The sun is the most dominant celestial body. A god that is definitely the sun is ATEN. Not only was Aten the life (ankh) giving (rays) force, responsible for everything (because without the sun nothing could live), but it was also the ONE god of Akhenaten. Judaism can be regarded as a henotheism, allowing other gods, but it is usually regarded as monotheism too. It was the second monotheistic religion, after Akhenaten's SUN-god. That means something.
When Jesus was promoted from semi-god to God himself (which I find a rather stupid idea) and lived in a period that the Greeks ruled Egypt, it is very possible that adaptation took place (just as I explained in the Isis-Mery discussion). What was the main purpose of this adaptation? Maybe, to explain Jesus to people familiair with the sun-god(s). Personally I think that a lot of the meanings behind the Egyptian religion was only understood by Egyptian priests and not shared with the people and definitely not understood by people outside Egypt. The Greeks however were very much involved in Egypt and might have been the force behind the Jesus story. Personally I believe that facts of the struggle of jews against the Romans, were used for a religion based on Greek-Egyptian concepts. The power of the hebrew religion was that it read like history and was used as a foundation for the "new religion". The story of the New Testament became a mixture of history-based and mystical events as well. It was easier to understand, but occult. At the moment many people don't believe in the story as an actual historical event and look for the hidden meaning and find the stories behind them.

A god that is definitely the sun is ATEN.

And also Horus the morning sun, Ra the sun at noon, Amen the sun at dusk, and Osiris the sun after midnight...

^Atum at dusk, no? That was the point, when the sun "gets old" at dusk, it is represented by the oldest of the gods. Though Amen was indeed conflated with Ra to also become a sun god. Prior to that, he was just a local "unknown" god at Thebes. His name in fact means "hidden" or "unseen".

That is not what I meant when I wrote "A god that is definitely the sun is ATEN". I meant that Aten is not depicted as a human not even an animal. It is a disk with rays of hands coming out of it, holding an Ankh, which is a symbol of life. There are no adventure-like stories connected to Aten. It is what it is (doesn't this remind you of "I am that I am"?). There is no need for any interpretation. But what it shows is that the sun was important. But just like today, many people need personal, humanlike gods (religion) and priests need to control the people and they can not do that with something they have no control over, like the sun. To stop the sun in the sky must have been the ultimate proof of power over nature.
I doubt that the common folk of Egypt were aware of the explanations of what their gods represented. Not different from what christians think of Jesus today.

What I find interesting though is that Ankhnaten's dynasty was the same period the Hebrews were in Egypt. Moses was an egyptian raised hebrew (perhaps) who was well aware of the concepts of Egyptian religion.
Hebrews were part of the Egyptian dynasty of pharoahs ever since Joseph was sold to Egypt by his brothers.
The Egyptian-Hebrew connection is clear and during the days of Jesus, Egypt was a Greek province.
The book we are discussing makes it clear that this connection can't be denied.

And now I write this, the destruction of the library at Alexandria comes to mind. Was it to hide what is behind the Christian ideology?

Vishnu wrote:^Atum at dusk, no? That was the point, when the sun "gets old" at dusk, it is represented by the oldest of the gods. Though Amen was indeed conflated with Ra to also become a sun god. Prior to that, he was just a local "unknown" god at Thebes. His name in fact means "hidden" or "unseen".

Yes, the James Allen quote at the beginning of the chapter renders the sunset as "Atum." I always read over that because I've seen Atum - Amen linked as two renderings of the same God elsewhere and it's always stuck.

drdalet wrote:That is not what I meant when I wrote "A god that is definitely the sun is ATEN". I meant that Aten is not depicted as a human not even an animal. It is a disk with rays of hands coming out of it, holding an Ankh, which is a symbol of life.

Hi Dr D.

Here is a picture of what you are talking about, from a blog by a Baptist Professor of Old Testament Studies. You can see the hands and the ankhs. It is interesting there are fourteen sun rays, perhaps symbolising the fourteen pieces into which Set chopped Osiris, and the fourteen days of the waxing or waning moon. Akhenaten, depicted here worshiping the sun with Nefertiti, introduced solar monotheism into Egypt in a revolutionary shift from the old polytheism. His son Tutankhamun restored the old faith, and discovery of his tomb in 1922 is one of the most important discoveries in archaeology. I recently went to a show about King Tut in Melbourne which was superbly illuminating about ancient Egyptian high culture.

There are no adventure-like stories connected to Aten. It is what it is (doesn't this remind you of "I am that I am"?). There is no need for any interpretation. But what it shows is that the sun was important. But just like today, many people need personal, humanlike gods (religion) and priests need to control the people and they can not do that with something they have no control over, like the sun. To stop the sun in the sky must have been the ultimate proof of power over nature.
I doubt that the common folk of Egypt were aware of the explanations of what their gods represented. Not different from what christians think of Jesus today.

Thanks, this is astute and sound social analysis. The link between Aten as the sun and the God of Abraham makes sense. Aten was pre-gender. The control agenda is idolatrous, which is why contemporary fundamentalists seek social control through Bibliolatry. The point of the stopping of the sun in the sky must originally have referred to the solstices, not Joshua's absurd slaughter opportunity.

What I find interesting though is that Ankhnaten's dynasty was the same period the Hebrews were in Egypt. Moses was an egyptian raised hebrew (perhaps) who was well aware of the concepts of Egyptian religion.
Hebrews were part of the Egyptian dynasty of pharoahs ever since Joseph was sold to Egypt by his brothers.

This assumes historicity of Exodus, which leading archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein dispute.

The Egyptian-Hebrew connection is clear and during the days of Jesus, Egypt was a Greek province.

The battle of Actium in 31 BC gave Rome control over the Hellenistic world, so in Jesus' time Egypt was already a Roman province, although Greeks remained culturally dominant, together with large numbers of Jews and Egyptians.

The book we are discussing makes it clear that this connection can't be denied.

Yes, the connection between Egypt and Israel is historically clear. Please see further discussion of this theme, including how Serapis morphed into Christ, at the thread Christ in Egypt: The Alexandrian Roots of Christianity.

This is like the connection between Florida and Georgia. We're talking about side by side communities with Egypt and Israel. I enjoy the map Murdock placed in CiE just to give an overview of the region.

Robert Tulip wrote:

drdalet wrote:What I find interesting though is that Ankhnaten's dynasty was the same period the Hebrews were in Egypt. Moses was an egyptian raised hebrew (perhaps) who was well aware of the concepts of Egyptian religion. Hebrews were part of the Egyptian dynasty of pharoahs ever since Joseph was sold to Egypt by his brothers.

This assumes historicity of Exodus, which leading archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein dispute.

No, it doesn't. As always I refer to the STORY Exodus. For me the Bible is FICTION. But there are many fictional stories that are based on real events and even real people. That does not mean the events happened the way the Story tells it or that the actions of the people in the story actually took place. The aim of the biblical stories is not to tell history, so it becomes FICTION.
I know of numerous stories that are basically not true, but it is in our history-books. Why? Because of the intentions of the people who wrote it.
That is why I don't care what people like Finkelstein say, because these people take the STORY literal and then say it didn't happen. That does not mean that there is no basic truth behind it. For instance: were the Hebrew people EVER in Egypt? How do we know?
(Att.: don't react to these "questions", because I am aware of every theory that exists on that matter - but that is not my point)
If they were never there, the exodus can't have happened, or the country it refers to is the wrong place. But if they were in Egypt, are they still there? No! So when did they leave, how did they leave, why did they leave? In the STORY of Exodus there are hints. I could "translate" the exodus as follows: during a period of several decades (in hebrew the number 4, 40, 400 is an indefinite amount) the hebrew people left Egypt because of natural occurences as described in the "plagues". These are natural occurences, so "God did it". The STORY suggests there was a change of dynasty of pharaohs (which is possible) and they suppressed the hebrew people (this is also possible). They left Egypt, not by the controlled roads at the time, but by the sea of reeds, a swampy area, sometimes dry, sometimes under water (a natural phenomena, so "God did it"). They probably assembled somewhere before moving on in small groups. Etc. etc. I could explain every detail of the story in that way, and if I had time I would write it down as a fictional story.
Finkelstein and others never explain the story in other ways than literal. That's why I find it of no importance. Of course it didn't happen the way it is told!! Not even our "history" is true like that!

I am not a christian and never was.
So if I refer to the STORY I NEVER suggests it happened. I guess my English is too poor to make that clear. It is rather frustrating if I talk about a story and the only comment I get is: "but the story isn't true". I could deal with CiE in the same manner: Jesus never existed, Mary never existed, the stories are all made up and bogus, so why write a book about it at all?

Answer: CiE is not about Jesus being a real person or not. It is about the religious believe of people and where it comes from. So it is not important if Jesus was a real person or not. It is interesting to realise how a fictional story is invented and where it comes from.
It does not mean that WHERE it comes from is TRUE either. The STORIES of Isis, Horus and all the other gods and goddesses are just as insane if you take them literally. But all religious stories are myths, based on actual (natural) occurences, like ebb and flood, day and night, the sun moving in the heavens (yes, I know that is not what actually happens), the moon, the stars, wars among people, sadistic rulers, furocious animals, famine, exaggerated "adventures" of people, etc. etc.
People want answers for how this all takes place and why. We have no need for religion anymore, now that we have science.

Drdalet, There are a few issues in your comment that I would like to respond to. Please understand that people have to respond to what you actually write, and cannot second guess some hidden intention behind your words. So it is important to be precise, so if anything you say is unclear or incorrect it can be up for discussion. For you to say Finkelstein's analysis of exodus is "of no importance" is rather strange. For nearly three thousand years a fictional account has passed itself off as historical. For a scientist to look for the evidence and find there is none for the traditional story is hardly "of no importance". Rather, it allows us to analyse the texts against a real historical framework to try to understand the real motives for writing them.

Your comments on Joseph and Moses appear to take the old myth on face value, especially by speaking of the historical Akhenaten in the same breath as the fictional Moses and Joseph. That is what I was questioning. And I did not say "but the story isn't true", which you attributed to me as a direct quotation. I don't see what you find frustrating here. The Old Testament is powerful as a mythic source, and I would never suggest that its apparent falsity is grounds to say it is not important, as you appear to imply. I simply request that you not mix myth and fact giving the appearance of equal weight to both. After all, that is how myths get their momentum.

This leads to a further non sequitur in your comment "it is not important if Jesus was a real person or not. It is interesting to realise how a fictional story is invented and where it comes from." The problem here is that the only way we can 'realize how a fictional story is invented' is by regarding it as important if Jesus was real, contrary to your suggestion, and applying methodical scientific analysis to assess which parts of the Bible may be true and which are invented.

I hope you will take these comments as constructive, as I welcome your input here, I just find your logic a bit sloppy.