[UA] RE: Christ and such.

[Chad Underkoffler]

> From: Neal_Rick_J at bns.att.com
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:57:29 -0500
>
> As for the Messiah, read as the promised saviour, I'm not sure
> that it was, at that time, enough of a universal ideal to 
> warrant an ascension. Both that and the Son of God archetype 
> fit within the Judaic tradition that Christ was working in, 
> but that was by far the minority in world-view in that time 
> period. Even the occupying Romans were polytheistc, with a 
> body of legends dealing with the children of gods that were 
> far more widely held to be true. This leads me to think that 
> neither of these were successful archetypes in that time 
> period.

(1) Messiah ("annoited one") implies a physical savior of this
world, of the military/political variety. A sort of sacred king
figure. IIRC, King David was a Messiah.

(2) The concept of a literal Son of God would be blasphemous to
the Jews, and isn't within their tradition. It is thought to be
a later addition (like the Virgin Birth) to make the Jesus cult
more competitive with other Medditerranean Dying God cults
(Osiris, Mithras, Attis, etc.).

This is all, IIRC.

However, recall that UA magick isn't ALL about popularity--
there are elements of abstract meaning and symbolism that power
magick. Maybe Christ Ascended as a new spin on the old Demigod
archetype?



=====
Chad Underkoffler [chadu at yahoo.com]
http://www.geocities.com/chadu/index.html
"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude."
     -- Groucho Marx
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua