mountainman

That Jesus came first is an hypothesis of chronology in the field of history. It might be seen as a theological fact but I am dealing with all this as an amateur historian. As such there are no facts only hypotheses with various degrees of associated historical truth.

It is hypothetically possible that Jesus may not have come first despite the mass of books published in the rule of Constantine which make the claim that he did.

mountainman

Good point Shesh. Anyone who wants to develop a theory about the use of the term "Christ" is also obliged because of the evidence to develop a parallel theory about the term "Chrest", which actually has more evidence of use in antiquity.

For example see Chrestians and the lost history of Classical Antiquity and other articles at that site.

spin

Funnily enough the verb is sdwx, but the person who does it is wt. (Find out here.) I'm answering your basic request even though I don't believe you are willing to reconsider anything.

I've already mentioned you putting the cart first. You need to establish a tangible possibility of an Egyptian influence on Christian ideas. Religious ideas were obviously portable. Where did the Jews get the title "king of heaven" other than from the Persians? The Persians also provided a chronologically significant model for monotheism, the notion of paradise, and a direct example of dualism.

Egypt had lost significance outside its territory with Nebuchadnezzar.

Plainly you are wrong in your insistence that "karast" means "anoint". But this just underlies your unwillingness to get independent evidence to undermine your bias.

Given the fact that the Jewish religion had its own examples of resurrection (eg 1 Kings 17:17-24), but resurrection of people, not gods, so I don't see much reason for you to look elsewhere. Oh, but wait, we have another argument from appearance of words lurking here. First we notice the misrepresentation "El Azar" so that it looks more like what interests you. This is the same poor work we find in those trying to make christ and krishna more alike. The name is "al-Azhar", which was derived from the epithet of the woman the mosque of al-Azhar was named after, ie Fatimah, "the luminous". After the mosque was built the street leading up to it was also called al-Azhar, along with the university attached. (The street's an ugly thoroughfare today, bearing an elevated road for half its length.)

The sort of thing I expect from you based on what you've already said is of the level of: Cyrus was probably named after Osiris. You note the aural similarity, arguing that the Persians dropped the initial vowel, then you go on to create a scenario through collective consciousness to note that as Osiris was a great king, being king of all the dead, so was Cyrus a great king. Rhubarb, rhubarb.

(A euphemism in my eyes for crass blunders.)

Nobody has refuted the scenario that life on earth came from Mars either. (And it has been floated.) Refutation is not the issue, but constructive signs of relevance.

Massey was an amateur. There was a movement at the end of the 19th century in Britain in which amateurs were strongly involved in many fields. There was a great amateur presence at the British Association meetings. But it was a very hit and miss affair. We judge results from what we have learnt. Massey has given you this "karast" nonsense and that is your albatross. And here we have you walking around the theatre crying out "albatross", trying to sell the damned thing.

Stick to modern scholarship. You are less likely to go wrong, when you have to depend on someone else for knowledge. You don't turn to antiquarian texts just because they are out of copyright, available, and popular on the shelves of New Age bookshops.

stephan huller

Clubbing seals

mountainman

There are many central religious concepts with extremely ancient roots and there is little doubt that when Constantine outlawed the pagan religious practices and their concepts they lost their majesty of state which they had enjoyed for example under the rule of Diocletian and earlier emperors.



In the OP the majesty attributed to the Jesus figure in the canonical books of the NT was elevated to the purple by Constantine as soon as became the supreme ruler of the east.


We can all therefore see very clearly how it was in a political sense that unbelief in the Jesus figure became a crime against the state. These crimes and their punishment by inquisition, torture and death are attested in large numbers by Ammianus under the rule of Constantine's son Constantius. Of course the religious inquisitions repeated themselves in the centuries following.

See the separate thread Auto da fe in the 4th century?

Chili

Sure, you may call it nitpicking, but ideas are not revelations but inspirations would be revealed, while ideas are rational concoctions that may be skillful in desing. I just find the use of the term very awkward, that's all. Just like Christ died on the cross should neve be said in Biblical criticism because that just is not true. Jesus died, yes, and this distinction is also made where "the body of Christ" is not the 'body of Jesus' who so is not the bread of life.

Yes, mythologies are very transparent but not necessarily the religions within them. And yes, I like poetry and that is were that is quite obvious, but it goes further than lyric verse in noetic prose, such as in the Gospels we read.

My reason why Christianity cannot be a religion is that it is 'the end' of relgion that comes to a dead stop when 'the end of the world' has been reached and there 180 degree turn is done and so purgation begins. For example, in Buddhism it would end the Yang period and start the Yin, now as stream entrant (sotapanna) and no longer a Buddist as such (but still part of Buddhism for sure).

In Catholicism it would be where Christianity begins in the mind of the believer and that is not part of the religion itself. I.e. charismatics are not welcome in the Church Millitant, they call it, as for them the Church Suffering begins (purgatory they call it), where now the Jesuit-by-nature is on his way to the Church Triumphant where the saints would home. This would be Elysium for the Greeks or Elysian Field as independant from Elysium itself, to show that the Christian has no religion to tend too. So then even the Jesuit-by-nature (Nazorean) is not a Christian because 'the race is not finished until it is finished,' John would say using Paul's words.

Galatians is full of this but a nice summery stament is made in 5:1-4 where 4 reads: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor." THis very well means that religion itself must be left behind as freedom from the law is required to be free from the conviction of sin, and so thus religion is a thing of the past, so that liberty can be ours.

Then, of course we already read in Gal.3:1 Paul asking the Galatians: "You foolish Galations! "Who has cast a spell over you" and so now is calling them bewitched as well, -- if not witches themselves.

So yes, the Christian church is at least a misnomer for sure. The real question now is: 'how came this to be?' if it should not be so, and does not anybody there ever read those lines and stand convicted by them?

Oh sorry, there is no history in the bible as the 'living word' among us.

Chili

It is without question that Jesus is part of the package, but the Inquisitor's duty was the annihilate the worship of Jesus inside the flock. That is what the 'inquiry' always was all about. So his job was very easy as those convicted chose to die 'for Jesus' as worshiper instead of 'like Jesus' on their own.

Sheshbazzar

According to the narrative, given in the Hebrew above, that would be the -individual- identified as ישראל
Do you have some difficulty in rendering that name into common English? or must it be always be X-Y-Z'd?
Apparently the writers of the text of Exodus 50 believed they had some knowledge of the subject. They also mention the 70 days of mourning which is a known practice of Egypt. Do you wish to claim that these writers of Exodus 50 had no familiarity with Egyptian burial practices?
The narrative text doesn't say anything about any 'they' being embalmed.

It tells the tale of only ONE -individual-, the father of Joseph being embalmed in Egypt by the Egyptian practitioners of embalming, and being mourned according to Egyptian custom.

When in history? It is an ancient narrative. The implied historical setting of the tale according to most Biblical scholar sources is Phararonic Egypt.
Given the range of dates most commonly proposed, that setting seems to have been sometime during the 12th to 13th Egyptian Dynasty.
You are welcome to argue for any time you think more appropriate.
It will not change the fact that the narrative tale is set in Egypt during the reign of the Pharaohs. And this is how world history has accepted and believed these tales for millennia .


I am not proposing that the narrative is any accurate history, only that these Torah writers were to some degree familiar with Egyptian burial practices.
And that a certain degree of familiarity with this extended down to NT times, enough that the NT writers drew on it in composing Mark 14:3-8, Matthew 26:7-12 and John 12:3-7

When one searches the Hebrew bible for references to anointing at death or for death, the only instance recorded is of Jacob/Israel in Genesis 50.
That is why I asked the question;
Either they were drawing it from this Biblical source with its setting in Egypt, or they were drawing from some unidentified source that also connected anointing with death preparations.
The motif was not one that was commonly mentioned or employed in Scripture, and no such form of burial preparation is mentioned for any persons other than Jacob (and Joseph) in the entire OT. Quite naturally because it was an Egyptian practice.
In this case I believe the evidence suggest that these semi-literate first century Jews did connect the old Geek word 'krist' with the old Egyptian word 'krast' and that this connection was a common one, and as has here been demonstrated is still a common, even if erroneous connection.
The evidence suggests that this is the simplest explanation for how anointing got connected with death preparation in the minds of the compositors of the Gospels. These people weren't lugging around Greek or Egyptian lexicons and dictionaries, they were playing it by ear.

While you may not be interested in vague appearances and possibilities, I remain interested in and open to hearing and discussing any reasonable possibilities, the more those that are proposed by the common man, who just like men of old sometimes mistake this word for that, or jump to what to them may seem to be reasonable conclusions.
I always learn something new when I allow my mind to be so led into untrod paths, and take a look at matters from a different perspective. I will continue to do so no matter who may object.

I do not set any of these texts into concrete as being history, or demand that the words conform to down the tiniest yod of some lexicon definition in every instance.
The Hebrew text plays upon homonyms, with many words displaying variant spellings that illustrate there is no 'correct' spelling.
The conveying of the vocalizations and attending idiomatic word-pictures being the primary purpose.
'Cut and dried' dictionary definitions of individual words, and 'translations' so composed do not accurately convey the sense of a text that is highly couched in abstract metaphors. I read the Hebrew text with my mind open to consideration of alternate meanings and translations.
No man or organization dictates what it might be that I might so perceive.

Robert Tulip

Thanks very much spin. I am happy to change my opinion that karast means anoint on the basis of the information from hieroglyphs.net. I do not think my discussion here has been unreasonable. The decoder of the hieroglyphs, Champollion, translated karast as embalmment. You have now provided evidence that Champollion was wrong.

To explain why I was reluctant to simply accept spin’s word as sufficient, a good example of malevolent mistranslation is the phrase “King of the Ages” at Revelation 15:3. The Codex Sinaiticus wrongly translates the text as “King of the Saints” (in line with anti-Gnostic KJV prejudice) even though the online facsimile of the Greek plainly shows “Ages”.

This example is relevant to this majesty topic, illustrating the theological conflict between the hylics who grounded the majesty of Christ in the church (saints/nations) and the pneumatics who grounded the majesty of Christ in cosmology (ages).

So while the modern retranslation of karast as burial appears highly probable, given the existence of other words for embalm and anoint, it would not completely surprise me if detailed textual study showed Champollion was right after all, since Christians are biased against evidence of Egyptian roots for Christian dogmas. Evidence is king.There is a strong case that the Lazarus myth is based on Osiris, but I will raise that in a new thread.Study of religion is riven with prejudice, including the entire corpus of theology based on the “professional” assumption that Jesus Christ was a real man. In the special topic of Jesus Studies, anyone who disagrees with the historicist guild risks being cast into the outer darkness to be clubbed as an amateur fluffy seal pup.

And real professionals, such as Israel Finkelstein, do not discuss theology because of the rampant foaming of the faithful. This is why the existence of Christ is a taboo research topic outside of internet discussion forums such as this one.

Assuming that Champollion’s dictionary was accurate is a small and entirely reasonable mistake by comparison with the scale of error in conventional theology. I don’t agree that mistakes of this sort are sufficient to write off scholars like Massey. He had some deep insights (not blunders) regarding the very complex topic of comparative myth.

There is nothing wrong with extending speculation based on apparent evidence as long as refuted claims can be retracted. The cultural issues here include a strong modern bias against any writers linked to theosophy, to the extent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

spin

This is pretty despiccable nonsense. You know that it wasn't "krist", but you still misrepresent the word. In fact it is wiser to put it into the Greek so you don't fall foul of your desire to keep it simple. As to "krast" we note your deliberate dropping of the vowel to shape the evidence again, so as to make your two manipulated words look as similar as possible. In fact, modern Egyptologists would probably render the word phonetically as /qerest/. You get the gong for this sorry effort.

:tomato: