• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

#98: Aug. - Sept. 2011 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Well, this is not exactly the right thread on which to post this, but pardon me, I can't locate the idea of Robert's I wanted to talk about. I believe he said that the impetus for the Jesus story could be the trauma felt by Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple. Although I'm sure there was trauma, the creation of Jesus would appear to be very much a minority response. Why would just a tiny sect of Jews respond that way to the catastrophe? It makes more sense to me to view all the Gospel writings as basically gentile in perspective and origin, which would remove the temple destruction as a crucial event. This would also explain the always puzzling narrative point of view in the Gospels, with the narrators frequently denouncing "the Jews" as though they are other than the group to which the narrator belongs. There is, of course, traditional support for gentile authorship, at least in the case of the eponymous author of Luke, who is held to have been a Greek physician. But I would speculate that all of the authors could be gentile, even Mark, who is often called the most "Jewish."

There would certainly have been a power struggle between the newer religion and the older. Perhaps the newer religion begins as a rival strand of Judaism, who adopted or created the figure of Jesus, but who could not get the establishment to go along with their belief in him as the Messiah. Whether or not any of the history in the Gospels is real, it could come to be received as real by the gentile authors, who had joined up with the rival sect. My bet is still that the Gospel authors saw themselves as engaged in a battle with the Jews and that they believed they had historical truth on their side. They faithfully report this purported history, in the sense that they include inconvenient or embarrassing details about Jesus which they would have omitted if they were fictionalizing. They are far from disinterested observers overall, of course, as they take pans to pin the death of Jesus on the Jews. They could be currying favor with the Romans, who, in any scenario likely to have been historical, could be expected to have been less hands-off than the Romans in the Gospels.

For this version to have validity, it isn't necessary for Jesus to have been historical. But it does to me seem likely that there was a historical prompt of some sort, perhaps in the Jesus reported by the Talmud to have been crucified around 100 BCE.
Last edited by DWill on Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Dwill wrote: But I would speculate that all of the authors could be gentile, even Mark, who is often called the most "Jewish."
And that ties into the Therapeutan brotherhood network and all Dwill. You really should read through the chapter on the Alexandrian Roots of Christianity with it's discussion of the Syrian and Antioch connections with your above statements in mind. The Thread and link to a preview of the chapter which can be found here: http://www.booktalk.org/christ-in-egypt ... 11106.html

It's possible that the writers of the gospels - which appear into the literary record in the second century - could have believed that they were writing about history by the time they set out to write their gospels. But one would also have to wonder how in that time period anyone could miss the astrotheology of the gospel stories at the same time. If these writers were taking initiated mystery drama material that they had come across, but the writers themselves not being initiates of the ancient mysteries, then it's possible that they could have taken the stories as literal history and then wrote about them from the perspective of thinking that it was all historical. Many of the pagan gods who were completely astrotheological were at times written about as if they were historical. Jesus isn't alone in that sense. Tacitus is guilty of writing that way about pagan Gods who were obviously not historical. And that's either from him being completely ignorant himself or simply writing in such a way so as to be understood by the general masses who thought about their God-Men as real historical figures from the past. Even the most blatantly fictional God-Men had some percentage of the population who could only manage to think of them in historical / literal terms. So it's a complicated question really...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
AlSylvester
Permanent Ink Finger
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:23 pm
12
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

" If these writers were taking initiated mystery drama material that they had come across, but the writers themselves not being initiates of the ancient mysteries, then it's possible that they could have taken the stories as literal history and then wrote about them from the perspective of thinking that it was all historical."

As you write and comment about it today for the same reason. Jesus, said in the Gnostics several places, "Jesus learned the Magic of Egypt.". You know of hundreds in our past, many very famous persons that also knew this magic." The Magic is the Secret mysteries mentioned in many places by Archarya in her book. It was talked about, also in her book, by Philosophers, but also, in a secretive maner! Because this secretive Mysterie is still not known by todays scholars, it is "Still" talked about in that maner (not understood or known). The past and if Jesus was a myth cannot be answerd correctly until it is known! Sir Issac Newton was an alchemists and spoke with allegory and metaphor about this Mysterie! Should we call him a Myth? The question I have and that needs to be answered, "Would the myth makers talk about this mystery truthfully when they knew, (also in Archarys book), that to do so meant death"? It stated in the Gnostics that Jesus was put to death because he did! Why would a Myth be put to death? I can already hear the answer, "He had to be to satisfy the mythology of Osiris." Then there is another question that needs to be answered, "What was the so called myth of Osiris based on? Sir W. Budge said that, "It had to be based on something"! Was Mr. Budge wrong also? The question of if Jesus was a real person depends on that answer.

