posted
THE Messianic mystery which has caused unparalleled mental trouble to the world did not originate with, nor was the solution to be found in, the biblical collection of the Hebrew writings. The Egyptian “mesu”, to anoint, and as a name for the Anointed, is earlier than the Jewish Messiah. Nor would there have been any typical Christ the anointed but for the making of the Karest-mummy. We have to look a long way beyond these books to learn how salvation came into the world by water, or a saviour could be represented by the fish. It was thus salvation came to Egypt periodically in the new life of the Nile, and thence the saviour, who was imaged in the likeness of a fish. According to the mythical rendering Horus-Iu-em-hetep was a saviour because he came with plenty of food and water in the inundation, as the shoot of, or as the child on the papyrus. In the eschatology he represented the saviour who showed the way by which the Manes might attain eternal life, when immortality was held to be conditional and dependent upon right conduct and true character. A doctrine of messiahship was founded on the ever-coming Messu, or child of the inundation in the pre-anthropomorphic phase of symbolism, in which the type might be the fish, the papyrus-shoot, the beetle, hawk or calf, each one of which bears witness that when the infant-likeness was adopted as a figure of the ever-coming saviour or messiah the human type was just as non-historical as any of its predecessors. The advent of the Messu (the Hebrew Messiah) was periodic in accordance with the natural phenomena: not once for all. Once for all could have no meaning in relation to that which was ever-coming from age to age, from generation to generation, or for ever and ever. Eternity itself to the Egyptians of the Ritual was aeonian, and synonymous with millions of repetitions, therefore ever-coming in the likeness of perennial renewal, whether in the water-spring of earth or the day-spring on high, the papyrus-shoot, the green branch, or as Horus the child in whom a saviour was at length embodied as a figure of eternal source. At the foundation of all sacrifice we find the great Earth-mother, following the human mother, giving herself for food and drink. Next the type of sacrifice was that of the ever-coming child. Ten thousand years ago a divine ideal of matchless excellence had been portrayed in elder Horus as a voluntary [Page 728] sacrifice of self, not for the sins of the world, but for human sustenance. This voluntary victim took the parent’s place, and suffered in the mother’s stead. Thenceforth the papyrus-plant was represented by the shoot; the tree by the branch; the sheep by the lamb; the saviour by the infant as an image of perpetual renewal in life by means of his own death and transformation in furnishing the elements of life. Next Horus, as the foremost of the seven elemental powers, passed into the solar mythos, where the typical virgin and child were reproduced and constellated as repeaters of periodic time and season in the Zodiac.
The Jesus-legend is Egyptian, but it was at first without the dogma of historic personality. We have now to follow it in the circuit of precession, where it might be traced back to a beginning with the sign of Virgo. But for the present purpose, the birthplace of the virgin’s child was in the sign of Leo when the vernal equinox was resting in the lion constellation.
The Messu, or the Messianic prince of peace, was born into the world at Memphis in the cult of Ptah as the Egyptian Jesus, with the title of Iu-em-hetep, he who comes with peace or plenty and good fortune as the type of an eternal youth. Here we may note in passing that this divine Child, Iu-em-hetep, as the image of immortal youth, the little Hero of all later legend, the Kamite Herakles, had been one of the eight great gods of Egypt who were in existence twenty thousand years ago (Herodotus, 2, 43). This wondrous child, who is the figure of ever-coming and of perennial renewal in the elements of life, was also known by name as Kheper, Horus, Aten, Tum or Nefer-Atum according to the cult. He was continued at On or Annu. The title likewise was repeated in the new religion, when Iu-em-hetep became the representative of Atum-Ra. His mother’s name at On was Iusăas, she who was great (as) with Iusa or Iusu, the ever-coming child, the Messiah of the inundation.
Such doctrine, however, did not originate as uterine or come the human way, although it might be expressed in human terminology.
We have now to track the ever-coming child Iusa, Iusu or Jesus in the sphere of time as the son of Iusăas and of Atum, who was Ra in his first sovereignty; not merely in the round of the lesser year, but in the movement of precession as determined by the changing equinox or by the shifting position of the pole. As we have shown, the Zodiacal signs were set in heaven according to the seasons of the Egyptian year and in the annual circuit of the sun. The birthplace of the Inundation and the Grapes was figured in or near the sign of Virgo or the Virgin, the mother of the child who brought the new life to the land in water as Ichthus the fish and in food as Horus on his papyrus. But Horus the traveller of eternity has to be tracked and followed in the movement of Precession. And thus the new beginning for the present quest is in the sign of Leo.
The priests of On attributed a new creation of the world, or the heavens, to Atum-Ra. This was the cultivated enclosure or garden of a new beginning. And this garden of a new beginning or creation was visibly featured in the southern heaven. There ran the river Nile as the one water from its hidden source, as it flowed in the starry stream Eridanus, and meandered through the Aarru-garden that was [Page 729] made for Atum, in the likeness of which the future paradise was represented in Amenta (Rit., ch. 150, Vignette). According to the Osirian rendering, the later Aarru-field is the garden of the grape (Rit., Vignettes). The typical tree of life in an Egypto-Greek planisphere is the grape-vine. This is the tree still represented by the female vine-dresser and the male grape-gatherer in the Decans of Virgo (Higgins, W. H., Arabic Names of the Stars). Orion rose up when the grapes were ripe to represent the Deliverer, who was coming “full of wine”. The goblet or “mixing-bowl” in which the drink was brewed to hugely celebrate the Uaka-festival of the Inundation is constellated in the sign of “Krater”. The ancient enemy of man, the evil dragon of Drought, is imaged in the form of “Hydra”, waiting to devour the Virgin’s child the moment it is born.
