Rule
Posts: 7806
Joined: 12/5/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella I'm thinking this is a bit of an oversimplification. If it were true, then when old whats-his-name (deformed guy married to Nefertiti) tried to introduce monotheistic sun worship to Egypt, it would have taken. But that concept was so foreign to them, the idea of one almighty god, it didn't last past the pharaoh's death. I just now looked up pharao Akhenaten. I suspect that the monotheism introduced by him did not take because the ruling incarnate god of the Jews was murdered during Akhenaten's reign, even probably at the end of it. From that moment onwards nearly nothing is known about the conditions in heaven. quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella In the Greek pantheon, what was the representation of the non-corporeal, omnipresent divine? Zeus? The Titans? The Muses? I don't think a guy whose wife regularly bested him or a group who was led by a guy whose infant son killed him and the rest are the best examples of ultimate godhood. The muses might stand a chance at it, but there were seven (I think? It's nearly 5 AM and I'm really not in the mood to open a tabfest on my browser) and why split one into seven? I suppose you could ask, why split it into three, but they didn't really do much splitting in early Christianity, more of a re-working the facts to fit a pre-chosen conclusion. Mithras lives, now he's a Jew. I nearly broke my neck or something, trying to retrieve my Larousse World Mythology from above a couple of boxes on top of a book rack. The Greek called the Divine 'mythos'. (It was in the first line.) I have concluded that the Greeks 'simplified' their mythology, possibly for reason of political correctness. Thus the simple answer would be that Zeus was identified with the 'mythos'. The gods are all crazy, but each in their own aspect are more human than ordinary humans: either stronger, or more compassionate, or more creative, or more maternal and paternal, or more dominant, or... Mithras, yes. quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella Oh and BTW yes, "god" and "good" are likely linguistically linked, that I wouldn't have argued with, but saying one is derived from the other, well...hell I have a linguistics fetish and I can't force myself through more than a few pages of PIE theorizing without wondering "how the bloody hell do they fit this half syllable into twenty different unrelated English words???" Proto-Indo-European. I get the impression that you know far more about these matters than I do. quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella Also, totally unrelated, but after hearing one too many of my fiance's colorful Aussie sayings, I looked up the origin and while I couldn't find it, I found virtually identical phrases in 17th-18th century English thieves cant, which I found absolutely hilarious and immediately commenced teasing him about. quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella ETA: I hate to feel like the history police here but the etymology of "Jew" is from Hebrew "Yehudah" which derives from the place-name Judah and is usedd to refer to the tribes of Israel. And damn it you made me open another tab, cause I knew it was derived from "Judah" but didn't want to just say it based on My Word Alone(tm) so here. Bloody enjoy it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word) ETA #2 After posting that I realized that if we want to go back to PIE, the name Judah means "praised/celebrated" which could definitely have come from that PIE root that gave us God. Thats pretty freaking awesome. I was looking at "Jew" as an "iu" sound, as in "Iudaea" but reading it as ye-hu-dah and knowing how hebrew pronounces some "h" sounds...it totally could be related to "ghut." Great. See? I am always right. I got there by another line of reasoning. It is satisfying that you arrived at the same conclusion by a different route. Well done!
|