Jump to content

Facing The Egyptian Connection To The Gospels


waterbear
 Share

Recommended Posts

I may be banned at any time, one never knows as I've crossed swords with Joseph who runs this forum his way. I came here to share my Christian beliefs, opinions, visions and revelations with you all thinking that a Gnostic Christian p.o.v. might be of interest here seeing how us Gnostics and our Egyptian connection now place Gnostic Christianity closer to the origins of Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt.

 

There is a very strong atheist movement afoot now to defame Christianity and all belief in God being put out by atheist historians and their fellow travelers. Barbara Walker and D.M. Murdoch are heading this group and because neither one has spiritual consciousness they are using the myths of Abrahamic religions as "proof" of man-made artifice. In similar manner to Joseph's banning of undesired criticism after trying to inject a Christian response to these atheist attacks on theism I have been banned from two of these atheist discussion forums. They don't want to hear from theists anything that counters their atheist opinions.

 

Instead of banning me, I'd like to help Christians respond to this new Egyptian information that is being used to discredit Christian doctrines. I would like to help create a dialogue on the new Egyptian information and the sun-god linkages to Christ and Christianity. I can't do this if I'm being censored for honestly posting my Christian beliefs.

 

I won't be surprised if no one cares as I've found that forum behavior matches any clique behavior pattern, i.e., those who are "in" will defend their status against those who are rejected from the club by the club master. I'd like to be proven wrong but wait and see how forum members rise or keep their heads down in this challenge to the present censorship of non-Progressive Christian members posting their beliefs and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be banned at any time, one never knows as I've crossed swords with Joseph who runs this forum his way.

 

Joseph, as do all of the other moderators on this forum, seeks nothing more than to maintain a civil discourse.

 

While I think that sometimes the moderators are too quick to shut down fast-paced discussion, I have found this forum much more enjoyable than, say; Theology Web where name-calling, personal attacks and religious jousting are the norm.

 

So, let's try this thread and see where it goes. My mind is open to new ways of thinking, however, I am not prone to dualistic logic which is what I find dominant in Gnostic thought. I've read most of the Gnostic texts in existence at least once, so I am pretty familiar with any themes you might introduce.

 

I came here to share my Christian beliefs, opinions, visions and revelations with you all thinking that a Gnostic Christian p.o.v. might be of interest here seeing how us Gnostics and our Egyptian connection now place Gnostic Christianity closer to the origins of Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt.

 

I came here mostly out of frustration with other so-called Christian forums where any challenges to the "fundamentals" of the faith were seen as deal breakers to joining the discussion.

 

I would gather you won't get much air play in more traditional Christian forums with a Gnostic world view. Am I correct?

 

There is a very strong atheist movement afoot now to defame Christianity and all belief in God being put out by atheist historians and their fellow travelers.

 

If I disagree with your premise here, will you assume then that I am part of the cabal?

 

I think that there are certain individuals who call themselves Atheists who indeed seem to "have it in" for Christianity. Or, at least; traditional Christianity. Bishop Spong has spoken, I think, eloquently on this subject in recent articles published on this web site.

 

But, as a general rule, Atheists could care less about the state of Christianity and see no need to spend valuable time "defaming" it. The consensus is that Christianity itself is in self-destruct mode.

 

Barbara Walker and D.M. Murdoch are heading this group and because neither one has spiritual consciousness they are using the myths of Abrahamic religions as "proof" of man-made artifice. In similar manner to Joseph's banning of undesired criticism after trying to inject a Christian response to these atheist attacks on theism I have been banned from two of these atheist discussion forums. They don't want to hear from theists anything that counters their atheist opinions.

 

I am not familiar with these two authors.

 

However, I am familiar with critique of the Bible, and sometimes, I would agree, they tend to have sport with Theistic belief. My advice would be to try not to read such works, as they will likely upset you.

 

On the converse, I know of many Christian apologists who delight in making sport of non-theists.

 

And, since theists far outnumber non-theists by nearly three to one, I don't think Christians should be overly concerned.

 

 

 

I'd like to help Christians respond to this new Egyptian information that is being used to discredit Christian doctrines. I would like to help create a dialogue on the new Egyptian information and the sun-god linkages to Christ and Christianity. I can't do this if I'm being censored for honestly posting my Christian beliefs.

 

Well, I for one would be very interested in hearing about a sun-god link to Christ and Christianity and some new Egyptian information.

 

I won't be surprised if no one cares as I've found that forum behavior matches any clique behavior pattern, i.e., those who are "in" will defend their status against those who are rejected from the club by the club master. I'd like to be proven wrong but wait and see how forum members rise or keep their heads down in this challenge to the present censorship of non-Progressive Christian members posting their beliefs and opinions.

 

Well, having been censored a few times, I consider myself not part of the "in" crowd.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a sample of what I'm talking about in the Egyptian connection:

 

"Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

 

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

 

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

 

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

 

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

 

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

 

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

 

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

 

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

 

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

 

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

 

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

 

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

 

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

 

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

 

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [bet-Anu].

 

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

 

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

 

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”"

 

The story of Lazarus' resurrection is proof of Jewish Christian borrowing of Egyptian religious ideas: In the story, Lazarus is resurrected from the dead by Jesus at Bethany. Well, like Eliezer, Abraham's aid-de-camp, Lazarus too is derived from Hebrews combining two gods into one name, EL plus Asir, or Asar, which is Egyptian for Osiris (Greek) "Lazarus" is EL Osiris. Every year the ancient Egyptians reenacted Osiris' death and resurrection at the House of Anu which John Hebrewizes as Beth+ "any" to equal Bethany. Origin in the second century (?) looked for Bethany and couldn't find it then.

 

D.M. Murdoch has written several books about the Egyptian connection, Christ in Egypt is the most fact filled one. Barbara Walker has just published Man-made God again showing how ancients made these religious mythologies using astro-theology, star based anthropomorphized stories of creator, savior gods and goddesses.

 

Try Googling these authors and I will try to find the link I once had that compressed most all the Egyptian connections into one fact-filled article.

 

I myself found this connection to Gnostic Christianity in the name "Boanerges" "Sons of Thunder" the two brothers supposedly of fiery temperament. But with the Egyptian connection strong to Gnostics (they still used Egyptian magical formulas in some of their gospels and of course, fled to Egypt's deserts to escape Pauline Christian mobs set loose by the Church Fathers in the newly state-sanctioned Christian religion of Constantin's Roman Empire). Found in the Nag Hammadi Library cache of lost Gnostic Gospels was a Gnostic Hymn to Isis, one who's appellations was as a Goddess of Thunder. So were Boanerges followers of Isis, i.e. "Sons of Thunder"? Given the very strong Egyptian connections to Christianity I think so.

 

Here's another one I found:

 

Both Mark and John's (John-Mark as Mark's full name connection?) John the Baptist refers to not being able to "unloose" the sandal strap of Jesus, the one who comes after John and is "mightier". Well, the Egyptian word for "sandal strap" is the same one they used for their symbol of life and resurrection to eternal life, ankh. And associated with the ankh mystery was the Knot of Isis which when "loosened" gave the one who could do so knowledge of resurrection to eternal life. Mark is considered by Coptic Christians to be the founder of the first Christian church in the world in Alexandria, Egypt. Writers of the Gospels if they were in Alexandria had access to not only all of Egypt's religious lore but that of many other religious texts kept in the Library of Alexandria. Theophilus, appointed by Rome, had Christian mobs destroy that Library and with it, all traces of Gnostic input into original Christian gospels. It is looking more and more as though the Gospels were composed originally by Alexandrian Jewish Gnostics competing with other Gnostic schools by demanding Jesus Christ be recognized as coming in the flesh and not a spiritual being as Gnostic schools would have him. This has a point which can only be recognized when you know the role of the Son of Man tradition in imparting spiritual knowledge of the relationship between God and humanity.

 

So much to discuss..can we do this? Or will my ever-so gentle and compromising ways of expressing myself be too much for forum monitors to tolerate? Stay tuned, folks, for round two or is it twenty-two?

Edited by waterbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much to discuss..can we do this? Or will my ever-so gentle and compromising ways of expressing myself be too much for forum monitors to tolerate? Stay tuned, folks, for round two or is it twenty-two?

 

 

If you're asking regarding the content of your post and the topic of discussion, they are, naturally, perfectly acceptable.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodney Stark in Cities of God demonstrates a loose connection between Christianity and Isiacism, but not the direct borrowing suggested here.

 

Isiacism had spread across the western Mediterranean area. He has a map showing cities with Isis temples. This included major cities such as Rome, Seville and Athens. Stark goes on to demonstrate that cities with Isis temples had Christian churches sooner than cities without Isis temples.