At one time the birthplace in the stellar mythos was where Sothis rose as opener of the year and herald of the Inundation. This was the star of Hathor and her Messu or Messianic babe who came to make war on the dragon and to bruise the serpent’s head. And Iusăas was a form of Hathor. The fulfilment of the primitive promises of the coming child as bringer of all good things was annual in the astronomical mythology. The babe, the birth, the birthplace and the bringer to birth, were all continued in the solar cult, from this, the starting-point, with Sothis now as the announcer of the Inundation, and the life of vegetation figured as the young deliverer Horus on his papyrus, or the later Atum-Horus issuing from the lotus on the day of “come thou to me”, the first day of the Egyptian year or new creation.
Time in the old year of the Great Bear and the Inundation had not been subject to the changes in Precession. In this year there was but one birthplace for the typical child who originated in Horus of the Inundation as the figure of food and bringer of the water, and therefore of salvation. Also there was but one date for the birthday of the child, namely, the first of the month Tekki (or Thoth) which we equate with July 25, when the five dies non are also counted in the reckoning of the year. If Ra had not discovered the co-partnery of the Great Mother and Sebek-Horus the Fish of the Inundation, and substituted the time of the sun, the birthplace of the babe might have remained for ever fixed in heaven. Time in the ordinary year was always kept and reckoned by the recurring seasons; firstly by the Inundation. In the great year this time was rectified by the retrocession of the equinoxes and the changing position of the pole. Thus time was kept by double entry. And when the birthplace of the Messianic child was made zodiacal it travelled round the backward circuit of precession to fulfil a course of six-and-twenty thousand years. The great year might have gone its way unrecognized but for this change of pole-stars or the backward lapsing of the equinoxes being observed and registered by the astronomers. It was solar time, which had to be continually revised and readjusted by means of the stars. The Inundation was a fixture in relation to the earth, and a primary factor in the year of the Great Bear, the end and re-beginning of which were memorized by means of the “Sut-Heb” or “festival of the tail” — that is, the tail of the Great Bear as pointer at its southernmost longitude, [Page 730] which was dependent on the revolution of the sphere. The Great Bear, hippopotamus or crocodile, was then the Stellar bringer-forth to Horus of the Inundation. But with Horus, born of Virgo in the Zodiac, the birthplace of the babe was figured in the vernal equinox, and thus became subject to the changes in precession. It parted company with the lesser year of the Inundation to travel from sign to sign around the circuit of the world’s great year.
Fourteen thousand years ago the vernal equinox coincided with the sign of Virgo and the autumn equinox with the sign of Pisces. And here the learned writer Eratosthenes has a word to say upon this point. He is a most unimpeachable witness for the Egyptians; a better could not be subpoenaed. He was born in the year 276 B.C. He was keeper of the great Alexandrian library and the most learned Greek in Egypt at the time. Amongst other subjects he wrote on was astronomy, and he testifies to the fact that the festival of Isis, which was celebrated in his time at the autumn equinox, had been celebrated when the Easter equinox was in Virgo. This perfectly agrees with the position of Isis, the Virgin Mother in the Zodiac. During those six months in the great year=six signs, the child as periodic fulfiller of time and season in the Zodiac, together with the birth and birthplace, was receding through the six signs in precession, from Virgo to Pisces. Thirteen thousand years later the autumn equinox coincided once more with the sign of Virgo. Now there is no meeting-point of the mythology with the astronomy more obvious than in these two signs of the Zodiac. But it is impossible that this imagery should have been constellated in the planisphere the last time the equinoxes entered them, which was about the year 255 B.C., where they still linger at the present moment. And the time before that, in round numbers, was 26,000 years previously.
It is a fixed fundamental fact that the death and rebirth of the year were commemorated at this time from the 20th to the 25th of July, when the birth of Horus was announced by the star Sothis or the Bennu=Phoenix. It is equally a fact that when the solar Horus had entered the Zodiac the birthplace was shifted from sign to sign, according to the movement in precession, from Virgo to Leo, from Cancer to the Gemini, from Taurus to Aries, from Aries to Pisces. The pathway of eternity was now depicted in the circle of precession. In this the sonship of Horus was continued after the fatherhood of God had been established, and Horus became the manifestor for the eternal in the sphere of solar time. Hence the sayings of Horus in the Ritual. “I am Horus, the prince of eternity”. “Witness of Eternity is my name” (ch. 42). He calls himself “the persistent traveller on the highways of heaven”, which he surveys as “the everlasting one”. “I am Horus”, he says, “who steppeth onwards through eternity” — without stopping or ever standing still. This was Horus, otherwise the Egyptian Jesus, as the ever-coming son (Iu-sa) in all the years of time that culminated in the all-inclusive cycle of precession. Horus as the shoot, or the later wheat-ear (spica), had been brought forth when the birthplace was in Virgo. If we look on this as a sign in precession, the next birthplace in the backward course is in the sign of Leo, in which Horus was the lion of the solar power that was doubled in the vernal equinox. When the Osiris comes to witness [Page 731] the judgment on the mount of glory (Rit., ch. 136 B), he sees “the lion forms” called the Kherufu, which are three in number. Two of these are figures of the Double Force, as shown in the vignette to ch. 18, and the one in the centre is the lion of the double lions=the double force, as the lion or as the solar disk. Now Atum is this solar lion on the mount which is in the equinox, and which can be thus identified with the lion-sign or sign of the lions in the Zodiac. Atum is the god with the lion’s face, who is also called the man-faced lion. He is said to lay the foundations of the eternal house (Rit., ch. 17). That is, in building the new heaven which was based upon the equinoxes in the circuit of precession, at a certain starting-point, including all the previous foundations laid by Ptah and Taht, Shu and Sut, and by the first great Mother in the Heptanomis.
Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Okay, that was all a blur as I scrolled down to the bottom. LOL Sorry Hiku, but at the moment I don't have time to read the whole info. Do you mind highlighting the important parts?
Also, do you think the similarities between Hebrew and Egyptian words are from Egyptian influence or could they be just common Afrasian root words.
