Chris Weimer

Well, opinions are in fact opinions. But much of what you base your interpretation on is very misleading. The whole December 25th thing, for instance. That date came far after the establishment of Christianity. It's never found in the Bible or the earliest Christians.

Moreover, you took Babylonian (and thus Greek and Latin) astrology and anachronistically placed it on Egyptians and earlier cultures. Finally, you assume that the New Testament is homogenous - it isn't. Mark is the earliest gospel. If you want to do proper exegesis on early Christian beliefs, it's best to start with that book. The Virgin Birth and other such details were later accretions to the main story. Paul, the earliest Christian who left us writings, doesn't mention anything astrological, and he's far more intune with that sort of thing (seven heavens and all) than later Orthodox Christians.

Disagree all you want, but by doing so you align yourself with creationists who "disagree" with evolution.

youngalexander

Might we add Jesus - now no one is surprised!

gurugeorge

I'd agree with others who would suggest this is a dodgy line of inquiry. There may well be something in it, but I wouldn't use it as any sort of secure basis for thought about Christianity. When you look at the history of this "solar/phallic religion" stuff it goes back to a time when scholarship wasn't as good as it is nowadays (in fact it goes back to 18th century amateur gentleman-scholars, names such as Payne-Knight, Dupuis and Drummond), and people have been repeating many of the mistakes of those pioneering but not very reliable gentlemen ever since.

The basic idea that Christianity isn't what it seems is sound and can be sustained - it's called "Mythicism" or MJ, short for " mythical Jesus", as opposed to HJ, "historical Jesus", on this board - but it's better approached through using as a basis more reliable scholarship, from the mid-to-late 19th century down to the present.

Good web presentations of the MJ point of view can be found here (Malachi), here (Earl Doherty)and here (Robert Price). (Interestingly, and incidentally, this represents a political spread on the spectrum from Left to Liberal to Right) You should find good linkage to other stuff in the same vein from those websites.

GakuseiDon

:notworthy: :notworthy:

youngalexander

How regretable that no one seems to have informed the art historians concerning this taboo subject of parallels?
p149 Face to Face by Robin Margaret Jensen;

More significant, however, is the similarity of Jesus' facial features to those of the gods Apollo, Orpheus, and both Dionysus and Hercules in their youthful presentations. In some cases, he takes on other attributes associated with them, like the radiante halo of Sol or the lyre of Orpheus. Jesus' representation also parallels that of certain heroes, many of whom became deified eventually (for example, Meleager or Bellerophon).

gurugeorge

Hehe. Actually there's a rather convincing photographic morph somewhere floating around on the web between the "face" on the "Turn Shroud" and the bust of Appolonius of Tyana

GakuseiDon

I've also seen one showing similarities between the face on the Turin Shroud and Osama Bin Laden. Coincidence???

gurugeorge

LOLZ. Hey I've just thought, maybe there's an archetypal "prophet face" buried deep in the human psyche? Maybe only people who look like that (and who of course have all the other prophet prerequisites, charisma, a big idea, etc.) become acknowledged as prophets?

Goathead

Well, obviously.

Jesus = Osama.

Dur.

Goathead

As for "prophet face" there is evidence of this.

Certain facial constructs are very pleasing to the human, or suggestive of power, fertility or some other aspect of our natural state.

The greeks knew this, romans knew it, most artiss today use it.

Its why jesus looks sexy instead of like normal folk