Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 04:33 PM

Ignoring Robert for a moment, this is quite interesting spin. How is this pronounced?

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 04:36 PM

Here are the hieroglyphs

http://books.google.com/books?id=aro...ial%22&f=false

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 04:39 PM

It's used in the Acts of Mark interestingly enough. http://books.google.com/books?id=U_z...ial%22&f=false I should contact Baarda when he finishes grieving. He was working on a monograph on that text.

spin · 01-07-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here are the hieroglyphs

http://books.google.com/books?id=aro...ial%22&f=false

Reading up to down, left to right, you get ķ/r, s, t/(open sarcophagus determinate). Real pronunciation is not known, though the consonants are close-ish. The situation is worse than ancient Hebrew as there are almost no decent transliterations as we find in the LXX.

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 05:08 PM

But surely the Coptic pronunciation is known. I will ask someone.

Chili · 01-07-2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Collier & Manley, "How to Read Hieroglyphics", U.Cal.Press. Its lexicon gives ķrs as "bury" and ķrst as "burial". Burial gives a very different idea from anointing.

To say burial differs from anointing for the Egyptians is dubious. The mummy of the king was anointed with all manner of spices and oils to preserve it in burial, to make him the God Osiris. Jesus became Christ through his death (burial) and resurrection, as the seed must be buried to produce new life. Burial and anointing are closely linked.

In describing this link as "apparent" I accepted it is open to debate. But spin has not provided anything to change my view. The philology here comes from Champollion and Birch and is perfectly reasonable.

Such topics should be set against the political framework described by Martin Bernal in Black Athena, where he shows that Greek culture basically derives from Egypt, in conflict with dominant academic prejudice - including from modern Egyptology. So we should expect that central religious concepts - such as the term Christ meaning anointing - are likely to have pre-Greek origins.

But wait a moment please, for Christ as the anointed to be liberated Jesus had to die, and was set free as Bar-abbas before Jesus was crucified to specifically identify the sin nature that the Jews were after. I.e. We have our own law and by that law he must be crucified, while Pilate was looking at the man (repeated several times in Luke 23:14, 15, 22 and John 18:him (implied), 38, and 19:5). To this add: "I am no Jew, Pilate retorded" in 18:35 to clearly make this difference known.

So the error that I see is that Jesus never became Christ, but actually died and like a dirty rag was left behind. I can add here that only the wherewithall of Jesus needs to be retained since that was entrusted to him when he took charge as insurrectionist, that so must become the substance of the Omega in the New Heaven on Earth.

The beauty of this is that he can be the way for us to follow on our own, that here now comes to an end, also for us when we get there. IOW, we can be the Christ on earth as Christian and not have Jesus in our way.

To me, Christ will never mean anointing, but anointed is he to whom the Christ is born, that so does not rub on or off.

spin · 01-07-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But surely the Coptic pronunciation is known. I will ask someone.

You've got vowels in Coptic, which helps. You don't with the language of a thousand years earlier.

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 07:09 PM

Right but my interest was on how closely the Coptic resembled chrestos.

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 07:26 PM

It seems that the term was related to the word for 'burial cloth' in Coptic (I think the book has a misprint my last citation from this Russian book should belong to the fragment from the Acts of Thomas http://books.google.com/books?id=U_z...burial&f=false - i.e. it was wrongly placed in the Acts of Mark)

stephan huller · 01-07-2013, 07:37 PM

Here is another partial view:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-r5...ed=0CDEQ6AEwAA

I wonder if the Marcionite use of 'Chrestos' has nothing to do with 'good' at all but meant 'corpse'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2013, 04:33 PM	#71
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Ignoring Robert for a moment, this is quite interesting spin. How is this pronounced?

01-07-2013, 04:36 PM	#72
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here are the hieroglyphs http://books.google.com/books?id=aro...ial%22&f=false

01-07-2013, 04:39 PM	#73
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's used in the Acts of Mark interestingly enough. http://books.google.com/books?id=U_z...ial%22&f=false I should contact Baarda when he finishes grieving. He was working on a monograph on that text.

01-07-2013, 05:08 PM	#75
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But surely the Coptic pronunciation is known. I will ask someone.

01-07-2013, 07:09 PM	#78
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Right but my interest was on how closely the Coptic resembled chrestos.

01-07-2013, 07:26 PM	#79
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It seems that the term was related to the word for 'burial cloth' in Coptic (I think the book has a misprint my last citation from this Russian book should belong to the fragment from the Acts of Thomas http://books.google.com/books?id=U_z...burial&f=false - i.e. it was wrongly placed in the Acts of Mark)

01-07-2013, 07:37 PM	#80
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is another partial view: http://books.google.com/books?id=-r5...ed=0CDEQ6AEwAA I wonder if the Marcionite use of 'Chrestos' has nothing to do with 'good' at all but meant 'corpse'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.