You are aware that the concept of a male deity of fertility who dies and resurrected is common in the world especially in the Near-East.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah but they are of Egyptian origin u must understand that when Abraham came to egpyt the pyramids were already there there was already a establishment of Phaoroz. There is no Doubt in my Mind that Hebrew & Christianity have there origins in the Egyptian Mystery. I have been studing the Quran Bible & Torah for so long now it was actually Gerald Massey the Greatest Egyptologist who changed my mind about that. I actually thought that there was no connection but there is so much connection its almost ridiculous. U might find some influences of Ancient Egypt in the Quran but it is only references to what the Bible and Torah already said. This subject on the Egyptian Origins of Christianity & Judaism is what i really want to talk about it really needs to be talked about in here because so many people thing that Christianity Judaism has no connections to Egypt but Djehuti it Does.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: yeah but they are of Egyptian origin u must understand that when Abraham came to egpyt the pyramids were already there there was already a establishment of Phaoroz. There is no Doubt in my Mind that Hebrew & Christianity have there origins in the Egyptian Mystery. I have been studing the Quran Bible & Torah for so long now it was actually Gerald Massey the Greatest Egyptologist who changed my mind about that. I actually thought that there was no connection but there is so much connection its almost ridiculous. U might find some influences of Ancient Egypt in the Quran but it is only references to what the Bible and Torah already said. This subject on the Egyptian Origins of Christianity & Judaism is what i really want to talk about it really needs to be talked about in here because so many people thing that Christianity Judaism has no connections to Egypt but Djehuti it Does.
You're right about this. I actually saw Dr. Josef Ben Jochannan speak about this too.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hikuptah, the same thing can be said about Adonis,Mithras,Kirshna and various other savior figures that were resurected from the dead.
The figure of Yeshua Ben Yusef was probably based upon the messeanic figure that the ancient Hebrews had under the occupation of Rome.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Ausar this is way before Rome this is when the Egyptians left egypt to the Sinai then to there socalled Promise land in Israel. Ausar u hit the mark on that one of course Adonis Mithras Krishna these are all the same stories of Ancient Egpyptian origin. Remember what the Papyrus says about Ausar went threwout the whole earth placing scrolls of the Truth for people to find. There is actually no Way anyone CAn Deny this Every Egyptologist agrees with this. If u dont believe me then Study the Bible & Torah then u will see exactly what im talking about. Like Wallis Budge says the Ancient egyptians accepted Christianity because it was no different than AE well hell Egypt is talked about more than anything else and it is always associated with Ethiopia almost frequently.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug u make no sense Every diety is a created one. The debate was about the natue of christ was he man and god or just god the Westerners said he was god and man both seperate natures which means that he was two people at once man and God. But the EAstern rites said he was GodMan God & Man One Nature Godly as God and Godly as Man thats why they call them the oriental Orthodox the Monophysites Mono=One Physite=Nature One Nature. The oriental Orthodox consist of Egypt Syria Malabar India Ethiopia Eritrea these are the Monophysites. So the West thinks that Jesus was one man in two bodys. The Oriental Orthodox believes he was God & Man One Nature in Perfect Harmony.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the EAstern rites said he was GodMan God & Man One Nature Godly as God and Godly as Man thats why they call them the oriental Orthodox the Monophysites Mono=One Physite=Nature One Nature. The oriental Orthodox consist of Egypt Syria Malabar India Ethiopia Eritrea these are the Monophysites. So the West thinks that Jesus was one man in two bodys. The Oriental Orthodox believes he was God & Man One Nature in Perfect Harmony
Actually, Coptic Christians have never claimed to be Monophysites but actually Miaphysites. The confusion occured at the Council of Chalcedon but most sided with Cyril on the divinity of Christ.
BTW, you forgot to include Armenia in the eastern orthodox rite. Armenians are also Eastern Orthodox.
Here are some links about the Monphysite controversey:
The Historical Origin Of Christianty & The Historical Origin Of Islam
Both neatly address your accurately written post.
Historically, every so-Called "new" religious philosophy degrades/demoralizes/demonizes its former source; Judaism, Christiainity and Islam are no different in this regard.
Yes, Kamit is the primary source of all three!
Dr. Darkwah--who wrote "The Africans Who Wrote the Bible" touches on this topic quite nicely as well!!
----------
THE TRUTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS & THE MYTHICAL CHRIST Prepared by Pastor Ray Hagins, Ph.D.
"...Every culture had a savior
Horus of Egypt (ca. 10,000 B.C.E.)
The stories of Jesus and Horus are VERY similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos (“I and my Father are one”). The legends of Horus go back to ca. 10,000 B.C.E.
1. Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. 2. He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old. 3. Horus was baptized by “Anup the Baptizer,” who becomes “John the Baptist.” 4. He had 12 disciples. 5. He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead. 6. He walked on water. 7. Horus was transfigured on the Mount. 8. He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. 9. He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word” etc. 10. He was “the Fisher,” and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish (“Ichthys”). 11. Horus’s personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” 12. Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One,” thousands of years before the Romanized Christ.
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Doug u make no sense Every diety is a created one. The debate was about the natue of christ was he man and god or just god the Westerners said he was god and man both seperate natures which means that he was two people at once man and God. But the EAstern rites said he was GodMan God & Man One Nature Godly as God and Godly as Man thats why they call them the oriental Orthodox the Monophysites Mono=One Physite=Nature One Nature. The oriental Orthodox consist of Egypt Syria Malabar India Ethiopia Eritrea these are the Monophysites. So the West thinks that Jesus was one man in two bodys. The Oriental Orthodox believes he was God & Man One Nature in Perfect Harmony.
Well, atheists and other non believers would say this, but Christians would not. This goes against the central foundation of modern religion: blind faith and trust that the "word" is true and perfect and came from god himself. The point here is that Jesus Christ was formulated in Egypt and everything we know about Jesus Christ was made up in Egypt in the 1st to 4th century. How can you argue over the divine nature of a being who supposedly used his LIFE as proof itself of god's divine plan for mankind unless that PERSON never existed? Otherwise, there would be no need for a debate. Also, the Arius heresy was also partly due to the fact that Arius believed that Jesus the Christ was a made up divinity.
