Talk:Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism/Archive 1

message: Set and Seth are etymologically identical, and culturally identical - its like the variation between "Iesu" and "Jesus" in the latin mass. 
I can't remember why, but its something to do with (t) and (th) being simply variations due accents or something.
There is also another word for Set which is Sutekh.
See Set (god) where there is a full list of alternate terms for Set.
CheeseDreams 12:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set 

message: Mpolo's comment in the text about "who thinks this" with regard to Osiris being pronounced "Azer". The response is
:About 99% of demotic scholars. "Osiris" is used in english and derived from the greek attempt to pronounce the name (likewise "Horus" is really "Haru"). Other suggestions are "oser", but thats considered implausible - see Osiris for details.
:I would point out that "El-osiris (i.e. losiris)" looks remarkably like "Lazarus" anyway, not that that is important. Basically the demotic for "Osiris" is "Azer"(or something similar, almost 99% think its Azer). Applying the hebrew practice of Theophory makes this El-Azer (an alternate would be Azer-el or Jo-azer etc., though El-Azer would be most likely as this is "God is Azer" i.e. "God is Osiris", the POV of the Osiris cult). Elazer is a very hebrew looking name and greek translation would apply greek naming conventions - rule 1=endings, rule 2=should-start-with-a-consonant thus rule 1=(+os), rule 2=(-e) thus Lazeros (n.b. the rules are not compulsory but very few exceptions occur, thus dictating that they are the most likely course of events).CheeseDreams 18:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My point in the "Who thinks this?" comments is that you have documented maybe one scholar in one paragraph of the whole article. This is not serious encyclopedia writing. I am only asking that you indicate the support for the statements. In this case, it would be enough to say that "students of Demotic" (optionally "including Al-Zarif the Magnificent") state that. I wasn't disputing the fact, just asking for its support. That should be in the article as well, so that the reader can make that judgement. "Some scholars", which begins every third sentence of the current article, is useless. Be careful with your "similis huic ergo propter hoc" arguments, as well. You haven't established a causal relationship, only a similarity in a name. Mpolo 20:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Also see Mizraim (you will have to see the article to understand the connection) CheeseDreams 20:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osiris 

message: Basically, early versions of Set had Set being a brother to Osiris, but eventually had syncretism with Apep (the serpent) becoming the arch enemy (it is thought that it was a cult favoured by some opposed to Egyptian Unification, and when their rebellion failed, the Set cult became viewed in a bad light). CheeseDreams 18:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set as adversary 

message: The "versions" of the myth are not the myth at different dates.
I had lost the names, but Ben Standevan found some of them.
Essentially, 
Horus the child- Harpocrates (Har-Pa-Khered) is the form depicted as a child whose mother is Isis.
Horus son of Isis - Harsiesis (Har-Sa-Iset) is the form which is part of the Osiris-Isis-Horus trinity with father Osiris, mother Isis, and is adult.
Horus of the two horizons (Har-Khutti) (one of the earlier syncretisms) is the form with 12 followers.
Har-makhet is the form where Horus is the god of the morning sun, and keeps secret wisdom (teaching mankind etc) - this is the form the Sphinx statue may be based on.
Horus the Elder (Haroeris) is the early form with one eye the sun, another the moon, brother of Osiris and Set.
Horus Raharakhte is a syncretism with Ra, making Horus a sun god.
Horus saviour of his father- Harendotes (Har-nedj-itef) is the form where horus resurrects Osiris aka Lazarus.
Horus Bedhuti is the form where Horus is the son/husband/both of Hathor/Meri.
I was intending to put these names in, by the way, once I had found out what they were.
CheeseDreams 12:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horus myths 

message: I have found a reference for that image (the nativity image), its from the (pre-Christian) Temple of Amen at Luxor, built by Amenhotep III. The holy spirit (transmitted by the Ankh) is called Kneph. The goddess holding the hand of the mother whilst Thoth transmits Kneph to the mother (via the ankh) is Hathor, by the way (who in other versions of the story IS the mother).
Oh, Ive made a typo. Its seb not set (as the consort of Meri). The etymology for Seb is similar, b->ph is fairly standard amongst linguistic changes, maybe a reference explaining how that works would be best, ill look for one. The change is most pronounced in arabic, an even later seperation - where there is no p sound at all (the p sound has gone p -> f -> h ->() )
:Here is the etymology. Aramaic languages do not really recognise or sound the difference between plosives and fricative equivalents (e.g. b compared to v), to the extent that they are even written with the same letter of the alphabet. I.e. to an native aramaic speaker, b and v sound identical, or near-identical (to the extent that telling them apart is difficult).I.e. If someone said "Seb did this" you wouldn't be able to tell that apart from "Sev did this". It is further one of the language laws that, given the opportunity, sounds will become unvoiced (for reasons of effort to make them voiced) - i.e. v->f etc. 
:Thus when an aramaic speaker hears the story of "Seb", they are most likely to record it as the story of "Sef" (similarly other things get changed). In greek "f" is represented as "ph" i.e. it becomes the story of "Seph". With the standard "lord" theophoric prefix from hebrew (a language where theophory in names was standard practice), i.e. "Jo-", it becomes "Joseph". Such strange changes of name are common at the time, for example, the persian "Khshayarsluf" became the greek "Xerxes" (which initially appears to look nothing like it), and the persian "Nabukudurriusur" became the hebrew "N'vuchadnetzar" CheeseDreams 17:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind signing your edits in each section? Thanks. Wesley 03:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, I wrote the sections all in one go. CheeseDreams 17:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horus Nativity 

