Page 2 of 6

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:02 am
by Robert Tulip
What we see here are deep slow currents of cultural change. Adherents of existing paradigms have emotional attachment to their belief systems, and are not amenable to examining evidence that disrupts their assumptions.

The scientific enlightenment emphasised a distinction between facts and myths, denigrating myth as false. So, when astrotheology argues that myths are allegory for natural observation, the emotional beliefs of scientists kick in to say all this discussion is irrational, and they really struggle to understand what is being discussed.

The scientific attitude has its roots in old Christian dogma, for example the claim that Noah's Ark is a historical fact while Greco-Roman mythology is imaginary fantasy. This sounds strange these days, as we all know that Noah's Ark is just as imaginary as Zeus. But transferring the discussion to the existence of Christ is a very different kettle of fish. 99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away.

Astrotheology opens a path to a new paradigm regarding the relation of humanity and nature. The old Abrahamic idea of humans as superior to and separate from the natural world is very deeply ingrained, and it takes far more than evidence and argument to shift it. It is rather like the slow process of tectonic shift. Steady slow pressure over a long period eventually results in a sudden big realignment. A natural earthquake is similar to the cultural tremors that occur when the zeitgeist shifts.

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:33 am
by Robert Tulip
FTL99 wrote: the notion that pre-WW2 scholarship is "outdated," as has been claimed by Richard Carrier.
This Carrier fellow seems unduly polemical. It is false to assume a linear progress theory of scholarship. Reading Gerald Massey, and also the amazing work of Alvin Boyd Kuhn, it is obvious that scholarship moves both forward and backward, as older research is forgotten and interests change. Some brilliant scholars are neglected. Theology in the twentieth century simply failed to take account of what Massey and Kuhn said.

Carrier's specious argument rejecting the value of older work on Christianity and Egypt is a bit like someone saying in the fourth century that Egyptian myth was outdated because it had been superseded by Christianity, or a Russian biologist saying Mendel was outdated because he had been superseded by Lysenko...

Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary. Carrier may not be an apologist himself, but he has engaged with casuistic theological disputes that make no sense if you take the mythicist argument seriously, such as on the supposed empty tomb on Easter Sunday.

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:55 pm
by AlSylvester
"99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away."

The Truth is that there is more to the story. The Gospels seem fradulant because there is no scholar that knows what they are based on. Was Jesus a myth based on the Ancient Religion of Egypt, Osiris and Isis? I would think it necessary to know what Osiris was based on. As that has never been explained, how is it anyone can say what is the myth, or what is the fact of the idea and how understood. It would seem that obviously, it was based on something! Sir W. Budge said that it must have been based on something (Cleopatras Needle) but he believed that it was lost! Point, Sir W Budge believed it was based on something, but is it truly lost? How can a scholar prove anything of the past if they do not know what it all was based on? How can any of you even discuss it?

Al

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:01 pm
by AlSylvester
"Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary."


In many or most of the past religions of the region discussed, most had a Virgin Birth. The above statement would seem to indicate then that all were based on Isis! For this to be True, then it would mean that Isis was the original. But, then how is it there are older religions and they also have the Virgin Birth. Seems there must be more that we need to find out before we can state what is based on which.

Al

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:48 am
by tat tvam asi
AlSylvester wrote:"99% of Christians simply cannot imagine that the Gospels are fraudulent. This is so very unsettling that instincts of denial set up barriers straight away."

The Truth is that there is more to the story. The Gospels seem fradulant because there is no scholar that knows what they are based on. Was Jesus a myth based on the Ancient Religion of Egypt, Osiris and Isis? I would think it necessary to know what Osiris was based on. As that has never been explained, how is it anyone can say what is the myth, or what is the fact of the idea and how understood. It would seem that obviously, it was based on something! Sir W. Budge said that it must have been based on something (Cleopatras Needle) but he believed that it was lost! Point, Sir W Budge believed it was based on something, but is it truly lost? How can a scholar prove anything of the past if they do not know what it all was based on? How can any of you even discuss it?

Al
This comes across as if you haven't read the book and are confused about the content of the book Al. If that is the case then I can briefly point out that Murdock goes over the myths what is discovered is that Osiris is a personification of the suns journey through the night, the underworld as the Egyptians believed. They thought that the sun went under the earth during the evening and Osiris pretty much represented the sun from midnight until dawn, at which point the became Horus born of the virgin dawn. In short, the myth is based on the sun.
Al wrote:"Murdock's critique of Carrier's sexual misreading of Egyptian myth is something we might discuss when we get up to the chapter about how the Egyptian goddess Isis was the template for the virgin Mary."


In many or most of the past religions of the region discussed, most had a Virgin Birth. The above statement would seem to indicate then that all were based on Isis! For this to be True, then it would mean that Isis was the original. But, then how is it there are older religions and they also have the Virgin Birth. Seems there must be more that we need to find out before we can state what is based on which.

Al
Yes, and in Murdocks other works she discusses the various virgin mothers and indeed the virgin mother motif in general as concerns dawn Goddesses and such. But the discussion in CiE pin points a specific link between Egyptian religion and Christianity. The front cover says everything. Mary and Jesus have been fashioned to duplicate images of Isis and Horus. There is no statement saying that all virgin dawn Goddesses were based on Isis. What Robert is referring to is specific chapter about Richard Carrier which will be discussed when we reach that chapter.

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:14 pm
by AlSylvester
Hi Tat, First I don't want to get into it in depth because, well many reasons and as you indicated, we are not yet at that chapter.

"over the myths what is discovered is that Osiris is a personification of the suns journey through the night, the underworld as the Egyptians believed. They thought that the sun went under the earth during the evening and Osiris pretty much represented the sun from midnight until dawn, at which point the became Horus born of the virgin dawn. In short, the myth is based on the sun." Yes, there is a lot of Truth to this statement. But there is more information that is unknown. The basis of all the past has to do with a Process that perfected matter. This process is Platonics! It is tied to Astrology. It is a copy of the Creation. All our burial customs are based on it. Heaven, spirit (Sun) soul (moon) all is from this process. All secret Societies are about it yet, it is totally unknown! Alchemy, is actually the Lost Past and from Ancient Egypt. Alchemy is totally unknown! It is not about in any way, Lab processes. Yet, there are Lab Alchemists all over the world. Yes, it is also about the sun as it moves throughout the yearly cycle. In fact, the Emerald Tablet said, "It is a work of the sun!' But, Tat, it is not about the sun! "A work of the Sun.! This should indicate to you that somehow something is changed by the sun. It is about matter and how to Perfect the matter. This perfected matter made you a "Christos" if you took it or were fed it over time. In other words, you became perfected by it. This process is what Osiris was based on, and so, eventually Jesus. Jesus knew this process, all about it and used the substance to cure the sick in his name! Yet, all this is unknown! How could a myth know of this information? I would say that because Jesus knew it, he was a man, and would be defined as an alchemists and Holy Man as he was. Yet no scholar know this information! I would think that if any of what I have said was True, all would want to know and see the evidence, to finally know our past and what it was about.

And so a question. Do I stay here and as the material is discussed explain the Truth to what is being discussed, or would you rather I just leave and let blogtalk be? It is not my goal to upset anyone, especially Acharya as I think she is a special person and I do have Great Respect for her. But it is about what may be the past as all should know it. It is as Mr budge said, "Based on something" and the knowledge of it will change everything. Sorry, everything is tied to it and so it cannot be easilly explained. Please remember it has never been explained. Consider the religion of Egypt, Osiris, knowing Egypt and some of what they acomplished, do you think the religion is based on Myth?

Al

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:20 am
by tat tvam asi
Yes, the Egyptian religion is based on a mythology. All religions are based on mythologies though. And within these mythologies are mythological subject matter. John Anthony West is convinced that the Egyptians were up to alchemy and he devoted and entire series to trying to prove it. But CiE is not concerned with zeroing in on alchemical information. This book is concerned with simply documenting many of the parallels between the Egyptian religion of resurrection and the Christian religion of resurrection. The further details beneath these correspondences don't really concern the intent of CiE. They may or may not be there, it doesn't really matter. The book is not about looking for some valid alchemical material passed from Egypt to Christianity. The book is about looking at how the mythology of Jesus could have been created as a hybridizing religious effort conducted by Alexandrian Hellenized Jews and others, perhaps ordered to try and create such a hybrid. We'll get into that as the book goes along.

If you wish to make assertions about Jesus being a real man who knew this, or said that, we'll have to start at square one and ask that you meet the burden of proof and provide credible evidence showing beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus is even based on one particular historical person. You need to start with the evidence and then move forward from there. Can you do that?

