Thank you.

Steve

In the case of Serapis, it's an interpretio type of syncretism where the deities have similar function. It's not the common Egyptian style of syncretism  where the deities have dissimilar function but represent the union of two regions (like the Ra and Amun regional temples of the Two Lands) or maybe maybe a personal god and a tribal god (which is my guess for Ra-Horus.)

Personal god + tribal god is ofc how I imagine the Egyptian Yah deity came about in my evolving hypothesis — Ea in Sin is the 28th lunar day in the Babylonian hemerologies. And here we find the pork proscription, the Sappatu (Sabbath), and the no leeks and garlic mentioned in Exodus. This would match how Mandaeans say Abraham was originally a priest for The Great Life (imo Ea in anuship) but was removed from that responsibility, and they don't say he apostasized from worship afaik but just stepped down, while he also stops at the two major Sin/Suen temple towns, and his family have Sin/Suen style lunar names. Then my guess is that his Lord is first Hammurabi, then the Amorite 14th dynasty - here would be the circumcision.

So henotheism to monotheism. And because it covers vast time and multiple cultures, it's complicated. Jesus to me absolutely sounds like someone who got the very best education for the son of a handmaiden to a Lord, and if he has access to the cracked cuneiform, might be exhibiting an understanding of religious history and not just be enacting traditions of the Antiquarian Revival (the Antiquarian Revival of Seleucid Uruk as it diffuses to Galilee-Peraea via Nabataeans like Chuza and Phaesalis) without understanding it.

In later times this god also acquired the characteristics of the god Osiris, resulting in the god Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.

As the patron deity of craftsmen, builders, and architects, he was worshipped as the ultimate divine artisan who brought the universe into existence using the power of thought and speech.

= = =

Steefen:

Sounds like Jesus in the gospel of John is Ptah and Serapis.

= = =

Ptah-Sokar-Osiris: Over time, Sokar merged with Ptah (the creator god of Memphis) and Osiris (the primary ruler of the underworld) to form the composite deity Ptah-Sokar-Osiris. This combined god represented the cycle of creation, underworld stability, and resurrection.

Steefen:
So when I think of Lord of the Resurrection, I now think of Osiris, Sokar, and Jesus.

Steefen:

I've heard of Osiris and Apis. As per below, until I get used to it, I'll think Serapis-Ptah or Osiris-Apis-Ptah.

= = = =

Mandaean emanations per me:

V1. Enki

V2. Ea (or maybe his son Asar that is Asalluhi?)

V3. Asar that is Osiris

V4. Serapis (which includes Osiris, Ptah, Dionysus)

Meanwhile, the Mandaeans instead keep chugging along the closest to the Sumerian religion, the world's first written religion, as a kind of re-enactment. (This doesn't work too well once the river is polluted by population increase and they lose almost all their priests to cholera - but back when Sumeria had a small population, being in a more sparsely utilized, forcefully cleaning, solarized freshwater river fed by ground water was probably the best way to cleanse a lot of things. Now distilled water in a cleanroom might be.) 

Some ancient historians thought that Dionysus = Dusares, Nabataea 's deity, and obv I think Nabataea is backing the Jesus movement. My latest take is that Dusares = Dasares (logogram of Enki's son). 

As far as turning water into wine in a physics-based world, distillation is an innovation of the first century in Alexandria Egypt, and then you can simply reconstitute it.

by Francesco Carotta with Arne Eickenberg

** you do not have permission to see this link **

• The Divine Sonship & Virgin Birth: Dionysus was the son of Zeus (the king of the gods) and Semele, a mortal woman. This made him the only Olympian deity born of a human mother, mirroring Jesus as the Son of God born to Mary. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• The Miracles of Wine: Dionysus was the god of wine and was said to miraculously transform water into wine at his festivals. In the Gospel of John, Jesus's very first miracle is turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Later, Jesus declares, "I am the true vine," using direct vineyard imagery. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• Death and Resurrection: In Orphic and Dionysian mythology, Dionysus is attacked, dismembered by the Titans, and subsequently reborn or reconstructed. This cycle of death, descent into the underworld, and bodily resurrection directly mirrors the Christian passion narrative. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• The Ritual of Communion: Dionysian initiates practiced omophagia—the ritual eating of raw flesh and drinking of wine to spiritually absorb the divine essence of the god. This conceptually parallels the Christian Eucharist (the sacrament of consuming the body and blood of Christ).

Porphyry said
Since I joined the forum, I have been struggling to find a category for what the evangelists, especially Mark, understood themselves to be doing as they wrote. 
Rather out of nowhere, it occurred to me that Mark might not have been writing to convince non-believers. Maybe he was writing something like devotional literature for believers. 
What I mean by "devotional literature" is something like what you see in Gibson's Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though "based on a true story", it isn't meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 
It isn't primarily meant to convince skeptics or non-believers. It is meant to make the story come alive and *feel* real for people who already believe it, just like any other devotional art. 
This struck me as a rather profound hermeneutical shift, that makes a lot of things fall into place, but I'm curious how it hits you. 
  

Interesting point. I do notice that Jesus quotes the Old Testament in all of the Gospels, but from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. This seems to imply that the Gospels were written not to evangelize to Pharisees but were writing to the Hellenic audience that comprised most early Christians.

But her fundamental insight to me is that the gospels are acts of literature.  Of course this wasn't a new idea but she has interestingly sketched out some of the implications of that view based on what we know about ancient literary practices. 

I do retain some old fashioned notions.  I still favor the idea that the gospels are something other than Greek bios.  Especially Mark.  They are unique and their relation to each other is unique in ancient literature. 

I agree that Mark was not written to evangelize outsiders.  It seems to be designed for the internal use of some kind of community.  (Here I would argue with Walsh.) 

What I mean by “devotional literature” is something like what you see in Gibson’s Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though “based on a true story”, it isn’t meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 

An example I would suggest.  The historical tradition/memory would have been that Jesus was arrested and crucified sometime during the Passover.  Mark puts it on the day he does for his own theological agenda. John does the same. 

I like the idea of characterizing the gospels as "devotional literature".    

Rather out of nowhere, it occurred to me that Mark might not have been writing to convince non-believers. Maybe he was writing something like devotional literature for believers. 

What I mean by "devotional literature" is something like what you see in Gibson's Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though "based on a true story", it isn't meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 

It isn't primarily meant to convince skeptics or non-believers. It is meant to make the story come alive and *feel* real for people who already believe it, just like any other devotional art. 

This struck me as a rather profound hermeneutical shift, that makes a lot of things fall into place, but I'm curious how it hits you.