Al
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Al, you're being an idiot.
Sir Issac Newton was an alchemists and spoke with allegory and metaphor about this Mysterie! Should we call him a Myth?
Am I to take this seriously or what? Sir Issac Newton is a well documented historical figure noted and acknowledged by many contemporary sources during his life time. Jesus, in complete opposition, has nothing even remotely close to that. If he did, there would be no such thing as mythicism, obviously. But because there's no documention from any contemporary source, there exists a skeptical position towards the Christ mythology.
"Would the myth makers talk about this mystery truthfully when they knew, (also in Archarys book), that to do so meant death"?
More idiocy. The story is presented as historical to cloak the meaning of the myth. The initiated could see it, the general public could not. And taking Jesus as historical is a large part of that cloaking the meaning from the masses. Hence, as long as you're looking at the meaning as historical you yourself remain duped by the work of the writers...
It stated in the Gnostics that Jesus was put to death because he did! Why would a Myth be put to death? I can already hear the answer, "He had to be to satisfy the mythology of Osiris." Then there is another question that needs to be answered, "What was the so called myth of Osiris based on? Sir W. Budge said that, "It had to be based on something"! Was Mr. Budge wrong also? The question of if Jesus was a real person depends on that answer.
So you threw an idiocy cherry on top of it all. A myth symbolizing the annual cycle of the sun and organic life has to involve a death and resurrection motif, or else it wouldn't represent these two natural cycles at all and hence the myth would be meaningless without the inclusion. Yes, the question of Jesus as a real person does depend on that answer, troll bag. And at the end of the day you have nothing valid to add to the ongoing burden of proof for an historical gospel Jesus...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Tat, I agree with you that Al is off track with his imagination of Christ as a magical alchemist, but it really is not productive for you to respond so aggressively. His trolling seems to be quite harmless on the surface, presenting another faith-based view that can be rebutted by reason, in order to show how the mythicist view is rational. Even if Al gets it wrong, it is better to respond with logic than with abuse. Other people view astrotheology as just as fanciful and fringe as alchemy. Making hostile comments may not encourage people to listen to positive comments you make. It is frustrating to see Al's lack of understanding of Murdock's work, and I don't think he will convince anyone of his unique fantasy, but I remain of the view that politeness and courtesy and reason are the only way to encourage respect and dialogue and learning. Flame wars don't help anyone. At least Al is interested in how Christianity links to Egypt.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

DWill wrote:Well, this is not exactly the right thread on which to post this, but pardon me, I can't locate the idea of Robert's I wanted to talk about. I believe he said that the impetus for the Jesus story could be the trauma felt by Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple. Although I'm sure there was trauma, the creation of Jesus would appear to be very much a minority response. Why would just a tiny sect of Jews respond that way to the catastrophe? It makes more sense to me to view all the Gospel writings as basically gentile in perspective and origin, which would remove the temple destruction as a crucial event. This would also explain the always puzzling narrative point of view in the Gospels, with the narrators frequently denouncing "the Jews" as though they are other than the group to which the narrator belongs. There is, of course, traditional support for gentile authorship, at least in the case of the eponymous author of Luke, who is held to have been a Greek physician. But I would speculate that all of the authors could be gentile, even Mark, who is often called the most "Jewish."
This idea is one I have been considering for a while. Most recently, at Conclusion, I said "My view on all this is that the Gospels must be interpreted against the political needs of syncretic religion of Egypt in the second century. The time of Christ was then far enough in the past that no one was alive who could refute the fantasy, The story of the ‘one who died for all’, Christ as the forgiving redeemer, met deeply felt emotional needs, especially in view of the massive trauma arising from the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The key objective was to produce texts that were believable, if miraculous, and this objective was pursued with great attention to detail in the psychological portraits of Christ."

A while ago, at http://www.booktalk.org/post36227.html#p36227 I cited Josephus on the scale of the destruction. We also discussed this trauma idea at http://www.booktalk.org/post61607.html#p61607

I find it an important factor. In The Jews Against Rome, Susan Sorek claims the destruction of Israel was the biggest war in Roman history. As we consider how this massive event resonated in popular memory, the displacement of this trauma into the myth of Christ, one who died for all, helped people to transform the scale and horror of Roman aggression into a positive story of cosmic redemption. Rome was triumphant, and her enemies were banned from making direct criticism of the Empire. So they had to express their criticism as allegory, with the myth of the anointed savior.

I doubt that the Christians were 'a tiny sect of Jews'. Rather, they were originally intellectuals who sought to provide an explanation that brought together all the traditions who were thrown together by the Empire. Philo was a Jew who brought the Greek concept of Logos (reason) into play as a precursor of the Christian idea of the word made flesh. It seems the Christians wanted to transform Judaism into a religion suitable for the common era, recognising that sticking with older traditions would not resonate with popular culture.
There would certainly have been a power struggle between the newer religion and the older. Perhaps the newer religion begins as a rival strand of Judaism, who adopted or created the figure of Jesus, but who could not get the establishment to go along with their belief in him as the Messiah. Whether or not any of the history in the Gospels is real, it could come to be received as real by the gentile authors, who had joined up with the rival sect. My bet is still that the Gospel authors saw themselves as engaged in a battle with the Jews and that they believed they had historical truth on their side. They faithfully report this purported history, in the sense that they include inconvenient or embarrassing details about Jesus which they would have omitted if they were fictionalizing. They are far from disinterested observers overall, of course, as they take pans to pin the death of Jesus on the Jews. They could be currying favor with the Romans, who, in any scenario likely to have been historical, could be expected to have been less hands-off than the Romans in the Gospels.

For this version to have validity, it isn't necessary for Jesus to have been historical. But it does to me seem likely that there was a historical prompt of some sort, perhaps in the Jesus reported by the Talmud to have been crucified around 100 BCE.
The "inconvenient details" are actually there to make the whole story more plausible and give it the semblance of real history. It is really worthwhile to read Earl Doherty's Jesus Neither God Nor Man on all this. He absolutely demolishes the historical Jesus theory. It is utterly absurd to claim Jesus was real against the fact that no one mentions Jesus as being in Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem or Jerusalem until these fictional details are invented by the Gospel of Mark, at least sixty years after Jesus purportedly died. The silences of the Epistles show that none of their authors had any awareness whatsoever of the incarnation history as presented in the Gospels.

It all reminds me of Don Quixote, with his mockery of the romances of knights in shining armor. The Gospels were the great template for imaginative fantasy, followed up by the Arthurian legends.

The primary "historical prompt" was the Roman war on Israel and the collective Jewish resistance. If some one in the first century actually inspired the Gospels (other than Paul), while managing to completely avoid all notice and mention by interested historians, he bears very little resemblance to the imaginative fiction of the Gospels, which most certainly could not have escaped all notice, especially in all the Epistles, if they had any truth. My view is that reconstructing such a source figure has to draw primarily on astrotheology, depicting 'Jesus Christ' as a theorist who explained the turning point of time marked by the new age of precession of the equinox.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Tat, I agree with you that Al is off track with his imagination of Christ as a magical alchemist, but it really is not productive for you to respond so aggressively.
Oh you know me Robert, I live by the sword a good portion of the time. You can play astrotheological Jesus and I'll play astrotheological Peter. lol
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.
AlSylvester
Permanent Ink Finger
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:23 pm
12
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Hi Tat, Massey asked a question in his book, "and how can you have a son by a sword."? It is about your astrotheology and as you live by the sword, perhaps you can answer. Also, 'Isis wore a necklace made of 9 beads or stones."? Why, also, the Egyptians put 9 shiny beads in with the dead when they buried them, Why? Seems they liked 9 for some reason. Perhaps you can tell me why they raised a Serpent on a Cross in September, a Serpent of Life (Massey)! Why? Why did they have "orgies in the first part of October? Why did they place things on hills and high places in oct.? Why did they raise a Djed Pillar with a "Tit and Lion cloth' on it? and this last is not because of a Garment of shame! You know so much, answer these and ill go away forever, but they have to be the correct answers. Do they apply here, Yes they do as it is all Egyptian Mythology. Actually, Im going away anyhow as it is hard to educate the ignorant. and to all, sorry if I have disturbed this forum. It is not my imagination, I just know what the past is based on. There is a reason and there is a base for all of this as Sir W. Budge said!

Al
User avatar
FTL99
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:32 pm
12
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

Well, the points 'AlSylvester' mentioned that are on topic here at this forum and covered in the book, Christ in Egypt are:

- Lots of discussions of Serpents for many reasons

- Thorough discussion of the Djed Pillar and related festivals

- As well as many quotes and citations from Sir W. Budge
AlSylvester
Permanent Ink Finger
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:23 pm
12
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Christ in Egypt: A Philosophical Deconstruction of Christianity

Unread post

From my imagination- The white Stone in alchemy, the "magic of egypt' as described in the gnostics, is John the Baptist! The white stone is made, "with the head off," is connected to female only. Is the lessor stone as the other has to be augmented further as is said about Jesus. Is shown by several alchemists as a white man chopped up with his head cut off. evidently they also figured it was about John. Also, on the djed Pillar, the "Garment of shame' is actually about matter brought forth by the female or soul only. In the process that this is from, it is done at that point by the moon only! Some call it the virgin birth. It is done in september, the ninth month. Note, there are three months till Dec. Tied to the three stars in Orions belt, and to the dog star as well as Sirius (Osiris). Osiris is tied to seven spirits, so is jesus in one of the gospels. the three is the first three of the seven. The Last four end in April,? Easter to some! If you want to destroy religion, a discussion of what might be is not the answer. The Truth is even more rediculous than one can imagine. What would the world think if they knew, religion is all from a rotten egg going through a process to perfection?

December is yes, about the rebirth of the sun, first Day of the Creation! It is also now the birth of christ. But to the ancients, that knew, it was when Osiris joined with Horus. See the design on the back of the doller bill? That is what and where he joins. also is tied to as i said, Orions belt, the true explanation.

Did you know the Serpents represent the Lights? The lights renew, the serpents were used for that reason. Why in September One Serpent is used and hung on a cross. It is because One Light performed the part of the process during that month. The matter is dried in moonlight only. This is the same as "The dry land Called Earth in Genesis. It is Osiris reborn, as it is life from death. Why nine shiney beads were placed with the dead! 'The image of the dead who has attained a soul or starry self in the second life, which was typified by Orion, the constellation of Horus." Note the "Soul" regained? This is from the ninth month in moonlight only. The soul is from the moon! The nine shinney beads was for the hope of a new life for the dead person being buried on the ninth month!

Jesus said, 'Think not that i came to send peace on Earth, I came not to send Peace, but a Sword." This shows in part Jesus was a pagan, which he was, the sword is used to represent the Obelisk and so what Jesus is saying is that he is bringing "Spirit" to the earth, which is why baptism. Alchemists still today use any single pointed object to represent the sun, and spirit! This saying has surly been misunderstood, but why not, the past is still unknown and just might stay that way.

Lastly, Jesus being asked when his Kingdom would come replied, "When you have trampled underfoot the Garment of shame, when two shall be one, when that which is without shall be like that which is within, and when the male and the female shall be neither male or female." This is exactly what I do in the process. The garment of shame means your at the step of the dry land earth. The matter is androgynous as Adam, and only has soul, thus the shame! Making the inner like the outer is drying the matter by the moonlight and it becomes a perfect White color at this point, or, the inner is like the outer. The next step is tied to the Djed and the tit and lion cloth tied to it, Osiris can't be a regular man and woman as you and I. He must be further augmented. In alchemy, this is the next "Crowned androgynous material." This is what happens the three days till December! Then you have the God like male and female, it has to be made into One God, or, Osiris the male and female is raised a God as Horus in April! The time period is from Dec. to April, the four of the seven. This is why the three stars of Orion and Sirius and the sun (Horus) align in dec.! This is why they are three "Wise Men." This is what is the "Wisdom of Sophia" when you understand it all! This is the "magic of Egypt that Jesus learned! This is what I call alchemy today, which has never been explained either, until now!

There are hundreds of things that can be explained by this process, and Jesus knew it. Most of what he said is explained by this process or magic!

Al
Last edited by AlSylvester on Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection - by D.M. Murdock”