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:27 pm
by AlSylvester
Hi Tat,

Yes, I believe I can. Let me tell you quickly. The ancients found how to perfect matter with nature.That perfected matter Jesus had. All true alchemists had it,. They all knew and explained 1 and the same process. It became the religion of Osiris. You know a lot of the rest. What I can do is explain the process. The steps are linked to our religious holidays. They are linked to everything the ancients did in Egypt. They are linked to astrology. They are linked to the Secret Societies, and lastly, the Gnostic Gospels are all about the process. Everybody knew this process, and I am sure there are some that know it today. I know it, and I am willing to explain it. Now I am willing to do just that. All i require is a bunch of your group to work with me to learn, not argue every point or everything I say. So much is tied to it, even Darwin. When you know all of it, then you will be able to see why Jesus was a real person. What Osiris is based on and so, the catholic religion. You will know many of what has been said is wrong. You will know that without the understanding, nothing of the past can be truly explained. You will know where organized religion came from, where God came from, why all the link to the sun, everything can be explained. But, I won't do it unless i can get what i want. That is just as I said, a bunch to work with that will try to learn and understand. There is just so much to it that it really takes time and alchemical information to understand.

Why I am saying this? I have at other places tried to explain, one the first day arguing starts. Why? God is about recycling matter. They believed it was perfected and that proved God as he is the only perfect thing. It was about an egg and a pyramid. Sounds nuts right off, but check ancient Egypt, that is what they believed. Most people want to believe in god and Spirit and soul. All is from this process, and how they understood it. Today, few if any will believe any of it because all want to believe in something. Spirit as all think we have is the essence collected from the sun. Do you believe in Adam, that your a long time descendent of his? That there was a Garden and original creation? Do you want to know Genesis is about what is outside right now? All was understood by them from what and how they understood. You will not see things that way now. so, what will be left for you to believe in? To me there is no problem with it because with what i found, I see intelligent design in everything. To me that is God. I believe in a God of nature just as most educated of the past believed. Beyond that there is little else.

I use Massey. I have hundreds of things from his books that he couldn't explain that ties to this process that he never knew. John A. West doesn't know it either. I will explain the Secret Societies, whatever you want explained, no problem. Lots to cover, and I will do all of it. But, what will be the end result?

when you know all this, and know that Jesus knew it, does that mean he was a real person? To me it does. yes he was tied to the myth. The chirch wanted to control the people. The people knew the ancient religion and celebrasted it. The church simply changed the names and why they celebrated and tried to destroy everything of the past. The alchemist knew though. They carried it on as best they could. You do not know alchemy, neither does anyone else except for myself. When you do know it, then everything you thought you knew will change. You set it up somehow, and I will do exactly as I said. It is important for many reasons. Just consider, what if I am right. I give you my word, you will not waste your time.

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:09 am
by tat tvam asi
Does that prove beyond doubt that such a man as the Jesus of the gospels ever existed? No, not even close. You've just speculated that because you think this character in a story expressed knowledge of alchemical procresses that you yourself claim to know, that Jesus must have been historical. What if the story was written by esoterics who were trying to combine their alchemical knoweldge into a storyline avatar for the age of Pisces so as to have a means to pass along their collected knoweldge dating to deep antiquity? Then the alchemical knowledge would be present and yet the person in the story would be a fictional figure head serving the purpose of representing a certain body of knowledge, not literal history.

If you understand so little about the Genesis myth, as you've shown me by your commentary on Genesis, then why would I look to you as a teacher? That would be more the case of the blind wishing to lead the blind further along into the darkness of confusion. The world is over run by confusion and much of it relates to religious mythology - the world is a Babylon the Great of sorts, a great confusion. The Christ myth is no exception. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks that the real Jesus was this or that. But all of this comes from skipping over the first step of first settling the issue of whether or not the mythology was even based on an historical person to begin with and then proceeding from there...

Re: Christ In Egypt: Introductory Remarks

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:47 am
by Interbane
The ancients found how to perfect matter with nature.That perfected matter Jesus had. All true alchemists had it,.
"Perfection" isn't a characteristic of matter. It only applies in the sense of how a person wants to use the matter, or to what ends.

It's a nonsensical idea clouded in subjectivity. There are a large number of ways to interpret any given single event or phenomena, which is why the discipline of science is needed. It's a filter, to ensure all the world uses the same words for the same phenomena. To ensure the characteristics described are primary/objective rather than subjective and interpretive. If you translated all your beliefs into mainstream terminology and ideas, the fog of mysticism would vanish.

What you really need is a bunch of people to argue every point and play devil's advocate. Not a bunch of lemurs agreeing with your every word. However, that discussion is for another thread, it's a tangent in this thread. Re-post in your other threads if you wish to continue Sly, they're still here.