Therefore, the reason for the debate follows from the fact that the supreme diety in Egypt up to 1 BC was Serapis, a god formulated by the Greeks to absorb the aspects of many Egyptian gods. This was the state god of Greek ruled Egypt up until 31 BC when Rome conquered Egypt. It must be kept in mind that by the time of Romes conquest of Egypt, serapis already had many of the trappings of the later Christ figure. He was associated with the ressurection and the life giving harvest of the earth from Osiris. He was called the messiah, annnointed one and savior. He was also called the "logos" or the living word, from Ptah. He was depicted much as jesus christ would later be depicted. His worship existed in Egypt and spread to Rome. However, this Greek god did not have a significant following in Egypt, because the people still worshipped the old gods. The whole "conspiracy" therefore, is the actions of the romans, in taking Serapis and creating the Christ figure as a replacement for Serapis as the official god of the Roman state. Rome then decreed that all other religions were to be banned and caused the destruction of many sanctuaries to "pagan" Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other gods throughout the empire. In these times however, the Christ figure was not CALLED Jesus. He was just the christ or messiah. But that is what SERAPIS was called at this point as well! But since Rome OUTLAWED the worship of Serapis and had reincarnated the concept of "the Christ" as Jesus the Christ, the connection to Serapis was covered up or destroyed. This is why there so many rebellions and "heresies" in the so-called church of the time, because many opposed the Romans in their attempts to take POWER under the guise of religion, by using elements of the same "pagan" gods as the basis for the new STATE god. All of it was formulated by Greek philosophers and teachers, called "bishops", even before the first council of Nicea. These "bishops" were actually priests from the Greek Egyptian state system of temples that predate Rome's takeover of Egypt. They formulated their new religion based on so-called Greek philosophical traditions about the "logos", the "messiah" and "ressurection", but in all reality, these were just Egyptian philosophical concepts being spouted by Greeks.
The full story of Jesus Christ did not come until much later, after Greek writers penned the first books of the apostles, which lay the foundation of the story of the christ as we know it. The earliest known books of the apostles were all found in Egypt and most of them date to about 300-400 BC, LONG after Jesus supposedly lived and none of them are written in Hebrew. This is no coincidence either. Therefore, all of the ecumenical councils were the acts of the Romans to take serapis and make him a divine figure of the catholic church in the name Jesus Christ and to make the Pope (some say the emperor of rome) the living stand in for Christ on earth. All of the stories of christ, the symbol of the cross, the halo and all the other things we associate with christianity derived from Egyptian elements at this time.
The formulation of AD/BC by Dionysius Exiguus, was based on the ancient Egyptian system of determining dates for sacred festivals which included the festival of the Spring Equinox which we now call Easter. Dionysus came up with the new system in order to accurately calculate more accurate Easter tables (spring equinox tables). Therefore, not only did the practice of calculating the dates of important festivals based on observations of the heavens come from Egypt, but also the rites and festivals associated with such dates:
Saint Peter: (note there is no non biblical evidence of his existence) The "key" here is that this is the first Pope of the Eastern Catholic church (going back to the whole monophysite schism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
Redaction (the gospels were wholly created works of the early christian church, formed and edited by consent and theological decree not divine inspiration): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism
Therefore, from this we can see that the Jesus legend originated as the story of a man, but was subsequently associated with the form of Serapis, the Greek/Roman "messiah" by Roman decree, which caused much controversy. He was then fused with all sorts of divine aspects, also under roman decree, such as divine birth, the resurrection, the concept of the "logos" and so on.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar is correct though. You cannot attribute such concepts to Egypt alone just because of strong similarities.
Hikuptah, do you mean to say that the Hindu Krishna also comes from Egypt?? To say so would make you no better than Winters, who attributes cultures around the globe to Africans!
There are a few excellent books that discussed the concepts of male deities of resurrection long before Jesus. Here are a couple of them:
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti i think u got me misunderstood i dont claim africans of africa created every civilization from Egypt to China actually if u really want to know i think that the blackskin does not belong only to Africans of Africa there are black chinese black Vietnamese Black Indonesians Balck Phillipinos. From my point of View i would say that the further u go back in the past most of the world had a Darkskinned population. The only reason why Egyptians converted to Christianity the Coptics im talking about was because they saw it as no different then the Science of Kemet.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Ausar is wrong Coptics are Considered Monophysites if they were not then they would not be part of the Oriental Orthodox. He is actually getting two different Coptics mixed up there is a Coptic Catholic rite which is not Monophysite then theres the original Coptic Orthodox Church which was there at the Council of Nicea & Chaldea.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hikuptah, I am not confusing Coptic Catholics up with just plain Coptic Orthodox or even Protestants. The Coptic church never claimed to be Monophysites but actually followed Miaphysite rite from Cyril. You can argue the point all you want but ask any Coptic Christian and they will tell you they are not and never been Monophysites.
Here is a Christian forum where about two Copts are aruging with others that Copts were never Monphysites:
Ancient city in Asia Minor, present day Turkey. In 451 church leaders gathered in Chalcedon to work out commonly acceptable descriptions of the Trinity and of Christ. They suceeded in writing texts that won assent from the majority, healing an impending rift between the East and the West.
Some Easterners, however, including most
Egyptians, found the phrasing unacceptable. The majority at the council condemned these dissenters as "monophysites," or one-nature-ites in their approach to Christ. Their spiritual descendants, the Coptic Church (q.v.) deny that they ever took a monophysite position, and see political motives behind the condemnation: seeFrend 1972; Monophysitism 1991; www.coptic.net.[/b]
You claim to know alot about the Copts and accuse me of using non-Coptic sources but I used the views of two Coptic Christian posters on a Christian forum.
