instead as very real [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique
Well bear in mind that the 2 options you list are not the 2 that show up in Christianity. There is heaven, and there is not non-existence, but an areas of grief, sorrow, recrimination, darkness menace etc, where souls go based on their motives and conduct in this life. Contrary to popular conceptions of all sweetness and light, some Near Death Experiences speak of these mournful or negative areas. Some researchers say about 20% of NDS are "negative" i.e. some sort of distressing factor or scenario is experienced of varying intensity and variety, but still representing what is dark or negative. It seems a lot of cultures in the broad region have the concept of some sort of reckoning and accountability after death.
What makes Christianity unique is not the concept of accountability/reckoning, but the fact that an individual can have a clean slate on crossing death's portal, through the redemptive work of Christ. Belief on a Savior is also established by faith, not works or rituals. Just doing some good works or making declarations, or meditating, or chanting rituals are not enough, because such does not erase sin in the Christian view, and sin is the baggage carried over to the other side. Another unique feature of Christianity is that there is no endless cycle of rituals and good works, or seeming good works trying to get things right. Belief on the redemptive work of the Savior is the thing- one and done.
I should have been more clear, was talking about heaven and hell and when I added "non-existence" I didn't mean the way Christianity has come to be but that with beliefs similar to heaven and hell, if you have on option as heaven, non-existence or hell would both be bad in many people's view
However I was just setting up the premises for the forgiveness message of Jesus
Jesus was a Jew but he started teaching other things which were rejected by some of the local authorities and one of them was forgiveness
If we look at this from a non-religious perspective and assume Jesus was a real person and he's adding this new chapter after the Old Testament, why sociologically do you think this idea of forgiveness for sins became so popular? And another thing Christians always say is "we are all sinners, none of us is perfect". Why is this popular? Why did Christianity become so popular? And then, why did Islam become so popular? There are some common roots
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question. My 2 cents is that forgiveness of sins can affect souls because many people get a sense of their own state- failures, corruption, deceit, etc, as well as the morass humankind is in, and feel the need to clear themselves of such. They may consider that if there is a reckoning to come, they will not pass muster. It is easy to mask and cover up on earth, but when exposed to divine light on the other side the case is hopeless. The Egyptians had insight as said above, after all the declarations (which can be problematic since the typical human is guilty of many of the 42 declared sins, if not outwardly, then INWARDLY), after that, then there is the final weighing of the heart on the scales of Maat. This final sifting strips away all the pretense, masking, false declarations, deceptions, etc exposes the true nature of the person, and renders a just judgement.
Of course this may only be acceptable with some people. Others like famous atheist writer Gertrude Stein say that if there is a God and He does not work out some kind of deal for her, then she would not care to spend eternity in His presence. In other words, Stein, in typical human fashion, wants the author of existence to conform to her desires, not exactly the best line of argument in facing the Self-Existent One. But still God in grace, has laid out a perfectly reasonable deal, in the redemptive work and sacrifice of Christ- a chance to clear yourself of the baggage of sin, by faith in Christ, before crossing over. Stein as far as is known, never took the deal, and if the Christian faith is true, did forecast her own fate, by her own words.
But what does Judaism say about a final reckoning, or a final divine arbiter in such?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ten Commandments
1.You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall make no idols. 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. 5. Honor your father and your mother. 6. You shall not murder. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10. You shall not covet.
_________________________________
The 24 Negative confessions varies from tomb to tomb
You probably won't see elsewhere on the internet 3 versions all together and with numbers
If you want to compare easily open up a new window and reduce the window size and overlap to this one
The first list on that page is the famous one, the papyrus of Ani
I see these fairly good matches (B = bible) (NC = Negative confessions)
B3 = NC26 B6 = NC4 B7 = NC12 B8 = NC3 B9 = NC16
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 6. You shall not murder. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
^ None of these is very unique, many cultures would have these. These seem like people forming groups would come up with this naturally
___________________________________
what I do see in the Bible 10 Commandments but NOT in the Negative confessions
1.You shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall make no idols. 4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. 5. Honor your father and your mother. 10. You shall not covet.
The Declaration of Innocence from the Book of the Dead Translated by E.A. Wallis Budge c.1240 BCE
1.I have not committed sin. 2.I have not committed robbery with violence. 3. I have not stolen. 4.I have not slain men and women. 5.I have not stolen grain. 6.I have not purloined offerings. 7.I have not stolen the property of the gods. 8.I have not uttered lies. 9.I have not carried away food. 10. I have not uttered curses. 11.I have not committed adultery 12. I have made none to weep. 13. I have not eaten the heart [i.e., I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse]. 14. I have not attacked any man. 15. I am not a man of deceit. 16. I have not stolen cultivated land. 17. I have not been an eavesdropper. 18.I have slandered [no man]. 19. I have not been angry without just cause. 20. I have not debauched the wife of any man. 21. I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god). 22. I have not polluted myself. 23. I have terrorized none. 24. I have not transgressed [the Law]. 25. I have not been wroth. 26. I have not shut my ears to the words of truth. 27. I have not blasphemed. 28. I am not a man of violence. 29. I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace). 30. I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste. 31. I have not pried into matters. 32. I have not multiplied my words in speaking. 33. I have wronged none, I have done no evil. 34. I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King). 35. I have never stopped [the flow of] water. 36. I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger). 37. I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God. 38. I have not acted with evil rage. 39. I have not stolen the bread of the gods. 40. I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead. 41. I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city. 42. I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.
