posted
How many people here think the Jesus image came from Egyptian false God Serapis...who was modeled after Ptolemy? I know many here have talked about the Egyptian origins of the 3 major religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). I've never heard of this Serapis thing though. He also says all of those images of Jesus with the "halo" behind him is really representative of the Sun God Ra. Being born a Christian, I've always wondered why so many images of Jesus has it as a sunny day or something...lol.
He rambles sometimes, but there's good information in there. He also talked about how the Council was formed by Constantine just to take out one man from Libya (forgot his name) who was speaking out against what was going on. I just want to get others opinions on it.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
How many people here think the Jesus image came from Egyptian false God Serapis...who was modeled after Ptolemy? I know many here have talked about the Egyptian origins of the 3 major religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). I've never heard of this Serapis thing though. He also says all of those images of Jesus with the "halo" behind him is really representative of the Sun God Ra. Being born a Christian, I've always wondered why so many images of Jesus has it as a sunny day or something...
Well, let's start with the *earliest* artistic rendition(s) of Jesus, if there is one; after all, he did invoke art.
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
Serapis was a Greco Egyptian deity that was created in Egypt as a fusion of the Egyptian dieties Osiris and Apis into one composite entity and depicted as a bearded man in "classical" form. The Greeks then forbade the worship of the many other ancient deities and replaced them with Serapis.
With the rise of Rome and the Roman Empire the Romans maintained Greco Egyptian traditions, including the worship of Isis. But eventually they decided to make a new religion to suit the purposes of Rome, based on the theological doctrines and underpinnings of the Greeks from Egypt. These doctrines were Greek variations and interpretations of older traditions which valued the symbolic form of the gods over the literal. In other words, deities, in Egypt and in much of the ancient world, were symbolic of various aspects of the universe and nature. They were not literal humans and the understanding of these symbolic forms was the basis of the philosophy and cosmology of many ancient cultures.
The Romans decided to break with this tradition and make the new religion based around an actual historical figure. The form they chose was based on the image of Serapis and the stories associated with this new deity were taken from various traditions and cultures. This new entity would become known as the living God in the flesh and be touted to the world as its savior.
Well, from a theological perspective many people had a problem with this, on the basis of the idea that statues and images of "the gods" are symbolic and not literal human beings and have no nature of their own. They are symbolic of God's nature and spirit, which is symbolized as being eternal, life giving, and sustaining of all life. This concept of the essence of God's nature is summed up as the logos or life force or divine will of God at work in the universe and is seen by many ancient deities, including Ptah.
So began the arguments and debates over the form of the "Christ" or savior as a physical human being versus being a symbol of God's nature. Much of this debate is obscured by history as many writings on these topics were done after the fact or written in such a way as to obscure the intent of what is being said. But just for simplification, as an example, within Islam it is taught that man cannot know God because God is beyond human understanding and therefore not something man can know. This is a theological perspective on the nature of man and the divine. Because of this view, it is impossible for Muslim's to accept Jesus as literally God in the flesh. Similarly, many Eastern Orthodox Christian churches also have theological differences of opinion on the nature of Christ.
But no matter how Christianity came to be, the fact is that the iconography and stories about Jesus all clearly have a symbolic meaning that ties the life of Jesus to older traditions.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Jesus? Gee, Zeus; approximately Serapis, confused with Chrestus?
^ After the Nicean idea. v Pre-Nicean catacomb representations of the Christian man god are of a decidedly different cast.
Alive Member # 10819
posted
Wow, I thought that was a myth tho. (That "Jesus" comes from Zeus)
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Yeth, thatth a mythintepretation.
akoben Member # 15244
posted
^ Jesus and Moses are essentially myths.
Alive Member # 10819
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yeth, thatth a mythintepretation.
lol I get it
nomorelies Member # 16201
posted
Was Jesus hung from a tree or crucified to a cross?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Look at the accounts in the untranslated Greek Scriptures to see what Greek words are used. To see it from a solar mythos perspective it would have to be a cross to represent midheaven, nadir, ascendant, and descendant. Also what did Romans use for crucifixion? Hint, cruci-fixion, means what? The four Gospels concur it was by affixing to a cross.
Then, when considering some 'Pauline' accounts, it was a tree without doubt. This harkens to a Judean method of capital punishment -- where an execution precedes the tree hanging -- distinct from the Roman execution by crucifixion.
The 'Pauline' texts were written before the Gospels. The Pauline texts are clear about the tree. The Gospels say it was crucifixion. The Greek Scriptures are at odds as to which it was.
akoben Member # 15244
posted
It's connected to the sun "movements", like the passover (Jewish Easter) myth.
Herukhuti Member # 11484
posted
Wow, so Jesus may have been strange fruit.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Nope. The hanging after execution administered by the Judaeans did not involve the condemned's neck. Nor was the 'tree' a living one rooted in the ground with branches and limbs and leaves and what not.
So it wasn't quite what you can see (not for the religiously devout) here in the very last panel.
nomorelies Member # 16201
posted
I guess for those that truly read the bible, Acts 10:39 must be quite confounding.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
You have to understand the early evolution of Christianity. The need evolved from the main protagonist being based on a condemned and executed Jew who lived ~100 BCE into a man who was the deity personified.
Take note of the Book of James and related texts. Read up on the Ebionites. Compare and contrast them to Paul's Chritianity.
In the movie The Last Temptation, Paul meets a Jesus who escaped crucifixion/hanging. Paul is preaching a Jesus which causes the never crucified Jesus to call Paul a liar. Paul takes Jesus aside and tells him "I'm glad I met you, my Jesus outshines you and I don't need you."
If you're Christian but not one whose faith is easy to shatter you'll want to look into these things. Though fictional I recommend starting with either the book or movie The Last Temptation and from there move on to scholarly works about the evolution of early Christianity.
Herukhuti Member # 11484
posted
^ Cheers.
akoben Member # 15244
posted
quote:a condemned and executed Jew
And not by the Romans, according to Great Sage's own book:
"What exactly is so scandalous? How about Jesus punished in Hell for eternity by being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement? That image appears in early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of Jesus’ trial and execution—not by the Romans but by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin." Link
posted 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