 

He argues that for Isis worshipers, like Jews, it was a small cultural step to embrace early Christianity. There was, what he calls, a "cultural continuity." Isiacism was not "fully monotheistic," but "at least, it had asserted the existence of a supreme creator-God; devotees of Isis accepted the idea of resurrection and something closely akin to an immaculate conception; and Isiacism promised a form of life after death far more attractive than had been typical of prior paganism. In all these way Isiacism prepared the way for Christianity by making many elements of Christianity comfortably familiar to pagans."

 

His conclusion, well supported IMO, is that Isiacism easily adopted Christian theology, not the other way. Isis worshipers were in the right places at the right times and were culturally prepared for many of the Christian ideas.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as interesting (or not) tidbit...without suggestion or implication of anything it may or may not 'mean'..

 

The word "rainbow" in Rev. 4:3 and 10:1 is translated from the Greek word "iris" or "isis".

 

I've found this curious since I discovered it some years ago.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve noted in other posts that I’ve done some research into this topic because it interests me. The perceived strength or ambiguity of the connections between the pagan mystery religions and Christianity (the Jesus story) varies from scholar to scholar.

 

Most scholars agree that the evidence suggests a linkage. To advocate there is no linkage would be an incredulous position to take in view of the data. That would require ignoring a significant collection of scholarship that says otherwise. The only debate, at least from my perspective, rest in the interpretation of the evidence.

 

The linkage may not be as strong as anti Christian advocates would suggest and it is likely much stronger than pro Christian supporters are willing to admit. I believe a reasonably objective person would recognize that elements of the pagan mystery religions have been blended into the Jesus story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably the least-educated person on this board, but I never let the lack of knowledge keep me from having an opinion. :D

 

Stephen, I don't doubt that there is an "Egyptian Connection" to the gospels, just as I think there are many overtones of Mithraism found there. Religions don't grow up in a vacuum or from "ex nihilo". I think Abraham's understanding of God, though it was in flux, came from the pagans around him, hence trying to offer Isaac as a human sacrifice to YHWH.

 

There is, in my opinion, a strategy or tactic found in secularism and in other religions that says, in paraphrase, "If we can demonstrate that Jesus didn't exist or that the Christ Story is made-up, borrowed, or fabricated in whole or part from other myths, and thereby destroy Christ, we will have destroyed Christianity."

 

I think this is true if (let's make this a big IF) Christianity is built upon or centered on the Christ figure, which, as your post shows, is about, to some degree, supernatural events that happened because of or to a supernatural entity. If that supernatural entity can be shown to be false, then the religion that worships that entity also falls...as long as that religion is consumed with holding to the notion that religion is about that entity.

 

But if Christianity was built upon the teachings of Jesus and proving/disproving the truth of those teachings out in practical ways in our lives, then Christianity would not fall if the bones of Jesus of Nazareth were discoved in a tomb in Jerusalem tomorrow. The Christian religion might fall in such a case, because, imo, Christianity is mostly about Christ-worship. But those who have lived out and proved out the teachings of this sage from Nazareth would not be much shaken. Why? Because their faith was not in the historicity of their religion, but in the practicality/goodness of their teachings and the affect that they have on the world. Their faith was not in alledged facts about Christ, but in what Jesus taught us, that he taught us this ambiguous thing called "truth", ways of seeing God and ourselves that help us relate to each other and our world better and that can help us make a change for the better. So, for me, faith in Jesus is not bound up in believing in historical events about him, but in believing that he taught and lived the truth.

 

As long as Christianity holds to its Nicene forms, I suspect it will continue to disentigrate under the onslaught of new knowledge and historical evidence. But if it could ever reclaim the truths at the heart of the executed wisdom teacher that may (or may not) have existed in the first century, it might continue to exist as a major religion in the world. Time will tell.

Edited by Wayseeker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I walk a fine line about the miraculous vs. the teachings of Christianity. I was more or less an atheist up until age 35, didn't care much about spirituality or God and was not a Christian finding Christianity to be a morbid theology pointing Christians in the wrong direction--heaven, instead of earth and the problems here that need to be fixed. But then "out of nowhere" God came and did a number on me, put me through a three day spiritual boot camp and completely overturned my prior atheism. But was I a "born again Christian"? Yes and no. From the very beginning of my Christian walk God informed me through the stream of mental spiritual insights flooding into my mind at that time that the Bible was written by fallible men and could not be used as historical reference, only metaphorical and allegorical reference, the product of ancient men dealing with spiritual consciousness.

 

So the authorized Story of Jesus Christ was never taken literally by me. My faith in the Spirit of Christ was strictly due to having personally experienced it as part and parcel of that three day religious conversion experience. To me that Spirit of Christ was like a wave that flowed over the Holy Land from 100 BC to 200 AD inspiring many writers to tell their experience of that Spirit of Christ which seemed wrapped around a mysterious Jewish healer claiming the power of God behind him. This is my "proof" of Christianity's authentic spiritual origins, the fact that Something inspired so many people in the region to believe in this magical person who was the center of a "Christ" cult, a Messiah cult but one blending pagan dying/resurrection god-men mythologies with the Jewish epic.

 

Then the other aspect of my Christian belief came into play. I started getting religious visions and revelations myself and I knew they were not being generated by my own mind because I was getting spiritual information I never knew about and being led to verify its authenticity by comparing this new stuff coming into my mind with the Judeo-Christian traditions. This congruency of what I experienced and past record of prophesy bearing in the Jewish tradition has become my anchor of Christian belief because for the past 32 years now God has been leading me ahead of the learning curve of Christian scholarship. 32 years ago I "knew" that the Gospels were fictions but still contained much spiritual truth. 32 years ago I knew the Goddess aspect of the Godhead, the Divine Feminine, was missing and will be reinstated within the Christian tradition. 32 years ago God again put me on the Egyptian connection although I missed the blatant synchronicity "sign" God had given me that you can see for yourselves right in the original religious conversion experience report I wrote in 1979.

 

I will put this aside in here since my reasons for being here are now in question:

 

I must admit here though the whole Jesus is a Stoic type philosopher/social critic line of research and opinion of the Jesus Seminar/Spong/Borg/etc. efforts never held my attention as I wasn't convinced any part of the Gospels held historical truth. Jesus Christ of the Gospels was a purely spiritual being as far as I was concerned. I once joined the Jesus Seminar's open discussion group in order to dialogue with bible scholars about the Talmud's accounts of their "Jesuses". Guess what? I was booted off and banned when I posted my observation to one of the J.S. scholars that he seemed to know less than I did about the Talmud stories. So Progressive Christian forum monitors here reacting to my Gnostic Christian information seem just as trigger-happy to get rid of me as the J.S. people did.

 

And Gnostic forums? They don't recognize a Johannine Gnostic as legitimately Gnostic. Gotta get with the classical Gnostic agenda which I never did as my Gnosticism has to do with "knowledge of God" being salvational but the old Gnostic antagonism against Creation I part company with having found a truer Creator God whose identity was not Yahweh but EL Elyon, or more accurately, the Elohim, the "We" of Genesis I. Also ignored as primitive evolution schematic were the Gnostic "syzygies", those pairings of angelic names emanating from an unknowable Godhead. My Gnosticism is more like Carl Jung's than Valentinius' for example.

 

Anyway, here I am on these Progressive boards as a Gnostic Christian who wants to discuss the Egyptian connection with Progressive Christians but wanting to do this without having to swear any allegiance to the Progressive Flag of group mind think, i.e. those Progressive guidelines.

 

Now back to Egypt.

 

Are the spiritual archetypes found in the Egyptian religion and redone in the Christian Gospels for real? Or are they just cynically manipulated Jewish myths made to sell a breakaway radical Jewish religious group's newly created religion to the world? The atheist scholars putting out such books as Christ in Egypt and Man-Made God are saying that this is all it ever was but I can't buy this. Why? Because those spiritual archetypes are real for me--I'm living them out with my own life and I know I never planned it that way. "As above, so below" defines my spiritual life and this is why I don't need any scholars opinion to know spiritual reality exists, God exists, and the Spirit of Christ cannot ever be defeated by historical discovery. Not when the Spirit is alive and well and bringing new spiritual things to our modern world.

Edited by waterbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterbear, are you familiar with, have you read, "Spiritual Emergency" by Stanislav Grof? And/or "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Maurice Bucke?

Some things you have related about your experiences lead me to strongly reccomend them to you.

 

Jenell

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I, like you, am just a participant here and usually only join in conversations when something piques my interest. And, as my sig says, anything I post, unless I reference someone else, is just what I think at this point in my journey. I'm not done with my journey yet (I hope), but I do detect a particular bent or direction in that path. And it is from that bent and context that I write. With all of that said, I'll post a couple more of my thoughts on this and then back out as I'm not really qualified to comment much on the technical aspects of this topic.

 

My faith in the Spirit of Christ was strictly due to having personally experienced it as part and parcel of that three day religious conversion experience. To me that Spirit of Christ was like a wave that flowed over the Holy Land from 100 BC to 200 AD inspiring many writers to tell their experience of that Spirit of Christ which seemed wrapped around a mysterious Jewish healer claiming the power of God behind him. This is my "proof" of Christianity's authentic spiritual origins, the fact that Something inspired so many people in the region to believe in this magical person who was the center of a "Christ" cult, a Messiah cult but one blending pagan dying/resurrection god-men mythologies with the Jewish epic.

 

This, it seems to me, is very close to the kind of encounter or mystical experience that the apostle Paul had. He claimed that what he taught did not come from the human Jesus of Nazareth or from any of Jesus' disciples. Paul claimed that what he knew came from private revelations from the Christ figure. I, too, have had what might be called a mystical experience. But from my point-of-view, that experience came from God, not from a Christ figure. While my experience, perhaps like yours, confirmed the reality of God to me, it didn't give me any "gnosis" or "gospel" or "message" for me to give to other people. It seemed to be meant to meet a need that I had at the time. But it in no way qualified me to be a teacher of others or to have any authority over anybody else.

 

This brings me to my second thought. In my background, I have seen the person of Jesus Christ used in very harmful ways against people. Coming from a Pentecostal faith in my younger days, many people that I knew claimed to hear directly from Christ and to be mediators between other..."unenlightened"...people and the Christ figure. And, having seen some of the harm this has done, not only to people but to Christianity, I am VERY skeptical when someone claims to have a message from the Spirit of Christ to give to me or to disseminate to the masses. On one hand, I don't mind at all when people claim personal experiences of the Christ figure (as the apostle Paul did). But I consider such experiences to be applicable to ONLY that person and not binding on anyone else. So, just being honest, I don't have much use for the Christ figure that is behind much of Christianity, which, to me, is little more than people's egos deified. For me, I think Jesus' ethical/humanist teachings are universal enough and comprehensive enough that we don't need a "new revelation." To me, what Christianity lacks is not new revelation from on High, but pragmatic application of what we have already been told.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't believe in following God's Spirit, for indeed I do. But, to me, following the Spirit is (encapsulated definition) about how we apply the two central commandments of Jesus to our time and culture. In other words, the Spirit empowers us to do the kinds of "non-magical" things that Jesus said to do: feed the hungry, cloth the naked, shelter the homeless, help the poor, stand for justice, visit prisoners, forgive enemies, have compassion, "real world" things. Maybe there was a historic Jesus that did and taught these things. Maybe there wasn't. I don't know. But I find this much more "believable" and worth believing than, as I have heard in some Christian circles from Christians with their eyes squinted in prayer, "Christ wants you to send me your money!" I believe in illumination, but not revelation. I'm not in the Pauline camp that believes that Paul's revelations of the Christ figure allowed him to "trump" the historical Jesus and lead Christianity to "another gospel." But that is me. I'm much in the minority.

 

Not when the Spirit is alive and well and bringing new spiritual things to our modern world.

 

Maybe so. The UCC says that "God is still speaking" and I like that slogan. I don't doubt at all that the Spirit is here and can transform us if we'll submit to it. But I'm a monotheist and don't attribute it to Christ (probably why I don't fit with most Christian forums). Most of them are about the Christ figure of Paul and company. And I'm much more drawn to what we can discern about the person who died rather than conform to the political, social, and religious rules of his day.

 

Grace and peace to you.

Edited by Wayseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one thought and not much else. I have been watching the videos for the Introduction to the Old Testament at Yale. Prof Hayes suggests that we should not be seduced by the similarities in form between stories in the Old Testament and their counterparts in other Mesopotamian cultures. We should focus on how the writers reworked them to their own purposes. If we want to say something totally new we have to start with something everybody knows. Jesus did this often.

 

That the tiny bones in our ears evolved from reptilian jaw bones does not mean that they are reptilian or jaw bones.

 

That there are similar images in the stories about Jesus and Horus does not mean that they are necessarily substantially linked.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

 

 

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I cannot speak to the Isis or Mithra cults, I know that Christianity has borrowed from other traditions: the Christmas tree, May Day, Halloween (All Saint's Eve) etc. For me, the myths that we celebrate does not negate the underlying truths. It is, however, fascinating to discover some of the similarities an borrowed traditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:...

 

Where did you get this information?

 

I ask because it is very similar (and in the order that you present it) to the claims made in a book written (I've since forgotten the author's name) in the 1920s and was abstracted from various sections of the Book of the Dead.

 

I've since read the Book of the Dead, and for the most part, the similarities are all there. I think that all of these ancient religions were derivative of the astrological observances of skygazers from the beginning of time. Christianity is nothing more than an amalgam of many pagan myths rolled into one.

 

However, the Apostle Paul redefined the faith with his "revelation" and it has been that vision Christianity has embraced ever since. A few thousand year after that, another man - one Joseph Smith - also had an epiphany that diverted another subset of Christ imitators. One thing these two men had in common, I've noticed, is that their faith expression involves a decidedly more mystical, magical Jesus than the humble shepherd philosopher he probably was.

 

I am not one to embrace other people's hallucinations. I've had plenty of my own, thank you very much.

 

Your subsequent posts suggest that you perceive yourself another Paul-type with a "message for the planet."

 

If that message is peace on earth, and nothing else, then I am with you.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I think Jesus' ethical/humanist teachings are universal enough and comprehensive enough that we don't need a "new revelation." To me, what Christianity lacks is not new revelation from on High, but pragmatic application of what we have already been told.

 

Well said.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Waterbear. I have seen comparrisons between Jesus and other religious leaders before and they work according to how they are being told (IMO). Other comparrisons have been made between Jesus and Krishna and Mithras.

See:-

Jesus and Horus http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

Quote from above "One problem with comparing events in the life of Horus and Yeshua relates to time. Horus was a leading figure in Egyptian mythology for millennia. Folklore about him naturally proliferated during this interval. So, for example, there is more than one story about the method by which he died. Thus, if the writers of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) did copy events from Horus' life, they would have had multiple options from which to choose. Further, one cannot compare crucifixion in 1st century CE Judah, with a simlar procedure in ancient Egypt. Roman crucifixion followed a specific procedure by which the victim was made to carry the crosspiece through the city, clothing was stripped from him, his limbs were tied -- or in rare instances, nailed -- to the cross, etc. Nothing precisely like this existed in ancient Egypt. So, one cannot strictly call Horus' execution a crucifixion, even if he was tied to a tree and died of exposure."

 

Jesus and Mithras http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusMithra.html

 

Jesus and Krishna http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

 

There are other comparrisons too - see:- http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

In my understanding it may look conclussive but in the finite details the cracks do seem to appear.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it seems to me that in order to claim that Christianity adopted Egyptian mythology, one should show some connection to the founders of Christianity, Jesus, Paul and James. To my knowledge there is no connection between Egyptian religion and any of these persons. All three grew up in Jewish or Jewish/Greek milieu.

 

One could claim that their theology was later superseded by the Gospel writers who were Egyptian oriented. But, Paul, who was the leading light in early Christianity, set the theme for later writers. Although he did not write about a virgin birth, he did write about the crucifixion (not long after the event) and other alleged borrowings.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...............One could claim that their theology was later superseded by the Gospel writers who were Egyptian oriented. But, Paul, who was the leading light in early Christianity, set the theme for later writers. Although he did not write about a virgin birth, he did write about the crucifixion (not long after the event) and other alleged borrowings.

 

George

 

There are other interpretations of Paul’s writings that are just as plausible as the traditional interpretations. THE JESUS PUZZLE, by Earl Doherty presents such an interpretation. I don’t agree with all of Mr. Doherty’s conclusions but his theory seems to possess all the necessary elements of creditability required to support his premise.

 

Basically, Mr. Doherty believes Paul understood Jesus as a Spiritual Being and never thought of Jesus as having been a human or earthly Messiah. I think his book makes a plausible case to support his theory. I am simply pointing out there our other ways to interpret Paul.

Edited by Javelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch, I have looked over those 2 Yale courses you mention, offerred free online, and they seem to be pretty much identical to 2 courses by the same course titles that were part of the required core for my Religious Studies minor at University of Houston. I would highly reccomend them to anyone serious about study of the bible and/or foundations and origins of Christianity, as well as in understanding the role of the bible in the course of history and development of western civilization and culture.

 

Jenell

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterbear,

If you are still reading, I reiterate my strong reccomendation that you read the two books I described in an above post. Such "transcendant" experiences as you have related are not as unique and singularly rare as you seem to believe. I think that in reading them, you would have a lot of "Oh my gosh, it isn't just me this has happened to" moments. I think they could help explain a lot to you about and help you understand better some of your own experiences.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service