^ None of these is very unique, many cultures would have these. These seem like people forming groups would come up with this naturally
You are quite right. Some of the above are general moral precepts many regional or even world cultures would recognize. The think about the 39 or so declarations is that almost no human being can meet or satisfy them. How many humans can meet:
8.I have not uttered lies. 30. I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste. 31. I have not pried into matters. 32. I have not multiplied my words in speaking. 33. I have wronged none, I have done no evil.'
As a small sampling for example. These declarations, and other associated things such as protective spells and so on seek to establish righteousness by human effort- and can be seen in modern day mediation, chanting, seeming good works etc. But when all the rituals, rites, chanting etc is done, or good works, men are back to business as usual. There is also what is INWARD to contend with. The pious holy men in SOME Tibetian monasteries for example have carried out widespread child sexual abuse. Yet from outward looks, many would hail these monks and so pious, clean and pure. https://info-buddhism.com/Abuse_and_Buddhism-Behind_the_Smiling_Facade-Anna_Sawerthal.html
Hence men, whatever outward facade they present, have that which is inwardly to be condemned. As a result, men can never clear themselves from sin, which is be incompatible to a realm of divine light. The Christian faith recognizes the moral handicaps men are burdened with and in the day of grace, provides a Saviour whose redemptive sacrifice takes on and clears away sin, by faith in that Saviour.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by the lioness,: Jesus's childhood is described in the The New Testament apocrypha and early Christian pseudepigrapha
Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Syriac Infancy Gospel, among other sources
So these texts could also be compared to Egyptian beliefs, that could be interesting also
You are on to something here. I think one important point the thread brings out is that a part of the impact of ancient Egypt may not be so much origins- like whether Horus is a model for Jesus, or Isis for someone else etc. The main impact of ancient Egypt may be as a corrupting add-on to the generally accepted core principles and books of the faith. Hence as noted above, some Catholic devotion of Mary may be based on ancient divine birth cults, in Egypt and elsewhere. Likewise your mention of some pseudo writings deemed not suitable for the generally accepted corpus offers a way to being in various aspects of ancient Egyptian religion- add-ons deemed corrupt by many believers or leaders- to be quietly introduced.
But that being said- the biggest impact of Egypt may not be whether Isis or various goddesses and other elements can be slipped into the mix but that Egyptian theologians and librarians stoutly defended parameters of the faith, the parameters of the commonly accepted scriptural texts, and used the Alexandrian library as a vital depository in the region for many of those texts. Thus the real influence of Egypt on Christianity may not be the ancient beliefs of Horus, Set, Isis etc, but the vigorousactivity of Egyptian theologians, teachers and scribes. The life of Athanasius of Egypt for examples shows some of this important role. As one history notes:
“Egypt’s role in the formation of the canon of the Scriptures was of the utmost importance, owing to the natural advantages of its position and the conspicuous eminence of its great teachers during the third century, particularly Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church to the New Testament canon is generally uniform. In addition to the acknowledged books, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received there as divine scripture, even by those who doubted their immediate apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistle of Saint John were well known and commonly received, but no one except Origen, so far as can be discovered, was acquainted with the Second Epistle of Peter.
The first reference to the complete canon, however, is found in the Thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Saint Athanasius (fourth century), where the books are listed in the following order:
Old Testament-, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Esdras (I and II), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
New Testament-. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles (James; I and II Peter; I, II, and III John; Jude), fourteen Pauline Episdes (Romans, I and II Corinthians, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thcssalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon), and the Apocalypse.”
--FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p40-42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5923 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
the impact of ancient Egypt may not be so much origins- like whether Horus is a model for Jesus, or Isis for someone else etc. The main impact of ancient Egypt may be as a corrupting add-on to the generally accepted core principles and books of the faith. Hence as noted above, some Catholic devotion of Mary may be based on ancient divine birth cults, in Egypt and elsewhere. Likewise your mention of some pseudo writings deemed not suitable for the generally accepted corpus offers a way to being in various aspects of ancient Egyptian religion- add-ons deemed corrupt by many believers or leaders- to be quietly introduced.
If Egyptian religion predates Christianity by a wide margin how could Egypt be a corrupting add-on?
Posts: 43015 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
to see her here and why I had to tip my hat.
Printer-friendly view of this topic