. Though the Patriarch Dioscuris was Monophysite, most of the Copts were not really Monophysite, but held more to the position of the Patriarch Cyril who held office
Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago
-- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyu...@midway.uchicago.edu
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
U used the view of two coptic christians on a christian forum did u know that most coptics dont even know there religion just like most Muslims dont even know there religion what u sited was not accurate nor was it from a Coptic theologian. I really dont know what is your problem Ausar u are going to great lengths to denounce Coptic/Ancient Egyptian Identity. U think u and your Southern Egyptian brothers are the only True 100% Egyptians well u need to calm down u are no authority on Who is Egyptian and who is not.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have given you multiple sources on the Monoiphysite controversy and you refuse to look at any of them. You know move to goal post to include a Coptic Theologian. I suppose I will have to personally email a Coptic Abuna to prove to you that most Copts have never claimed Monphysite. But here are the theological views of Pope Shenouda. I suppose he does not count as a theologian. According to his own words the Copts were never Monphysites but followed the views of the patriarch Cyril. Read his pdf for yourself:
No disrespect but you show your ignorance of the Coptic Orthodxy you attempt to defend.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Djehuti i think u got me misunderstood i dont claim africans of africa created every civilization from Egypt to China actually if u really want to know i think that the blackskin does not belong only to Africans of Africa there are black chinese black Vietnamese Black Indonesians Balck Phillipinos. From my point of View i would say that the further u go back in the past most of the world had a Darkskinned population. The only reason why Egyptians converted to Christianity the Coptics im talking about was because they saw it as no different then the Science of Kemet.
Hikuptah, I never said you tried to claim any civilizations! My point is that it sounded like you attribute certain religious concepts to Kemet.
By the way, who are these black Chinese?...
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Djehuti i think u got me misunderstood i dont claim africans of africa created every civilization from Egypt to China actually if u really want to know i think that the blackskin does not belong only to Africans of Africa there are black chinese black Vietnamese Black Indonesians Balck Phillipinos. From my point of View i would say that the further u go back in the past most of the world had a Darkskinned population. The only reason why Egyptians converted to Christianity the Coptics im talking about was because they saw it as no different then the Science of Kemet.
Hikuptah, I never said you tried to claim any civilizations! My point is that it sounded like you attribute certain religious concepts to Kemet.
By the way, who are these black Chinese?...
Kemet WAS the source of Christian doctrine. The earliest ACTUAL historically aknowledged FATHERS of the Christian church came from Egypt: Origen (hint: origin) is the FIRST of the philosophers in Egypt to propose the system of thought that BECAME Christian tradition. In reading Origen, you are seeing HOW the knowledge of Egypt, as rehashed by the Greeks, passed into the Christian tradition. Logos, god-man, incarnate sun, these all were traditions already ANCIENT in the Egyptian system of cosmology. What happened in Egypt and what was the source of the debates and controversy of the various councils and the reason for the early fathers and their numerous "apologies" (writings of theology against those who did NOT beleive that Christianity was "new", but rather a rehashing of old stuff, plagiarized and repackaged to look brand new), was the fact that the system instituted by the Ptolemies, was the basis for the religious orginization of the early church. The early Christian church was an extension of the worship of Serapis as the messiah, along with the pure philosophical and theological traditions of the Greeks. Serapis had already subsumed MANY of the doctrines that became Christ and WAS the Christ, since Christ in this sense is a SYMBOLIC name, not the name of an individual person. The schism therefore, of the various religous councils, was the FARCE of taking the supreme concept of divinity in ALL humans and ascribing it to ONE man alone and making HIM the Christ. This is why there were so many divisions and fractures in the early church and this is why most of the STORIES of Jesus Christ are JUST THAT, stories created to flesh out and attribute DIVINE principles, already long ancient in Egypt and elsewhere, into the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The REAL conspiracy in all of this was to HIDE the fact that Jesus never existed and that his DIVINITY was WHOLLY fabricated from the ideas and concepts of those who NEVER met such a man. The heresy here is the fact that the ROMAN dominated church was an INSTITUTION OF STATE, an agent of societal control and as such SAPPED all the life giving and natural power of early philosophy OUT of what became Christianity. The spark of the divine essence in all men was replaced with a distant figure of god unseen and unknown except in the dead body of Jesus Christ. It also SAPPED the relationship between god, man and nature out of the religion, replacing it with watered down principles of worhip of the dead savior. So instead of Easter being a celebration of the new life of Spring and nature, you get the celebration of the sacrifice, the celebration of the DEATH of life, born to die in Jesus christ. The difference being that in the celebration of the Spring equinox you are celebrating the CYCLES of life, the cycle of planting and harvest, the season of being born as part of the CYCLE life, death and spiritual ressurection that part of the grand harmony of the universe and embodied in ALL things, not just the lamb led to slaughter........
posted
Leave atheism out of this. Why doesnt Jewish tradition call Jesus "The Son of God"? Why doesnt Islam call Jesus "The Son of God"? Arent these people also RELIGIOUS? Christianity is just like Judaism and Islam, purely created based on traditions, stories and legends, just like those of Osiris, Isis, Baal, Zeus, Shiva and all the other GODS that have existed since time immemorial. It doesnt make one an atheist to NOT beleive Christianity is the religion of the one TRUE god, since they ALL say that........ what is NEW about that? Religion is how you live everyday, not whether you believe some big guy is sitting on a throne invisible to humans watching our every action..... THAT is nonsense. Even THAT concept of some big guy up in the "heavens" watching over us in WHITE robes is a Greek tradition .... hint Zeus and Olympus.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
doug, I would suggest you read up a lil more on the jewish, Christain, and muslim faith before you make such comments in the future..
and way to throw zeus in there...
typical atheist
if you are Godless, and beleive all this just happened for no reason, thats fine, but atleast have the courage to say that upfront instead of slithering around dogging others beliefs ..
be upfront about it.
-------------------- The ground at Calvary's Cross is level Posts: 1172 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not about my spiritual beliefs. It is about the FACT that all those people who believed in Zeus, Shiva, Baal, Isis or whatever ALL believed that what they worshipped was THE ABSOLUTE truth. No different than Bhuddists today, Muslims, Jews or anyother modern religion. Each has its own CENTRAL beliefs and they do NOT all agree with each other. Hence NOT believing in Christianity does NOT make one atheist. You could be a member of one of MANY religions and NOT believe that Jesus Christ is the savior. Stop trying to mix religion, spirituality and history as meaning that the ONLY religion and the ONLY belief that one must have is Christianity. This is nonsense. No one cries or moans when one talks about the fables of Zeus or Osiris or Shiva. But if there were HIndus here, they WOULD be offended, in a sense, as well as worshippers of Zeus or Osiris. Religion is all a question of belief not concrete facts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
a tree is known by it's fruit..I would suggest the 2 billion people who beleive in a humble fishermen's message 2000 years ago, would override an atheist who's accomplishment is sitting on his keyster naysaying and comeing up with conspiracy theories..
-------------------- The ground at Calvary's Cross is level Posts: 1172 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Jesus Christ is modelled on Serapis, the god created by the Ptolemies after they invaded Egypt....
Leave atheism out of this. Why doesnt Jewish tradition call Jesus "The Son of God"? Why doesnt Islam call Jesus "The Son of God"? Arent these people also RELIGIOUS? Christianity is just like Judaism and Islam, purely created based on traditions, stories and legends, just like those of Osiris, Isis, Baal, Zeus, Shiva and all the other GODS that have existed since time immemorial.
Does this mean, in antiquity a person who is now called "Jesus" did not exist? Just a clarification; that is all.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
-------------------- The ground at Calvary's Cross is level Posts: 1172 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude. Stop preaching..... that is the point. This is not about my personal beliefs and leave it at that. Not unless you want me to preach to YOU about the virtues of any number of religions that ALL claim to be THE absolute true way to spiritual truth and eternal life. You can believe what you WANT to believe, but that does not change the fact that ALL religions are created by man, whether the purpose is to teach spiritual truth or enlightenment or life after death, it is ALL man made.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Jesus Christ is modelled on Serapis, the god created by the Ptolemies after they invaded Egypt....
Leave atheism out of this. Why doesnt Jewish tradition call Jesus "The Son of God"? Why doesnt Islam call Jesus "The Son of God"? Arent these people also RELIGIOUS? Christianity is just like Judaism and Islam, purely created based on traditions, stories and legends, just like those of Osiris, Isis, Baal, Zeus, Shiva and all the other GODS that have existed since time immemorial.
Does this mean, in antiquity a person who is now called "Jesus" did not exist? Just a clarification; that is all.
There has never been ANY proof that a person named Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Jesus is a legend just like Moses was. The key here is that throughout the history of the early christian Church, especially in the 1st to 5th centuries, the attributes of divinity were GIVEN to Christ by the ecuminical councils. This CONTRADICTS the idea that his LIFE STORY as EXPERIENCED by the apostles is THE source of ALL understanding about Jesus and the basis for the belief in and the nature of his divinity and that HIS LIFE ALONE was the FULL scope and extent of what anyone needed to understand gods plan for mankind. NOWHERE in there is there any idea that it would take a room full of people arguing about theology to DECIDE on such issues. These things were SUPPOSEDLY determined by Christ himself in his MERE EXISTENCE, the parables he told, the MIRACLES he performed and his RISING from the DEAD. Anyone who has read the bible should be able to understand that. If people had to AGREE on such concepts as trinity, the nature of "christ" and the virginity of the Virgin Mary, and so on, the HOW can the STORY of Jesus Christ be based ONLY on the firsthand eyewitness testimony, writings and teachings of the apostles? Their word SHOULD be the LAST and FINAL word on the issue and NO ONE should have been DEBATING IT. At least says the bible.
In all reality ALL of the aspects of Christ and the theological basis of Christianity were DEVELOPED by earlier Christian fathers of the platonic philosophic tradition, PERIOD. Part of this tradition was that Serapis was the savior, the blessed sacrament, the sacred lamb, the fertility of the earth, the incarnation of the logos, lord of the underworld and judgement and so on and so on. Serapis was the typical Greek ultimate idealized image of a Greek male in the form of "the Christ" or the savior, being symbolic of the IDEAL man who possesses the indwelling truth of the universe. This version of "the Christ" is an OLD philosophical concept that was born in Greece by Platonic philosophers, who eventually abandoned the so-called pagan gods of old and began to teach of the "Christ" in a pure symbolic form. The Jesus story was then CONNECTED with this tradition of the Christ, changing it from a purely spiritual vision of the GOD-MAN, to a vision of a dead savior on the cross. Surely, you can see how someone trained in the OLD ways of the concept of the GOD-MAN (GOD IN MAN) would be perturbed by the changes to such ancient ideas in the creation of Jesus-The Christ.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
There has never been ANY proof that a person named Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Jesus is a legend just like Moses was...
