No, if you’re talking about a king who dies and rises and is green, then you must mean Osiris.
"And Isis searched amongst the reeds on the banks of the Nile, and searched in the soil at the bed of the Nile, and gathered together all the parts of Osiris. With potent charms, she knit his body together again. Then, Isis opened her body to her husband and thus restored him to life.
Osiris had been changed by his sojourn into the realm of the dead. His skin was green as papyrus in spring. The Great Pharoah opened his eyes. His thoughts were not of love, but of vengance upon his treachorous brother. He put out his arms and burst the gilded coffin. He arose and said ‘Set bad! Osiris smash!’
But Set was crafty, and had set Jaffa to watch the river. These servants saw the resurrection and flew off in their death gliders to alert the System Lord of his brother’s return. Set was dismayed, but had made a second plan in preparation for just this occurence. ‘Bring forth the naquadria!’ he commanded"
Unfortunately, the hieroglyphics were destroyed at that point.
I find it odd that they’d mention the scourging, having the crosspiece tied to his arms and being made to walk to the execution site, the vinegar, the spear in the side etc but leave out the hair pulling.
If his hair was pulled out, his identity as a crucifixion victim would have been obvious. You don’t rip somnebody bald without leaving marks that make it clear this person has indeed had their hair pulled out.
Perhaps it would be useful here to cite the passages that show the kind of thing you’re referring to. The gospels depict several appearances of the risen Christ; the only ones I know of that have someone not recognizing him are John 20:10-16
and Luke 24:13-32
The reason(s) that Jesus wasn’t recognized isn’t explained, but it isn’t necessarily implied that he looked any different.
Wow, that’s funny. If something similar didn’t happen to me, I might not have believed it. But once I ran into my next-door neighbor (at the time) in the supermarket, and although he recognized me, I drew a 100 percent blank on him until he told me who he was. I was quite embarrassed. But not seeing him in the context of my apartment complex, there was ZERO recognition. No even a “hey, where do I know that guy from?” feeling. Nothing.
Damn, you are quick. I should’ve known better than to think I could’ve scooped everyone on that! I’ll just add that maybe she was confused by the leaf blower.
You are thinking in terms opf modern days, where famous people have their pictures in the papers, on TV etc. The more famous a person, the more recognisable he is.
In those days, no such things existed. You may have heard of a person, but you probably wouldn’t recognise him if you saw him, apast from Ceasar who had his face on the coins. the travellers on the road that Jesus met had heard his message, were followers of his philosophy, and so on, but had never actually met him before.
According to The Bard, Henry V walked among his troops the night before Agincourt without being recognised. You might as well ask why his appearence was so different.
So, you’re saying that the Apostles and Mary Magdalene had never before seen Jesus in person, just heard rumours of his teachings? Yeah, that could account for them not recognizing him. It does raise a few other questions, though…
And works by “the bard” can’t be taken for the historical accuracy anymore than The da Vinci Code can be. Don’t underestimate the need for dramatic effect.
Our own Perfect Master has said that it may not have been Mary Magdalene, and that several different Mary’s may have been conflated.
What comes before the passage in Luke? “Two of them” two of who exactly? It doesn’t say James and Thomas or any of the other nine (Judas having brung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible) Apostles.
Re Shakespeaere
#1 His works were intended as fiction
#2 The convention that any disguise renders you unrecognizable runs through many of his works- King Lear, Measure For Measure, Much Ado About Nothing etc.
Thudlow Boink seems to have the answer. In one case the mistake only lasted for a few seconds, which given that Mary was upset and not expecting Jesus to be alive and hanging out around his tomb, makes sense. The second case apparently has Jesus using his super Son-of-God powers to keep himself from being recognized.
Also Jesus’s wounds were present in his resurrected form. Given this, and the fact that he died of exposure and shock from being crucified, I’d guess that he would look a bit more emancipated, etc. after his rising then he did back when he was alive.
You can spare the sarcasm. Perhaps you would do we.ll to check out the actual text referred in the OP.
**That same day two of Jesus’ disciples were going to the village of Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. As they were talking and thinking about what had happened, Jesus came near and started walking along beside them. But they did not know who he was. **
they were disciples, not apostles, followers of Jesus’ teachings, not close assosiates of his. At one time Jesus sent out seventy followers to spread his teachings. Lots of people heard his teachings secondhand.
** The two of them stood there looking sad and gloomy. Then the one named Cleopas asked Jesus, “Are you the only person from Jerusalem who didn’t know what was happening there these last few days?” **
Not Mary or an Apostle, after all. And all Jerusalem had heard of the events. Do you think every single person would recognise him?
The fact that they didn’t know him is neither miraculous nor surprising.
I’m not trying to be snarky or an ass or anything, but are you sure this is the word you want to use? I’m trying to parse this, and all I can think of is Christ as a nudist, free from such earthly bonds as sandals and tunics. Jesus walking down the street, chatting with everyone he meets and spreading his word, all while completely oblivious to the fact that he’s naked as a jaybird. Do you mean emaciated, maybe?
So why did theire eyes need to be “restrained from recognizing him” and why did they recognize him after they broke bread?
John says Mary Madalene didn’t recognize him either (and there’s no confusion about which Mary she was. John has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb alone).
These stories have to be evaluated separately. They are different authors working without knowledge of each other and they may have have completely different reasons for using this device. I have an idea as to an allegorical possibility in Luke (breaking bread together activates a symbolic recognition of the presence of Christ…it’s a eucharistic event, not a literal one).
What GJohn intended, I have no idea, but I do know that it was a common feature of Greek mythology to have gods walking among people without being recognized. John may have been trying to make some subtle theological point about Jesus’ divine identity not being immediately discernible to humans…or maybe not. Sometimes the evangelists were making points within a context that the original audience would understand but which has now been lost to us.
Well, Jesus did say, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And throw in thine underwear, too, while thou art at it.” (Not all manuscripts include that last sentence.)