message: And there is this too, Iu-em-hetep (before 1000BC) was a miraculous healer, who gave wise teaching, and came in peace. Now of course it would be nonsense to suggest that's the proto-type for Jesus, except for the fact that even in the 9th century, Iu was being used as a name for Jesus (e.g. in a church on Caldy Island, Pembrokeshire, Wales). CheeseDreams 16:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... if the gnostics did believe that the events in the gospels were counterparts of what took place above, that's not at all the same thing as saying they were invented stories based on pre-existing myths. They could very well have had in mind plato's notion of ideals. Wesley 05:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its saying they understood the stories as representations of astronomy. Which is the origin of the pre-existing myths. (oh, and in consequence did not view them as historical events) CheeseDreams 23:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other miscellanious things 

message: I was not aware that Demeter was considered Osiris-Dionysus. I will check out this one, as the Eleusinian Mysteries were really rather famous.
CheeseDreams 12:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleusinian mysteries 

message: By "some christians .... 25th december"
I was referring to the Coptic church's disagreement of the date rather than the Orthodox's. CheeseDreams 12:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas 

message: That grafitto has a donkey's head, which is associated with Dionysus. CheeseDreams 12:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  grafitto 

message: Zoroastrianism doesn't contain the cult of Mithra. Its stricly mono-theistic now, and previously was strictly dualist and had angels not other gods.
What the Magi did to the religion, in creating and sustaining the Mithra cult, is regarded by Zoroastrians as a perversion of the religion. And the pure form continued to exist parallel to the Mithra cult.
Thus I prefer my sentence
"The caste of priests responsible for the cult of Mithra"
rather than
"The caste of priests of the Zoroastrian religion"
which is not accurate.CheeseDreams 12:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, they were the cultists. Orthodox zoroastrianism didn't have the magi. The magi were known for their taste for ritual and things (i.e. their upholding the idea of ritual worship) (as well as astrology, something they were also famous for) and this fame is the reason we have the term "magician" (which derives from magi). Orthodox zoroastrianism was much purer a religion, less cluttered with rituals etc. and more like buddhism (though obviously still quite different).CheeseDreams 07:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mithra 

message: The 108 degree angle is also a 72 degree angle - it depends on which side you construct it. Remember that some ancients preferred not to consider angles existed that were larger than a right angle. If you continue the line of one side past its end point, it makes a 72 degree angle with the next side. This was the common method of construction, and you will often see the continuation lines drawn in on more scientific drawings.
Although the points in a pentagram meet at 36 degree angles, these angles are a result not part of the construction. The pentagram is geometrically formed by extending a pentagon's sides until they meet up. In extending the sides, they automatically create the above 72 degree angle at the pentagon where the extension leaves the pentagon. Thus a pentagram is FORMED by 72 degree angles rather than 36 degree ones. CheeseDreams 13:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagrams 

message: Gibbon's work on the fall of Rome includes a famous passage on the Mithra cult, which might be worth quoting here. --Christofurio 16:56, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
:Mithra or Mithras?
:If you mean Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history, then that is really covered in Jesus and textual evidence in the section about Letters of Herod and Pilate, although Mpolo took out the detail as it was flogging a dead horse. Maybe the quote ought be put in instead to make it read more nicely? I won't put it in if Mpolo objects, as I don't see it as fundamental, just nice. CheeseDreams 18:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to a copy of decline and fall of the roman empire, so I might search online for it, but it would be quicker if you could provide the quote. CheeseDreams 18:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mithra(s) Cult 

message: I have taken out the story of the 5000 & 4000 and of gematria in Apocalypsus/Revelations as on re-reading it, I noticed (a) it isn't really about syncretism (b) it is about secret teachings in mark / understanding the anti-roman polemic of revelations - the gnosticism section on the historicity main article seems a better place to put them. CheeseDreams 22:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding 9000