Hmmm. In that "Jesus" was supposed to have been around in the historic era, it is understandable that someone would have had to have witnessed his 'being' and 'endeavors' and perhaps have recorded it. He has certainly been given a birth and death date that fits within the realm of reality, unlike that of the likes of Abraham or Noah. Is it not possible that the man himself, whatever his actual name, might have been around but over time assumed the figure of the legends [that you spoke of] that are attributed to him? You bring an interesting point about the need for unquestionable 'concrete' evidence...perhaps, for example, the actual person's remains. Many 'believers' will probably outrightedly reject such a would-be "intrusive" way of verification.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mind, religion and faith are inseparable, but since we are talking about ancient religions, we need to keep something in mind. One of the main differences between ancient "pagan" gods and something like Jesus Christ is that pagan gods were KNOWN to be symbolic figures and the basis of worship was NOT always based on the belief that such a "god" actually existed. The belief was in the so called UNIVERSAL principles that the "god" symbolized. This symbolism was taught through parables and tales, to reinforce the "hidden" truth in the nature of the symbols ascribed to the "god". By understanding these symbols and understanding the nature of the parables and what it was intended to convey, the beleiver could come closer to the spiritual truth being imparted (visions of the "god"). Therefore, whether osiris actually existed or not in a HUMAN sense was not the basis of the actual belief in Osiris as symbolic of gods regenerative power in nature. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you believe that there is life after death and that Jesus was the SYMBOL of that promise, whether you find concrete evidence that he ACTUALLY existed or not...... in my opinion. That is but one of the many theological differences between the ancient church and theology of "the Christ" the symbolic nature of the spirit in ALL mankind, versus Jesus the Christ , the embodiment of that same symbol in a PHYSICAL person. Part of the reason for the corruption of this concept is that Rome and subsequent European powers USED Christianity as a TOOL of political power. And we all know about the abuses of power by the Church in the history of Europe and its interaction with the rest of the world.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Talk about morality while the Christian church allowed the massacre of hundreds if not thousands in the Reformation. What about the savage bloodshed of the crusades by so-called religious Islamic and Christian armies? What about the savage wars of conquests by the Muslims and forced conversions of peoples all over the world? What about the slavery practiced and condoned by Islam and Christianity? What about the genocide in America done in the name of Christianity? Christianity and Islam are TOOLS of Empire, used to keep subject populations in control and to glorify the might and authority of European "pagans" who are no more moral than a speck of dirt on the ground.
Then it says that Christianity did away with culture based on ethnicity! Surely you must be joking, as the white European Christ was FORCED down the throats of many NON European ethnic groups. So I guess killing off these PAGANS and SAVAGES and promoting white European values and empirical domination was somehow non ethnic? Please.
Religion and history do not mix. Religion is story, fable and words written on paper. History is people, places, things and events.
Whatever a religion preaches is something TOTALLY separate from what it PRACTICES. TALK about morality and the absensce of ethnic divisions is ONE thing, but PRACTICING it is something TOTALLY different. The same goes for Judaism, Islam, Christianity and any other religion. Of course, all religions promote themselves as the ONLY religion that man is supposed to believe in, and THAT is the cause of the immoral wars, ethnic conflicts and persecution of Christianity, Islam and other religions. The abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been responsible for more suffering than any other religion or empires in history. The number of people killed in the name of Christianity or Islam far outstrips those killed in warfare in the thousands of years prior to the birth of these religions. Yet these religoins claim to be better than the pagan gods of old. At least the religions of old OPENLY expressed their sexuality and did not practice IMMORAL acts in the shadows, all the while TALKING about sexual abstinence.
This board is about history, not about preaching and I do not want to talk about the merits of Christianity, Islam or Judaism. What I am talking about are the events that occured as a result of the actions of followers of those religions. THAT is history.
Wise up to what this is all about. The origins of Christianity and Islam share the same roots in the world of the Byzantine Empire and the division of what was once the Egyptian system of temples into the Monophysites and anti Monophysites. The Christians believe in the God incarnate in Jesus Christ and the Muslims believe that God is HIDDEN from view, unknown and unreachable by man. In Islam it is forbidden to talk of God as if you KNOW him in the first person or anything ABOUT his nature. This is strictly against Islamic teaching. You can worship and praise HIM, but not try to understand the nature and scope of gods divine being.
Basically what this boils down to is a theology based on an INCARNATED god based on the body of Jesus, versus a tradition of prophets, with Mohammed being the last prophet, like Jesus, with god remaining unseen from view.
This site tries to convey the sense of the division in the early church, but the writing is purposely convoluted. The reason is that the ARGUMENT was about making ONE man the sole representative of gods divine presence or spirit in mankind, versus the divine nature of god in ALL things, nature, plants, animals, humans, as seen in ancient religions. They try and crouch it in terms of Jesus, to make it seem like it is about a historical FACT of Jesus, but in all actuality they are ARGUING about the theological and philosophical principles of the logos, divine nature and all sorts of stuff that the Greek philosophers, Egyptians and many others before them had invented. Many call these arguments forgeries, since they introduce argument on authority, in other words, promote their ideas based on the authority of some other writer or writers, whether or not those WRITERS actually bore witness to or had access to anything from the apostles themselves. Investigating these other writers, people are beginning to question the basis of these arguments, since the source material does not seem to exist or does not have the historical legacy that is claimed (ie. not written by the apostles, but someone else copying something likewise written on authority).
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it is written in Greek and found in Egypt. So, like I said on who's AUTHORITY do we have that this fragment represents a true and exact copy of somethign written by an apostle called John? This is the issue I was trying to point out. They are all in Greek, meaning they most likely were not written directly by the apostles themselves, but copies of older documents written by Greek speakers in Alexandria. The question is whether these older documents are REAL writings of REAL people, versus stories and parables created to define a figure known as Jesus the Christ.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read this and you will see that questioning whether Jesus was an ACTUAL person or just a STORY intended to convey spiritual truth has NOTHING to do with atheism:
In fact, this goes back to 1st century when MANY were branded as heretics by the church, even though they too were RELIGIOUS. See Gnostics, see apologists, see Monophysites. You keep trying to deny that this whole issue of Jesus being an ACTUAL person of history of divine nature is something that has been argued about from the very beginning, by some who even called themselves Christians. Like I said before, the split was based around those who worshipped the old "christ" figure, the Serapis figure as the symbol of the indwelling spirit in mankind as a SYMBOL, versus the new form which incorporated this symbol into the person of Jesus "the Christ". Like I said the Christian apologists were basically writing against those who claimed that the Christian church were plagiarizing the old theologies of the Greeks and Romans and trying to pass it off as new and unique. Therefore, you are right, this form of Christian criticism is NOT new.
posted
Doug M so are u saying that the Old Version is more correct the ones who are following the old rites are the Oriental Orthodox they basically consider Christ to have one Nature God and Man in one Harmony.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. What I am saying is that the original concept of "the Christ" existed LONG before there was a Jesus. This original form of "the Christ" was based on the messianic traditions of the levant, combined with the Greek philosophical traditions of Alexandria and the religious traditions of Egypt, combined into the form of Serapis. Serapis was the syncretized expressly for the purpose of legitimizing Greek rule in Egypt and unifying Greek and Egyptian culture. As part of this syncretization, all other temples in Egypt were closed and unified under the new religion of Serapis. The scrolls from all these temples were assembled in the Serapeum, next to or part of the great library at Alexandria. It is here that these Greek philosophers started speaking of the theological and philosophical traditions that we now call theology. However, these early philosophers were only rehashing what came before in the old system of the Egyptians. The concept of the word, where the word existed before creation and was the SYMBOL of god's presence in creation is straight out of the symbolixm of Ptah. The concept of divine birth was straight out of the Mysteries of Isis and Osiris. The concept of the divine god child was straight out of the Mysteries of Heru. All of these ancient concepts were syncretized into the concept of the Logos or word incarnate and the nous, the mind of god or holy spirit. These teachings were called Platonic as they were supposedly first uttered by Plato. The early Christian fathers are often called NEO Platonists, in that their early theology is based HEAVILY on the philosophy of Plato. These people, like Clement, Origin, Augustine and later St. Ignatius were the principle forces behind the tradition that became Christianity. As I said earlier, the apologies of the Church Fathers and the conflicts between the various sects in the early church, arose MAINLY out of divergent views of those who opposed taking these Platonic esoteric ideas and imparting them into the physical person of a Jesus. The main difference therefore is that on one side, god was incarnate in Jesus, therefore he was god and on the other side, god never manifested in the body of Jesus, but remained a purely spiritual esoteric concept, based on the concept of divine thought and inspiration in nature (the logos or archetype of mankind). This is the true nature of the FIRST debates of the Nicene council. Subsequent debates centered on HOW god could be IN the body of Christ but yet be OMNIPOTENT and ALL present, ie "god" at the same time. This is why the theological concept of the trinity was created, in order to make it appear that Jesus was 3 in one, the physical man, the incarnation of the holy spirit AND the son of the heavenly father. Actually this is exactly the sort of theological gymnastics that many early neoplatonists OPPOSED, especially the gnostics, since it replaced the concept of a god present in all creation, with a god present ONLY in the dead body of Jesus (meaning unseen and withdrawn from humanity until the second coming). This is totally against the principles and concepts as taught in the ancient mystery systems of Greece, Egypt, Rome, Judaism (Cabbalism) and the East These principles include that all people have an indwelling fragment of god symbolized by the spirit which comes from the divine will that caused creation and man is a reflection of divine will in that HE also shares in the capacity for self awareness and the rising of conscious out of primal animalistic nature. On top of that, these theologians were against the idea that Christianity was somehow BETTER or ABOVE all other religions, especially since most of its central theological ideas came from elsewhere. The apologies were written to address WHY this "god" was more REAL then all the OTHER gods that existe AND how this "god" was different than those that came before. These arguments are flimsy, if one notices how much NeoPlatonic thought and theology is behind such demonstrations of faith, underlying the NON relevatory (ie. the nature of divinity REVEALED by his ressurection to the apostles) and purely based on theology and philosophy. This is a contradiction and anyone versed in the ideas of the bible and the basis of Greek philosophical argument, would understand it. THIS is the true nature of the debate and has NOTHING to do with whether Jesus was an ACTUAL historical figure.
This is a good summary of some of these ideas, even though it tries to place the origin of many of these concepts in a Jewish mystery system, which was NOT the origin of most of these ideas. This can be seen in the fact that many of the Jewish holy books of the old testament are derived from more ancient traditions, like the flood from Babylon and the phrasing and iconography of the old books of wise sayings and wisdom from Egypt.
The real power and might of the Catholic Church, came from the political support of Rome, which INSITUTIONALIZED Christianity and FORBID worship of pagan gods. This was not an issue of pure theology and it DEFINITELY was not simply a question of faith or belief. Much of the spread of Christianity was due to FORCED conversion, first as part of the "Holy" Roman Empire followed by Papal decree in Europe and subjugation and forced missionary conversion elsewhere in the world. This goes AGAINST the ideas of peace and love and understanding as preached by the Bible and has NOTHING to do with Jesus and everything to do with political power, greed and EMPIRE.
Isa.53 [1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? [2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. [3] He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. [8] He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. [9] And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. [10] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened at the Council of Nicea? The Emperor Constantine called for the Council to provide spiritual and doctrinal unity for the newly Christian Roman Empire. The key issue debated was not the deity of Christ—no one at the council believed him to be just a man or prophet— nor the contents of the New Testament. The major issue debated was if Jesus was coeternal with the Father. Was there a time the Son did not exist? The council voted 300 to 2 that the Son was eternal. Not a close vote, not a huge issue.
Posts: 1172 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think u have it the Other way around Mike rozier.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”-- by Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg.
The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."...Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." Albert Einstein
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Djehuti u are right but when u twist the legends and corrupt the true meaning the facts tend to look more like a lie. If u search the history of these beliefs and legends they tend to make more sense that they all have origins in the Worship of Nature.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar i checked that site on the Coptics that u gave me from Baba Shenouda and im sorry but u are completely wrong about the Coptics not being Monophysite i think u need to read it again because from what i read they never denied the One Nature of Christ. What he says is that they were taught from the beggining that after the Godhead which became Christ God & Man once it came into being It was One so there would be no need to separate the Natures when they are in Perfect Harmony. Im not trying to disagree with u on purpose Habibi but if we are to come to one simple conclusion we need another person to be the judge.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic