Established parallels between Horus and Jesus

[GakuseiDon]

On another (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5346201#post5346201) thread, I was surprised to read the following:
The parallels between Jesus and Horus go beyond superficial. Robert Price thinks that Horus might have been the origin of Jesus, but thinks the evidence has been lost.
I was surprised because I thought that there was a general consensus on this board that most of the purported parallels between Horus and Jesus had no basis in evidence. AFAIK most of these claims came out of 19th C writings when there was a cottage industry in producing fantastic theories centred around Egyptology and comparative religion.

So that started me wondering: what ARE the parallels, superficial or otherwise? I think it might be useful to have a sticky thread (is that possible, mods?) where we can see all the parallels listed. The rules would be:
1. The information would need to be backed up from primary sources or reliable secondary sources (yes, I know "reliable secondary sources" opens up a can of worms, but I'd define it as "sources that can be relied on to have worked from primary sources". If the source just relies on 19th C writers, this should be noted)
2. The parallels are listed without further analysis. It doesn't matter how broad or specific they are, or whether they provide evidence of copycatting or not. We just want the parallels.

I'll start: There is a statue at the Egyptian Museum showing Isis nursing the newborn Horus, which parallels images of Mary with a newborn Jesus. The image is here:
http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/detail.aspx?id=9566

Just to emphasize: Let's get the parallels first, and make sure that there is evidence to support that they existed in the first place, before we start to analyze what the parallels mean with regards to the Christ Myth.

Note that there appears to have been several versions (http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm) of Horus.

[Roger Pearse]

This can only be a useful exercise.

[spamandham]

I was surprised because I thought that there was a general consensus on this board that most of the purported parallels between Horus and Jesus had no basis in evidence.

It's hard to imagine a concensus of any kind on this board, but...

I'd say it's hard to deny that Judaism and Christianity were influenced by Horus and Dionysus beliefs (though some will deny it anyway). That said, there's been some truly horrific and sloppy work done that makes too much of it. The quintessentially bad '16 crucified saviors' and much of what it's spawned comes to mind. Unfortunately, this abundant bad work tends to discredit solid work along the same lines.

[Toto]

It is the consensus of this board that Tom Harpur's version of Christianity as based on Egyptian religion is lacking. But that does not mean that there are no parallels.

There are some unsophisticated and erroneous attempts to find parallels between Jesus and any random mythological god, which are used by as blunt weapons against Christianity. But one can go beyond this to see common themes in mythology, which are more interesting and less ideologically motivated, and less likely to be part of some proof that Jesus never existed.

This thread was only in February: Jesus is Horus/Osiris (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236154)

Even more recently: Resurrection of Horus (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=241346)

Notes from Robert Price on Hellenistic Parallels to the Gospel of John (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=233539)

Zeitgeist companion guide (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=232189) - note the differences between Acharya's more sophisticated version and the movie guide.

But I don't see the point in rehashing all this unless you have some new arguments or perspectives.

[Malachi151]

Can we simply get a list in this thread of the supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus, anyone?

I can tell you this, I've done the research myself and I find not one single legitimate meaningful parallel. Both were male.... umm... okay. Both were killed and then "came back to life".... ummm... okay. Other than that, I not only see no evidence for influence, but I see a lot of evidence against there having been any influence.

[Toto]

First of all, what is the theoretical structure you have in mind that would make these parallels relevant?

Would this be an effort to prove or disprove that Christianity was merely an unimaginative copy of the Egyptian religion? You can check out JP Holding's list. (http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html)

But what if your theory is that Christianity incorporated Egyptian elements - i.e., a more imaginative copycat religion, or a religion that copied some elements and added them to a Jewish base? Or that Christianity and the Egyptian religion share some common elements because they both arose at a particular time and place in history?

I mean, you can find some similarities and some differences, and lots of things that are sort of similar but not exactly.

If you are trying to defend Christianity from the charge of pagan mimicry, you emphasize the differences. If you are studying comparative religion, you might be more interested in the similarities.

But if Christianity did draw elements from Egyptian or other pagan religions in a creative and imaginative way, we might not expect to find any exact parallels at all - just a similar gestalt.

I know that periodically someone pops in here and posts the lists of parallels from Acharya S's Christ Conspiracy, as if that proves something. But I am at a complete loss as to why this is so popular or what I can do about it.

Maybe Malachi should reference the evidence against any influence.

[Steven Carr]

Are the parallels between Horus and Jesus as strong as the parallels between John the Baptist and Elijah? (both wore a leather belt, for example)

[PhilVaz]

Go to a university library, take out their 10 best books on Horus and Egyptian religion, and you come up with this:

All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm)

I need something on the Luxor inscription, but its basically done.

An atheist blogger (Consigliere) concludes in his analysis "Ending the Myth of Horus" (http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/P325/) :

"....I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them."

I concur with these, although the healing miracles are associated with Horus-the-Child. Horus was (like Jesus) a "son of God" since he was son of Isis and Osiris, and he was (like Jesus) a lord and a king, as Jesus was "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" (book of Revelation). That's it.

Phil P

[Roger Pearse]

I'm glad that someone has taken this modern Horus story and gone through it in such detail. Well done, Phil.

[PhilVaz]

<< I'm glad that someone has taken this modern Horus story and gone through it in such detail. Well done, Phil. >>

Thanks, took about a week. As for the Luxor inscription, Richard Carrier has a short article on it already. I just wanted to verify whether he is correct, but I could take the easy way and just summarize his article found here:

Carrier on Luxor (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html)

Phil P

[dog-on]

IMO, only an apologist would deny that there was any cross-fertilization between different belief systems in the ancient world.

The Roman's, who in my opinion created Christianity as we know it today, where known to do just that.

Should it be surprising that there are parallels to other belief systems of the day?

Of course not...

[Malachi151]

There are two issues here really. Parallels vs. copies.

Is the wing of a bird a copy of the wing of a bat, or are bat wings and bird wings examples of the separate evolution of similar structures?

So #1) pointing out similarities does not in any way prove dependence or influence. #2) from what I've seen, all of the claimed similarities are greatly overblown by the Jesus/Osiris parallels folks.

I can only address the claims that I've seen and the primary sources that I've read. Part of the reason for posting a list here is to have a starting point for refuting these claims.

The only thing I've seen that remotely actually looks like a possible influence is the description of the Eucharist in Didache and the death and resurrection of Osiris. That's the one and only potentially meaningful parallel that I've seen.

Much of the evidence against influence simply comes from the fact that there are other better explanations for the qualities in question.

[gurugeorge]

There are two issues here really. Parallels vs. copies.

Is the wing of a bird a copy of the wing of a bat, or are bat wings and bird wings examples of the separate evolution of similar structures?

So #1) pointing out similarities does not in any way prove dependence or influence. #2) from what I've seen, all of the claimed similarities are greatly overblown by the Jesus/Osiris parallels folks.

I can only address the claims that I've seen and the primary sources that I've read. Part of the reason for posting a list here is to have a starting point for refuting these claims.

The only thing I've seen that remotely actually looks like a possible influence is the description of the Eucharist in Didache and the death and resurrection of Osiris. That's the one and only potentially meaningful parallel that I've seen.

Much of the evidence against influence simply comes from the fact that there are other better explanations for the qualities in question.

The thing is, it's not the "influence" argument that's interesting, it's the "parallel evolution" argument that's interesting. There may be some cross-influences going both ways later in the development of Christianity (I think that will be widely admitted), but what's really interesting is the degree to which early Christianity may have represented one of a type of ideas that were "in the air" at the time.

[dog-on]

How about disproving these, Malachi?

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

CHAPTER XXII -- ANALOGIES TO THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior--or rather have already proved Him to be so--for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius.

[spamandham]

Is the question specifically in regards to parallels between Horus and Jesus, or is it really a broader question of parallels between Christianity and Egyptian religion?

[PhilVaz]

dogon << How about disproving these, Malachi? >>

No problem. I'll copy/paste part of a Catholic Answers thread (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=231127) on this topic:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter [or Zeus]." (First Apology, chapter 21 "Analogies to the history of Christ")

Commentary: Justin appeals to the pagans, and is saying hey, you guys already believe much of this stuff. While he includes virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension among these, Justin realizes neither Dionysos nor Mithras (nor any Greek/Roman god) was crucified; he also recognizes Mithras was "born from a rock" not virgin born (see below).

"And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter [Zeus], it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods." (First Apology, chapter 21)

Commentary: Justin notes the stories of the gods were written to encourage the youth, for everyone knows it is honorable to imitate the gods. As St. Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor 11:1; cf. 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 2 Thess 3:7ff; Phil 3:17).

First Apology, chapter 22 covers "Analogies to the sonship of Christ"; chapter 23 presents "The argument"; chapter 24 "The varieties of heathen worship"; chapter 25 "False gods abandoned by Christians"; chapters 31-53 many predictions/prophecies; chapter 54 "Origin of heathen mythology."

"But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter [i.e. Zeus], under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain." (First Apology, chapter 54)

Commentary: Again, Justin is claiming the Hebrew prophets were first with their prophecies on Christ, the Greeks copied from them, inspired by the devil/demons. Justin also notes no "proof" is offered for the Greek gods, because they were not historical but myth. By contrast, Christianity is a historical religion with a historical Christ and Hebrew prophecies.

"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter [Zeus], did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation." (First Apology, chapter 55)

Commentary: Here Justin notes none of the sons of Zeus (which includes Dionysos/Bacchus) were crucified. Dionysos was ripped apart by the Titans, not crucified:

"For when they tell that Bacchus [or Dionysos], son of Jupiter [or Zeus], was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?" (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 69)

Commentary: Justin notes Dionysos was not virgin born (Zeus had intercourse with Semele, etc) and was "torn to pieces" (by the Titans), not crucified. He also notes it was the O.T. prophecies recorded by Moses that the Greeks were "imitating." BTW, the quote above is found in Flemming's "God Who Wasn't There" DVD but he leaves out (without ellipses) the phrases in bold above. I wonder why?

As for whether Dionysos was "resurrected" he was basically put back together from his "heart" and/or re-born from the "thigh" of Zeus. See my section on Dionysos and the meaning of his "dismemberment."

Justin notes that Mithras (Persian, then Roman god) was not virgin born: "And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?" (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 70)

Commentary: Mithras was begotten of a rock, and his myth imitates the stories found in Daniel and Isaiah. Again, Justin is saying these Old Testament prophecies came first, and were then copied by the Greeks/Romans. That's how "the devil imitated the prophecy."

We're getting a bit off topic which is Horus = Jesus (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm) or not? :confused:

Phil P

[Toto]

Please do not copy and paste large blocks of text that are off topic to start with.

So far, no one has addressed my question above.

Is this only relevant to the question of whether Jesus was an unimaginative plagiarism of Horus? Is that not a straw man argument?

[PhilVaz]

Toto << Is this only relevant to the question of whether Jesus was an unimaginative plagiarism of Horus? Is that not a straw man argument? >>

Sorry, I probably missed all the great threads on this topic, but the whole "Horus = Jesus" thing was revived on the Internet (last year) because of the "Zeitgeist" movie. Zeitgeist claims Horus = Jesus because:

(1) Horus was born on Dec 25
(2) Horus was virgin born of Isis-Meri
(3) Horus birth was accompanied by a star in the east and three kings
(4) Horus was a "solar messiah"
(5) Horus was a prodigal teacher at 12
(6) Horus was baptized at 30 by Anup the baptizer
(7) Horus had 12 disciples he traveled with
(8) Horus performed miracles
(9) Horus was called The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God
(10) Horus was crucified
(11) Horus was buried for three days
(12) Horus was resurrected

None of these turn out to be true. (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm) Horus is involved with healing magic as "Horus-the-Child" (Egyptian Har-pa-khered literally "Horus-the-child"; the Greeks had Harpokrates), and Horus was a "son of god" since son of Isis/Osiris.

As for Egyptian religion and Christianity, we do have the artistic motif of the mother and child images (Isis nursing Horus, Mary nursing Jesus), and both religions have some beliefs in an "afterlife." I don't know whether you want to call that imaginative or unimaginative, but that's it for the parallels and similarities. The bogus (1) through (12) items above appear to originate in amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey's speculative books (http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptIntroduction.htm). I really don't care about Massey however; I care about the original primary Egyptian sources on Horus, and these are: (see Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, volume 2, "Horus" page 121ff):

-- Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (in Latin translation).
-- the Memphite Theology or Shabaqo Stone (generally dated as late as the New Kingdom, c. 1540-1070 BC);
-- the Mystery Play of the Succession;
-- the Pyramid Texts (from the late Old Kingdom, c. 2575-2150 BC);
-- the Coffin Texts, especially Spell 148;
-- the Great Osiris hymn in the Louvre;
-- the Late Egyptian Contendings of Horus and Seth;
-- the Metternich Stela and other cippus texts;
-- the Ptolemaic Myth of Horus at Edfu (also known as the Triumph of Horus);

These cover the conception and birth of Horus, through his childhood hidden in the marshes, his protection by Isis, his conflict with Seth and his followers, and his succession as legitimate king. Those are the sources you want to refer to and quote for any alleged parallels. I quote a couple of them in my Horus article (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm).

The copy/paste on St. Justin Martyr was something I originally wrote, so it should be OK. I was only responding to the quotes from Justin above (who does allude to the sons of Zeus, e.g. Dionysos, etc), and what I think they mean.

Phil P

[Toto]

Phil - what you missed: A few of Acharya's associates, and Acharya herself, showed up here to promote Zeitgeist. The response was underwhelming, and all left in a huff as we failed to appreciate Acharya's genius.

So you are beating a dead horse if you think you need to convince anyone about Zeitgeist.

There's more that you missed, but you appear to be here to post links to your website. Could you at least answer my question?

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks PhilVaz, that's very useful.

So far, no one has addressed my question above.

Is this only relevant to the question of whether Jesus was an unimaginative plagiarism of Horus? Is that not a straw man argument?
I thought that the question of parallels between Jesus and Horus had been pretty much settled on this board. That's why I was surprised at your statement that "the parallels between Jesus and Horus go beyond superficial. Robert Price thinks that Horus might have been the origin of Jesus, but thinks the evidence has been lost." If you had been an Acharya acolyte, I wouldn't have cared. But since I knew you had questioned these parallels previously as much as anyone, I wondered that maybe you or Robert Price had more information.

I'm okay with "imaginative plagiarism", though only after all the parallels (superficial or beyond) between Jesus and Horus are listed and verified as existing in primary sources.

Do we have any more parallels?

[spamandham]

Do we have any more parallels?

How close must something be to count as a parallel? I think this is Toto's point, as I understood it. If this is an exercise in comparative religion, then we'll find lot's of parallels.

If on the other hand, the idea is to show that Christianity is not a direct descendant of Egyptian religion, then that task is already complete.

Do the following count as parallels? Note that in this list, Egyptian religion is not generally consistent, and so the parallels are either general, or in some cases specific to certain sources only
1. Jesus is the son of a god, Horus is the son of a god
2. The name Jesus means "the salvation of YHWH", and according to most versions of the Horus myth, Horus is the "savior" of Osiris, raising him from the dead (a rite ritualistically reenacted by the Pharaoh's son upon the burial of his father.)
3. The Christian cross is very similar to the ankh
4. The staff used by bishops is very similar to the staffs used by Pharoes
5. Isis/horus iconography is exactly the same as early Mary/Jesus iconography
6. The numbers 3, 7, and 12 are prolific in both religious systems
7 The Egyptian god head consisted of 3 persons (Isis, Osiris, and Horus) as does the Christian Trinity
8. The conceptions are unusual in both cases (conceived of the Holy Spirit for Jesus, resurrected dead father for Horus)
9. Sowing and reaping symbolism
10. Fishermen symbolism
11. Both speak of a day of judgement
12. Both refer to a land of righteousness awaiting after death
13. Both refer to an evil serpent
14. Both are buried in a stone tomb
15. Both demand worship
16. A baptism ritual
17. Both are primordial in nature
18. Halo iconography = solar disk iconography

...to name a few from a comparative religion perspective. Do any of these imply that Christianity is a copycat religion of a Horus cult? No. Is the influence obvious? Yes.

[Solitary Man]

Do we have sources for any of those things, spamandham?

[GakuseiDon]

Do we have any more parallels?

How close must something be to count as a parallel?
At this stage, it probably doesn't matter, as long as it fulfills the following two criteria:
1. The proposed parallel can be found in primary sources
2. The proposed parallel reflects what is actually in primary sources. That is, the wording needs to be accurate. E.g. "Horus was born of a virgin, like Jesus!" "No, Horus was born miraculously." "Nitpick!" Probably best to use "born miraculously" to start off with.

I think it's worth listing all parallels, including the superficial ones, since we may find that a number of superficial parallels will reveal a pattern worth analyzing further. But that kind of analysis can wait until after we have all the parallels documented and verified from primary sources.

Do the following count as parallels?
Yes, I think so, though we would need to verify many of them. The problem is that there is a lot of bogus information out there.

1. Jesus is the son of a god, Horus is the son of a god
I'd suggest "Jesus is the Son of God, and Horus is the son of a god" as a more accurate wording.

I agree with the following:
3. The Christian cross is very similar to the ankh
5. Isis/horus iconography is exactly the same as early Mary/Jesus iconography
8. The conceptions are unusual in both cases (conceived of the Holy Spirit for Jesus, resurrected dead father for Horus)
11. Both speak of a day of judgement
15. Both demand worship
18. Halo iconography = solar disk iconography

These would need to be verified:

2. The name Jesus means "the salvation of YHWH", and according to most versions of the Horus myth, Horus is the "savior" of Osiris, raising him from the dead (a rite ritualistically reenacted by the Pharaoh's son upon the burial of his father.)
4. The staff used by bishops is very similar to the staffs used by Pharoes
6. The numbers 3, 7, and 12 are prolific in both religious systems
7 The Egyptian god head consisted of 3 persons (Isis, Osiris, and Horus) as does the Christian Trinity
9. Sowing and reaping symbolism
10. Fishermen symbolism
12. Both refer to a land of righteousness awaiting after death
13. Both refer to an evil serpent
14. Both are buried in a stone tomb
16. A baptism ritual
17. Both are primordial in nature
Is there a source for these?

...to name a few from a comparative religion perspective. Do any of these imply that Christianity is a copycat religion of a Horus cult? No. Is the influence obvious? Yes.
I think we'd have a better idea about the influence once we have the parallels documented.

[PhilVaz]

Let me comment on a couple of these. See my All About Horus for details.

<< 1. Jesus is the son of a god, Horus is the son of a god >>

OK. Check http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gif

<< 2. The name Jesus means "the salvation of YHWH", and according to most versions of the Horus myth, Horus is the "savior" of Osiris >>

Jesus does mean "Yahweh (or Joshua/Yoshua) is salvation" or "salvation of Yahweh" while one of Horus' forms is indeed "the savior of his father." In Egyptian that is Har-nedj-itef or "Horus the savior of his father" (Greek Harendotes) which refers to Horus' vindication of his claim to succeed Osiris, rescuing his father's former earthly domain from the usurper Seth.

OK, half-check http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gif on that one. The name Horus itself ("Har" in Egyptian) probably means "the high," "the far-off," "the distant one." Nothing about salvation there. He is the falcon god, or "lord of the sky."

<< 3. The Christian cross is very similar to the ankh >>

I do see the resemblance (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ankh.htm). Both symbols stand for "life" but in different senses. Christ's death on the cross brings spiritual life to the Christian. As I understand, the ankh was a sexual/fertility symbol (although other meanings are possible). There are many different Christian crosses, each slightly different designs (see my article (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#IRISH) on the Irish cross).

<< 4. The staff used by bishops is very similar to the staffs used by Pharoes >>

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04515c.htm): In liturgical usage the pastoral staff or crosier "probably goes back to the fifth century....Mention of it is made in a letter of Pope Celestine I (d. 432) to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne. Staffs have indeed been found in the catacombs that date from the fourth century but their ceremonial character has not been established. The first unequivocal reference to the crosier as a liturgical instrument occurs in the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of Toledo (633)."

So if the bishop's staff was borrowed, this took place in the c. 4th century AD by the Church.

<< 5. Isis/horus iconography is exactly the same as early Mary/Jesus iconography >>

OK. Check http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gif I'll give you that one. Although mothers with children is not necessarily a religious symbol, just a human one. Mothers bear and nurse children in every culture.

<< 6. The numbers 3, 7, and 12 are prolific in both religious systems >>

That one I was not aware of. Interesting.

<< 7. The Egyptian god head consisted of 3 persons (Isis, Osiris, and Horus) as does the Christian Trinity >>

Three primary gods/goddesses sure, but there are many more gods (http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/gods.htm) in Egyptian religion. It is polytheistic. Christianity has just the one true God in three divine persons.

<< 8. The conceptions are unusual in both cases (conceived of the Holy Spirit for Jesus, resurrected dead father for Horus) >>

I'll grant "magical" or "miraculous conception" in both, but only virginal conception in Christianity. Isis was not a virgin.

<< 9. Sowing and reaping symbolism and 10. Fishermen symbolism >>

Could be. I'm not aware of, I'll look into it.

<< 11. Both speak of a day of judgement >>

Sure, and an afterlife. But different kinds. The Egyptians had a soul existence, Christianity has the body-soul resurrection along with afterlife. I would like to look into this further, but what I have (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Osiris): Bojana Mojsov in Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God (Oxford Blackwell, 2005) explicitly calls him "God of the resurrection who presided over the judgment of the soul." (page xvi-xvii). The Egyptian "Coffin Texts" and the "Book of Going Forth by Day" provides the knowledge necessary for any individual to share in the afterlife of Osiris. This judgment is based on the protestations of innocence by the individual and a weighing of the person's heart against the feather of truth (or maat).

<< 14. Both are buried in a stone tomb >>

Do you mean Horus was buried? I don't have Horus ever being killed. His eye was injured in his battle with Seth, but Horus never died. He became "king of the living" while his dead and re-assembled father Osiris was "king of the dead" (or underworld).

<< 16. A baptism ritual >>

This I am not aware of. There was an embalming ritual that did involve water, if you want to equate that with baptism. But baptism was given to infants at birth in the early Church, the Egyptian embalming occured to the body after death.

Described by Budge here: The Liturgy of Funeral Offerings: Purification Ceremonies (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/lfo/lfo006.htm)

<< 18. Halo iconography = solar disk iconography >>

True, another artistic motif borrowed by the early Church. What I have on that: The halo (or nimbus) found in Christian art was used by a number of pre-Christian cultures, including the Greeks and Romans. For example, Roman emperors were depicted on coins with radiantly lit heads. Christians gradually appropriated this cultural element and used it for Christian art. Moses' face radiated light after he came down from Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29-35) and Jesus' face at the Transfiguration "shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light" (Matt 17:2). The use of halos in Christian iconography is simply the Church recognizing the usefulness of an artistic motif.

Phil P

[Malachi151]

Okay, we finally have a list to work with. As Phil did:

1. Jesus is the son of a god, Horus is the son of a god

Not significant. There were hundreds if not thousands of sons of gods in the various pantheons. This is simply a natural part of human story telling. This is a parallel, but not evidence of borrowing.

2. The name Jesus means "the salvation of YHWH", and according to most versions of the Horus myth, Horus is the "savior" of Osiris, raising him from the dead (a rite ritualistically reenacted by the Pharaoh's son upon the burial of his father.)

Bleh. The name Horus doesn't "mean" "salvation of Osiris", rather Horus saves his father by battling Seth. There is no parallel to this in the Jesus story.

3. The Christian cross is very similar to the ankh

Yeah, too bad the cross symbolism wasn't even a significant element of Christianity until the 4th or 5th century. Prior to that the only real mention of the cross was as the implement of Jesus' death.

4. The staff used by bishops is very similar to the staffs used by Pharoes

This has nothing to do with the origins of the Jesus story. This is a 4th century ritualistic adoption.

5. Isis/horus iconography is exactly the same as early Mary/Jesus iconography

Yep, this is true, but this is once again a product of 3rd - 5th century adoption, it tells us nothing about the origins of the Jesus story. There were no early images of Jesus made, and in fact Mary plays an extremely minor role in the early religion. There is no mention of Mary by Paul or any epistle writers. There is no mention of Mary in Revelation or Hebrews. The only use of Mary in Mark appears to be as a prop for Jesus to reject his family, and her use in the later Gospels stems from her introduction in Mark. None of those uses show any tie to Isis. Mary was ignored for the first 200 years, only rising in her importance as the religion was adopted by pagans who were worshipers of female gods, who then did in fact substitute Mary for the role of female gods in their traditions. So as with most of this stuff, yes there is a tie between certain "Christian" traditions and "pagan" gods or goddesses, but these tell us nothing about the ORIGIN of the Jesus story.

6. The numbers 3, 7, and 12 are prolific in both religious systems

Yep, but this goes back to a much, much earlier common influence since the numbers 3,7, and 12 are already the most important religious numbers in the Torah, the earliest roots of Judaism. The use of these numbers in the New Testament comes from their use in the Hebrew scriptures, not from later Egyptian influence.

7 The Egyptian god head consisted of 3 persons (Isis, Osiris, and Horus) as does the Christian Trinity

Isis, Osiris, and Horus is not a godhead. They were never said to be one. Furthermore, in the earliest Christian writings there is no sign of the Trinity. The Trinity itself is a later Christian tradition, perhaps only really documented in the Bible in the Gospel of John, the last Gospel. So again, not only is the Christianity Trinity not like the Egyptian "trinity", but the Trinity isn't even a foundational concept of the Jesus story.

8. The conceptions are unusual in both cases (conceived of the Holy Spirit for Jesus, resurrected dead father for Horus)

Umm... the conceptions of all gods is unusual if you look at god mythology.

9. Sowing and reaping symbolism

?? Not sure what this means. However, the talk of sowing and reaping in the Gospels all come from direct quotes or literary allusions to the Jewish scriptures. Furthermore, sowing and reaping symbolism is common throughout almost all religions of agricultural civilizations. From the Aztecs and Maya to the Chinese.

10. Fishermen symbolism

The only place that fisherman symbolism shows up in the New Testament writings is in the Gospels. Again, this all starts with Mark and the line about the fisherman in Mark comes from a literary allusion to the Hebrew scritpures. That one line in Mark is what spawns all of the other fisherman references in the later Gospels and Christianity. The line in Mark is ironic BTW.

11. Both speak of a day of judgment

I don't know about speaking of "a day of judgment". Osiris was the judge of the afterlife. He judged people individually after they died to see how their afterlife would be spent. This is very different from the Day of Judgment in the New Testament literature, which is a supposed single day when the Messiah will judge all souls as he destroys the world. These ideas all clearly come directly from Judaism and have nothing in common with Egyptian religion.

12. Both refer to a land of righteousness awaiting after death

First, this is a common theme in basically every religion that talks about life after death, I mean what else would be the point of life after death in a religion? Secondly, the New Testament doesn't really talk about this actually. There is in fact nothing in the NT that says that there is life after death, UNTIL the second coming of Jesus and the Resurrection for the creation of a new world. This is totally different from Egyptian beliefs. Now, in fact, popular Christian ideas about life after death are indeed based on pagan religions, they aren't based on the Bible at all. This is certainly evidence of a pagan influence on Christianity, but not pagan influence on the New Testament authors or on the origins of the Jesus story. That's a later influence, once again.

13. Both refer to an evil serpent

I don't recall any reference to a evil serpent in the New Testament, at least not any significant one. Besides, portraying a ground dwelling poisonous creature as evil would be a no brainier and a common independent development it would show no sign of borrowing.

14. Both are buried in a stone tomb

What other kinds of tombs were there? Secondly, the tomb story once again crops up later in the traditions, starting in the Gospels, its not found in the letters of Paul or in any other writings. The appearance of the tomb in the Gospels starts from Mark, who bases the tomb on lines from the Jewish scritpures.

15. Both demand worship

As all gods do....

16. A baptism ritual

The baptism ritual is an example of possible pagan influence, but the baptism ritual among early Jesus worshiper was nothing like that of other pagan religions, and certainly can't be tied back specifically to anything about Horus.

17. Both are primordial in nature

?? What ??

18. Halo iconography = solar disk iconography

There is no halo iconography in early Christianity. The later imagery once again comes from the later adoption of the religion by pagans. This imagery has nothing to do with the origins of the Jesus story.

[spamandham]

Do we have sources for any of those things, spamandham?

The purpose of the list was to establish the intent of the question, rather than actually contribute to it. It's just a bunch of stuff I rattled off from memory.

[spamandham]

Okay, we finally have a list to work with. As Phil did:

1. Jesus is the son of a god, Horus is the son of a god

Not significant.

That depends on the objective of this excercise, as Toto pointed out early on!

If you're trying to discredit the idea that Christianity is a copycat religion of Horus, that's already debunked. If the intent is to note similarities from a comparative religion persepctive, then this point (and otehrs) are relevant.

There's nothing inherently natural about the idea of gods having children. It may seem that way in a society bathed in Christianity, but plenty of religions do not have such a concept.

[dog-on]

Zeus had children as well...

[spamandham]

Zeus had children as well...

...as do the gods in many other religions.

[Amaleq13]

There's nothing inherently natural about the idea of gods having children.

Setting aside whether anything about the idea of gods can be said to be "natural", the concept appears to be quite common in the mythology of many ancient cultures (eg Greek/Roman, Egyptian, American Indian, Hindu).

It may seem that way in a society bathed in Christianity, but plenty of religions do not have such a concept.

Judaism (though this may not be true from its original conception) and its other step-child, Islam, do not but I can't think of any others.

ETA: Are you thinking of specifically human children?

[Roger Pearse]

I'm not sure whether atheism can validly arise from intentional category confusion; but there doesn't seem to be any lack of people willing to try.

[Solitary Man]

Judaism (though this may not be true from its original conception) and its other step-child, Islam, do not but I can't think of any others.

Sons of Elohim and all that Jazz.

[spamandham]

I'm not sure whether atheism can validly arise from intentional category confusion; but there doesn't seem to be any lack of people willing to try.

Is this a suggested list item, or merely a rant?

[PhilVaz]

Malachi << Mary was ignored for the first 200 years, only rising in her importance as the religion was adopted by pagans who were worshipers of female gods, who then did in fact substitute Mary for the role of female gods in their traditions. >>

Wanted to comment on this. Explicit prayers and references to Mary are scarce in the first 200 years of the Church or so, but Mary herself was not ignored. Mary was called the "New Eve" (as Jesus was the "New Adam" in Romans 5) beginning with St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) and virtually all the Fathers following him. These orthodox Catholic Fathers knew the difference between the pagan female gods, and the Virgin Mary (who was not a god, but the Mother of Jesus, and therefore the Mother of God or "God bearer", theotokos). She is also not ignored in the Gospels but appears in all the main scenes with Jesus her son: at his birth, at the temple when he was 12, throughout his 3-year ministry, at his death by crucifixion, at his Resurrection, at his Ascension in Acts 1.

There is an early prayer addressed to Mary (called the "Sub tuum praesidium" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_tuum_praesidium)) dated to 250 AD. This is before Emperor Constantine let all the pagans into the Church (c. 313 AD). The veneration and honor of Mary and the saints was established before this. It is true a more explicit Catholic Mariology began to be developed only after the fourth century, since the Church first had to know who Christ is (the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD which defined Christ as "one in substance" with the Father), before they could figure out who His mother is (the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD defines Mary as "theotokos").

For scholarly articles on the development of two Catholic doctrines of Mary, see my Immaculate Conception (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm) and Assumption (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm) articles. The best on the web for those. Sorry I forgot this isn't the Catholic Answers forums. :wave:

Phil P

[Cesc]

How about the symbolism of "light" or heavenly light:

Horus was a personification/deification of light, Jesus is a personification/deification of light (light here being the representative of reason/knowledge)?

The Johannine works are talking about light and logos and the Christians as being "the sons of light" etc.
What you think? Is that a parallel, common trait or nonsense? An Alexandrian influence on the Jesus story perhaps?

[Amaleq13]

Judaism (though this may not be true from its original conception) and its other step-child, Islam, do not but I can't think of any others.

Sons of Elohim and all that Jazz.

Yes so "plenty" must have really meant "at least one". :rolleyes:

[Roger Pearse]

I'm not sure whether atheism can validly arise from intentional category confusion; but there doesn't seem to be any lack of people willing to try.

Is this a suggested list item, or merely a rant?

Is this a suggested list item, or merely heckling?

[GakuseiDon]

I was hoping we could verify the parallels before deciding on whether the parallel has any significance towards borrowing or influence. At this stage, I'm happy with any parallel, as long as there are primary sources to back them up. Once we have a complete list that is established from primary sources, then we can go onto the next step.

[spamandham]

Is this a suggested list item, or merely a rant?

Is this a suggested list item, or merely heckling?

Heckling, but well earned heckling.

[Toto]

Please refrain from group libel, catcalls and heckling. Thanks

[Fenton Mulley]

You'd think that after all this time nobody would bother to bring up another "parallels" thread after watching the dozens of others that went up in flames producing next to nothing very useful.

And it's the same folks involved every time. What's that definition of insanity that psychiatrists like to hang on their office wall?

[Solo]

How about the symbolism of "light" or heavenly light:

Horus was a personification/deification of light, Jesus is a personification/deification of light (light here being the representative of reason/knowledge)?

The Johannine works are talking about light and logos and the Christians as being "the sons of light" etc.
What you think? Is that a parallel, common trait or nonsense? An Alexandrian influence on the Jesus story perhaps?

But, given that the "sun/light" mythology is widespread from the Arctic to the equator why should we go look for "heavenly light" to Alexandria ? Because it's the closest ? Where did the Inuit get the idea of a mysterious blinding light that guarantees the shaman has found the Great Spirit ? Who did they get their resurrectional motif from, I wonder? (Mircea Eliade, Shamanism, Princeton U.P., 1974 p. 58-60).

And then you might want to re-read the Allegory of the Cave and compare Plato's metaphor of the illumined sage being laughed at by the prisoners of darkness that his eyesight was spoiled by too much light with Jesus' being thought of as insane by his own family after his return. "And would they not kill anyone who tried to release them and take them up, if they could somehow lay hands on him and kill him ?", asks Socrates. "That they would", replies Glaucon.

Jiri

[Darrell W. Conder]

Malachi151, from whence come your sources so that you know with certainty what the Jesus of the 1st century AD was or was not? And since the Christian church had total control of the Jesus myth and enforced its version with fire and persecution from the fourth century on, how can anyone give an honest assessment of the myth? Perhaps I take a too simplistic approach, but when I start in Genesis 1:1 and work my way to Malachi (Chronicles if you are reading a Tanakh), there is no escaping the fact that the bible is a plagiaristic nightmare. There is no original thought, nor storyline there. Virtually everything of import is “borrowed” without credit. Why should the tale of Jesus Christ be any different? While Horus may not be the inspiration for Jesus, I believe his DNA is imprinted there. The evidence is overwhelming that the NT composers looted a variety of ancient myths and legends for their Frankenstein, and then destroyed the evidence of their dishonesty. But the real nail in the coffin is not a question of plagiarism, it’s the contradictions and outright lies that make the book/tale unique.

[Malachi151]

Malachi151, from whence come your sources so that you know with certainty what the Jesus of the 1st century AD was or was not? And since the Christian church had total control of the Jesus myth and enforced its version with fire and persecution from the fourth century on, how can anyone give an honest assessment of the myth? Perhaps I take a too simplistic approach, but when I start in Genesis 1:1 and work my way to Malachi (Chronicles if you are reading a Tanakh), there is no escaping the fact that the bible is a plagiaristic nightmare. There is no original thought, nor storyline there. Virtually everything of import is “borrowed” without credit. Why should the tale of Jesus Christ be any different? While Horus may not be the inspiration for Jesus, I believe his DNA is imprinted there. The evidence is overwhelming that the NT composers looted a variety of ancient myths and legends for their Frankenstein, and then destroyed the evidence of their dishonesty. But the real nail in the coffin is not a question of plagiarism, it’s the contradictions and outright lies that make the book/tale unique.

I find these types of attitudes completely unacceptable for anyone wishing to be taken seriously or wishing to actually understand anything themselves.

Let's be clear. I'm an atheist, I don't believe that Jesus ever existed, I don't think that Moses ever existed, I don't think that there was ever any exodus from Egypt by a mass of Jews.

There is more than enough legitimate evidence to support those views that one does not need to descend into derogatory statements about ancient writings and cultures in order to support such views.

To be quite honest I find much of value, interest, and originality in ancient Jewish thought and scritpures. There is also quite a bit of crap, but there is quite a bit of crap in all cultures, ancient and new. I see no reason to single out ancient Jewish works for special abuse, they are no worse than the works of any other ancient culture and better than some.

The problem with the Bible is not with the authors of its many works, the problem is with the modern practitioners of the religions that use it. The writers were simple people who were products of their own time and place. Their stories are no more absurd or grotesque than Greek myths or Celtic legends.

Ancient people were what they were and we should be able to simply accept them and their cultures at face value. The problem doesn't lie with them, it lies with the present day idiots that are still taking ancient nonsense seriously.

Having said that, certainly there was a pattern of borrowing in ancient Jewish scriptures, as there was in all cultures. They all borrowed from each others. No big deal and nothing to get nasty about.

However, the Jews did develop their own quite clear and unique religious practices, scriptures, and sets of beliefs. Ancient Jewish history prior to Christianity spans a period of about 1,000 years. A lot changes in that time.

There is certainly strong evidence of cultural and scriptural borrowing from other cultures in the Torah, but they took those other influences and gave them their own identity. And certainly after that time very distinctive literary and cultural motifs developed within Jewish culture.

The Jews shared an importance on the numbers 12, 7, and 3 with all of the other Mesopotamian cultures, undoubtedly from some common origin and from continued interaction.

But when someone claims that the importance placed on the 12 apostles in the Gospels come from "pagan influence" this is not credible.

The reason that its not credible is because the number 12 has been extremely important in Jewish culture and scripture as far back as the records go. In addition the use of the number 12 to identify 12 helpers of a hero figure comes straight from the Hebrew scriptures.

So, when someone says that some aspect of the Jesus story was "borrowed from pagans", what I take that I mean, and what I think everyone takes that to mean, is that this element was brought in from outside the Jew culture and that this element is foreign to Jewish traditions.

The fact of the matter is that every single element of the earliest descriptions of Jesus can be clearly traced back to ideas and motifs found within well established elements of Jewish traditions that existed at the time.

The only thing that doesn't have a clear Jewish precedent is the specific act of crucifixion, but then this has no clear pagan precedents either. There is no crucified pagan god prior to Jesus and there is no crucified Jewish hero prior to Jesus, however there are many much closer parallels in the Jewish scriptures than in any pagan story. The martyrdom of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, the story of martyrdom of Isaiah. These both very closely resemble the Jesus story, much more closely than nay pagan story about any god.

In order to demonstrate borrowing, or even influence, one has to show that A) the parallels are in fact meaningfully close and B) that there isn't a stronger or more likely Jewish source of influence.

B is very critical and as far as I've seen, every single case of so-called "pagan parallels" fails test B if it doesn't already fail test A.

In cases where the feature in question passes tests A and B in every one of those cases the feature in question is a late developing aspect of Christianity, typically 4th century or later, but sometimes as early as the 2nd century, but very rarely are these even features that are found in the New Testament at all, such as images of Jesus with a halo that look like Apollo, etc. Yeah, very clearly there was pagan influence on early Christian artwork, because the people making that art were Roman former pagans, they were just executing the style that was a part of their culture, but this tells us nothing about where the Jesus story came from in the first place.

I'm a big stickler on the importance of the timeline of the development of the Christian works. Even when we talk about the Gospels of Matthew and John, etc. these are later works, and they very clearly show that they weer inventing new story elements that were not a part of the original Jesus framework.

Furthermore, I think that by strictly sticking to an understanding the timelines and framework within which the Jesus story developed, the historicity of the Jesus story is much more strongly undermined.

This is the irony. These "Jesus was a pagan copy" people throw everything into the pot in an attempt to draw parallels between Jesus and other pagan god with the intention of showing that Jesus was a myth. These people act as though things like "Jesus birthday on Dec. 25th" and the virgin birth are part of the "original" description of Jesus in order to be able to make claims of pagan influence.

However, if you actually look at the real facts, and acknowledge that Dec. 25th had nothing to do with Jesus early on, that a virgin birth had nothing to do with Jesus early on, etc., then you can pretty clearly see the development of the myth itself over time, which actually undermines historicity much more strongly than the stupid "pagan parallels" claims.

My view is that virtually aspect of the Jesus character and every plot element in the Gospel of Mark and every quality of Jesus in the mind of Paul, all comes from the Jewish scriptures, primarily the books of the prophets.

There is no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story because the borrowing from the Jewish scriptures is glaringly obvious. There is no question that Paul's description of Jesus comes from the Jewish scriptures, they don't come from reality, they don't come from stories about a real person, they don't come from "pagan" religions, they come directly from the book of Isaiah and Malachi and Daniel, and other such books. The same goes for every book in the New Testament, and this fact is not only just that, a fact, but is also undermines historicity more strongly than any "pagan parallels" claims ever could.

[spamandham]

But when someone claims that the importance placed on the 12 apostles in the Gospels come from "pagan influence" this is not credible.

Doesn't that depend on how far back you are willing to go? Surely the '12 tribes' are based on the 12 lunar cycles via even more ancient 'pagan' influence rather than 12 actual sons - and the '12 apostles' are rather obviously modeled after the 12 tribes. So the root of the 12 apostles IS of astrotheological 'pagan' origin, although not directly.

....so we're right back to Toto's question again.

[dog-on]

ETA: Are you thinking of specifically human children?

Kinda rules out JC though, doesn't it?

[Malachi151]

But when someone claims that the importance placed on the 12 apostles in the Gospels come from "pagan influence" this is not credible.

Doesn't that depend on how far back you are willing to go? Surely the '12 tribes' are based on the 12 lunar cycles via even more ancient 'pagan' influence rather than 12 actual sons - and the '12 apostles' are rather obviously modeled after the 12 tribes. So the root of the 12 apostles IS of astrotheological 'pagan' origin, although not directly.

Certainly, but this doesn't qualify for Toto's question or the OP. When people say that some aspect of Jesus was "based on" or "borrowed from" some "pagan" god or tradition, they mean to the exclusion of any Jewish influence.

Saying that the 12 apostles are based on the Greek or Egyptian zodiac, for example, would be like saying that the song America the Beautiful is based on Amerigo Vespucci.

I mean, yeah, the name America comes from Amerigo Vespucci, but that isn't the basis for the author's ideas and the author of the song may not even have been aware of this fact.

The same goes for the ancient origins of Jewish religious traditions. I think that Passover is probably rooted in an ancient goat herding tradition of sacrificing a goat to bring blessing on the herd for the year at the start of the herding season in the Spring. But, very clearly, this isn't at all what Passover was taken to mean by 1st century Jews. In fact its basically certain that no 1st century Jews had even a vague concept that any of their traditions may have had any origins other than what the Torah says. 1st century Jews did not suspect that the traditional 12 Tribes of Israel were mythical and never truly existed. They did not suspect that Passover originated from earlier "pagan" type traditions.

And thus, any author in the 1st century writing a story based on Jewish traditions did not have any "pagan" concepts in mind.

The simple way to say this is simply that the basis of the Jesus character is the Jewish scriptures, period. Any "pagan" influences were those that were filtered through the larger Jewish culture and through the Jewish scriptures. That's not what people mean when they talk about Jesus being a borrowing from the myths of other pagan gods.

[Amaleq13]

ETA: Are you thinking of specifically human children?

Kinda rules out JC though, doesn't it?

Only if one intends to beg the question by creating a special category. I don't think a positive reply to the question really helps support the assertion, anyway. It would appear to lack any substantive data to support it. Just another baseless assertion put forth with undeserved confidence.

[dog-on]

Kinda rules out JC though, doesn't it?

Only if one intends to beg the question by creating a special category. I don't think a positive reply to the question really helps support the assertion, anyway. It would appear to lack any substantive data to support it. Just another baseless assertion put forth with undeserved confidence.

Nah, I just use the primary sources, Luke and Matthew... You?

[Amaleq13]

Nah, I just use the primary sources, Luke and Matthew... You?

Except for my first sentence, I wasn't referring to your comment but the assertion that inspired my post.

My point regarding your comment is that we have other examples of god/man hybrids in ancient mythology so creating a special category for Jesus or disqualifying seems arbitrary and question-begging.

[Solitary Man]

Matthean Jesus is not God himself. But neither Matthew nor Luke are primary. Mark is primary. Matthew and Luke are later works. So in Mark, is Jesus God? I dare say not.

[dog-on]

Matthean Jesus is not God himself. But neither Matthew nor Luke are primary. Mark is primary. Matthew and Luke are later works. So in Mark, is Jesus God? I dare say not.

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

[Cesc]

But, given that the "sun/light" mythology is widespread from the Arctic to the equator why should we go look for "heavenly light" to Alexandria ? Because it's the closest ? Where did the Inuit get the idea of a mysterious blinding light that guarantees the shaman has found the Great Spirit ? Who did they get their resurrectional motif from, I wonder? (Mircea Eliade, Shamanism, Princeton U.P., 1974 p. 58-60).

And then you might want to re-read the Allegory of the Cave and compare Plato's metaphor of the illumined sage being laughed at by the prisoners of darkness that his eyesight was spoiled by too much light with Jesus' being thought of as insane by his own family after his return. "And would they not kill anyone who tried to release them and take them up, if they could somehow lay hands on him and kill him ?", asks Socrates. "That they would", replies Glaucon.

Jiri
offtopic
Point taken, thx. Allegory of the Cave is prolly more relevant than Horus, or perhaps Plato's Metaphor of the Sun even (which in turn could maybe be compared to Akhnaten's philosophy). I was thinking about the Jewish milieu in Alexandria at the time of the turn of the era, and the Jewish allegorists there who were applying Greek thought and allegory to the Scriptures the way the Gospel writers arguably did. And in relation to the way the concept of Horus/Harpocrates developed during the whole Hellenistic hegemony aswell as the way Alexandria at the time was a huge buzzing centre for new ideas and new ways of thinking etc. mixing both Greek philosophy aswell as Egyptian or indeed Greco-Egyptian. Didnt the sidelock of Harpocrates (Horus) develop into the Rho of the Chi-Rho, which became an early symbol for Jesus also btw?
Thx for good reply. Very interesting with the shaminism too, I think.
/offtopic

[Solitary Man]

Matthean Jesus is not God himself. But neither Matthew nor Luke are primary. Mark is primary. Matthew and Luke are later works. So in Mark, is Jesus God? I dare say not.

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Red Herring.

[Solo]

Didnt the sidelock of Harpocrates (Horus) develop into the Rho of the Chi-Rho, which became an early symbol for Jesus also btw?


I am not familiar with any particular claim of a cryptic meaning behind the symbol. AFAIK as I know the chi-rho christogram are simply the first two Greek letters of Christos. FWIW, I believe Harpokrates was a likely inspiration for the "infant" Jesus narratives of the 2nd century: in both the Arabic Gospel of The Infancy (http://wesley.nnu.edu/Biblical_Studies/noncanon/gospels/infarab.htm) and Protevangelion the infant's birth in the cave is announced by great light.

But the narratives are construed with the view of later Jesus career, so I don't think there were great parallels to draw on. In the Thomas' Infancy Gospel, little Jesus announces himself as a saviour of the world as early as the cradle (lest mother Mary had any doubts on that score). So little chance little Jesus could keep anything secret.

Jiri

ETA: In the Arabic Infancy Gospel, the light intensity is explicitly said to be greater than the sun's - which coincides with the traditional Islamic appearance of the archangel Gabriel, described by Mohammed as falaq-as-subh, a sudden, violent rending of the night sky in the desert morning. The "sun" motive gives Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I called my son" quoted also in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, an interesting twist.

[Darrell W. Conder]

I find these types of attitudes completely unacceptable for anyone wishing to be taken seriously or wishing to actually understand anything themselves.

Let's be clear. I'm an atheist, I don't believe that Jesus ever existed, I don't think that Moses ever existed, I don't think that there was ever any exodus from Egypt by a mass of Jews.

It's of little value what you or I "believe" happened or didn't happen. It's what the accumulated evidence demonstrates. After almost four decades of wallowing in Hebrew, Torah, Nev'im and Kethuvim study, I've learned that just about anything is possible in the wild world of religion. There's one more thing I've learned, which is that it's the mark of the unwise when one takes themselves too seriously!

[Malachi151]

I find these types of attitudes completely unacceptable for anyone wishing to be taken seriously or wishing to actually understand anything themselves.

Let's be clear. I'm an atheist, I don't believe that Jesus ever existed, I don't think that Moses ever existed, I don't think that there was ever any exodus from Egypt by a mass of Jews.

It's of little value what you or I "believe" happened or didn't happen. It's what the accumulated evidence demonstrates. After almost four decades of wallowing in Hebrew, Torah, Nev'im and Kethuvim study, I've learned that just about anything is possible in the wild world of religion. There's one more thing I've learned, which is that it's the mark of the unwise when one takes themselves too seriously!

Well, its a good thing that my post went well beyond the short portion that you decided to quote isn't it?

[fatpie42]

Matthean Jesus is not God himself. But neither Matthew nor Luke are primary. Mark is primary. Matthew and Luke are later works. So in Mark, is Jesus God? I dare say not.

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Yeah, like any of them are primary sources on Jesus' birth. Luke is more reliable in the sense that it describes some typical Jewish birth rituals, but that is more likely to be because he found out what the typical Jewish birth rituals were than because he found people who knew Jesus' parents and asked what happened. Matthew's story is almost like a reverse of the Exodus story, depicting Jesus escaping INTO Egypt to escape a murderous tyrant.

I guess you could say that Matthew and Luke are both primary sources about Jesus' birth in the sense that both of them have probably made up their stories almost from scratch.

On the other hand, you could say that none of the gospels are primary because they generally work on pre-existing pericopes.

[aa5874]

There is no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story because the borrowing from the Jewish scriptures is glaringly obvious. There is no question that Paul's description of Jesus comes from the Jewish scriptures, they don't come from reality, they don't come from stories about a real person, they don't come from "pagan" religions, they come directly from the book of Isaiah and Malachi and Daniel, and other such books. The same goes for every book in the New Testament, and this fact is not only just that, a fact, but is also undermines historicity more strongly than any "pagan parallels" claims ever could.

I do not think it can be said that there were no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story, the very conception of Jesus is not Jewish at all, Trypho the Jew, based on Justin Martyr's Dialogue , did indeed consider the conception of Jesus as similar or borrowed from Greek or "pagan" myth.

Dialogue with Trypho LXVII And Trypho answered, The Scripture has not, Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, but " Behold the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son," and so on, as you quoted.

But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it is fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy.

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; and he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower.

And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather should say that this Jesus was born man of men.

And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks.

So, as early as the 2nd century, Trypho the Jew considered Jesus as described by Justin, as similar to Greek myth.

It appears the OT was used as a mask to propagate a pagan concept. And there is no evidence that any of the writers of the Synoptics were not pagans.

Up to the 2nd century, the Jewish concept of the Messiah was a military leader as Simon bar Kokhba, not the Jesus of the NT who was virtually supernatural in every aspect of his life.

[fatpie42]

aa5874,
On the pre-2nd Century messiah idea perhaps you can clear something up for me.

E.P. Sanders reckons that the idea of what a messiah involved was not so clear cut. He notes that in the dead sea scrolls it envisages two messiahs, one of whom is a descendent of David who does very little and one a descendant of Aaron who leads an army. While there were clearly others claiming to be messiahs and who clearly wanted a military victory against Roman control of the area, there is still reason to suppose that there was not a singular definition of 'messiah' which everyone would agree with at this stage.

As for whether the messiah could be expected to be supernatural, the Egyptian certainly expected to perform a great feat through God's power. Also, there were plenty of people who performed 'miracles' all over the place. Nevertheless, I think you are right to say that the Jews were not expecting a man-god who has the power to save through his death and resurrection. That notion is clearly far more Hellenic than Jewish.

Any thoughts?

[Malachi151]

I do not think it can be said that there were no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story, the very conception of Jesus is not Jewish at all, Trypho the Jew, based on Justin Martyr's Dialogue , did indeed consider the conception of Jesus as similar or borrowed from Greek or "pagan" myth.

If we are trying to deal with the origin of the Jesus story then the passages regarding Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't have anything to do with it anyway. There is no discussion of the birth of Jesus in the earlies works, that's a later addition.

[aa5874]

aa5874,
On the pre-2nd Century messiah idea perhaps you can clear something up for me.

E.P. Sanders reckons that the idea of what a messiah involved was not so clear cut. He notes that in the dead sea scrolls it envisages two messiahs, one of whom is a descendent of David who does very little and one a descendant of Aaron who leads an army. While there were clearly others claiming to be messiahs and who clearly wanted a military victory against Roman control of the area, there is still reason to suppose that there was not a singular definition of 'messiah' which everyone would agree with at this stage.

As for whether the messiah could be expected to be supernatural, the Egyptian certainly expected to perform a great feat through God's power. Also, there were plenty of people who performed 'miracles' all over the place. Nevertheless, I think you are right to say that the Jews were not expecting a man-god who has the power to save through his death and resurrection. That notion is clearly far more Hellenic than Jewish.

Any thoughts?


In "War of the Jews" by Josephus, he gave an indication of the kind of Messiah that the Jews expected at least up to 70CE.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 ......But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings , how, "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth".

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.....

The "Holy Ghost Risen" Messiah of the NT appears to be a concept which was foreign to the Jews.

[Cesc]

Didnt the sidelock of Harpocrates (Horus) develop into the Rho of the Chi-Rho, which became an early symbol for Jesus also btw?


I am not familiar with any particular claim of a cryptic meaning behind the symbol. AFAIK as I know the chi-rho christogram are simply the first two Greek letters of Christos.
Well allegedly (p.148, 149 (http://books.google.dk/books?id=XvUONxT9Oh8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=symbols+sex+stars&sig=UzMD0WOYHbhMp4IYRx-rXpmo1P4#PPA148,M1)), in time as the mystery cults spread Haropcrates became symbolised simply by the sidelock (an Egyptian sign of youth) attached to a staff as a mystical symbol for youth or for Harpocrates or something else, and looking similar to both the Greek letter P (rho) aswell as the later Roman version R.
As the ones held here (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Hecate-Greek.jpg) by Hecate with her middle arms. Perhaps as a healing remedy? Youth, life, health? I've no idea. The 'sidelock-staff' seems to form a rho such as in the versions used by Herod the Great (a chi-rho? 1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho1.jpg), 3 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho2.jpg), 4 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho-a.jpg)) and in later Christian context (1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/StIgnatiusChurchSanFrancisco.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/chi-rho23300605.jpg)).
Or the Ptolemies who used the familiar chi rho as early as Ptolemy III in the 3rd c. (1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho4.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho7.jpg), 3 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho9.jpg) and Ptolemy V (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyV-coin-chirho.jpg)) I'd love to know if it meant Chrestos to them, as in "annointed ruler" of Egypt, or Chres, KRST, or something else.

The chi rho seems to have some healing connotation: 1 (http://www.rhochi.org/catalogue/keypin.jpg), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_life)
Healing is no small element in Christianity, but is that why?


Good stuff with the infancy gospels. Jesus, the healing babe! Horus also had healing powers as Horus the Child. But then again, who wasn't also a healing god back then.
I think one of the more ancient and widespread mystical themes on the birth of light is the female moon as the womb that generates and gives birth to the light of the world, a very dominent theme indeed in the whole near-east. And since caves and grottos were likewise regarded almost universally as wombs or "creator matrix" and consequently attributed (even still today) all sorts of supernatural fertility, healing or divine communication powers, in my view its not surprising to see the theme of the light in the cave in connection with Jesus' birth. The Roman-Catholic Church often have Mary idols inside caves btw.


In the Thomas' Infancy Gospel, little Jesus announces himself as a saviour of the world as early as the cradle (lest mother Mary had any doubts on that score). So little chance little Jesus could keep anything secret.LOL I see the point, Jesus was never the poker player Harpocrates was.

[aa5874]

I do not think it can be said that there were no "pagan" borrowing in the Jesus story, the very conception of Jesus is not Jewish at all, Trypho the Jew, based on Justin Martyr's Dialogue , did indeed consider the conception of Jesus as similar or borrowed from Greek or "pagan" myth.

If we are trying to deal with the origin of the Jesus story then the passages regarding Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't have anything to do with it anyway. There is no discussion of the birth of Jesus in the earlies works, that's a later addition.

The stories of the birth of Jesus are also missing from gJohn assumed to be written after the Synoptics.

The absence of any story of the birth of Jesus from gJohn does not indicate that his birth was not discussed, nor does the absence of a birth story in gMark indicate the origin or birth of Jesus was not discussed at all.

GMark's Messiah must have an origin.
GJohn's Messiah must have an origin.

The NT contains only four Gospels, no-one really knows all what was there before and all what was discussed about the origin or birth of Jesus. I don't think we can use the NT as a historical source to determine any reasonable chronological accuracy with respect to the origin or birth of Jesus, but the risen Holy Ghost Messiah was foreign to the Jews.

Even the unknown author of gMark implied that the risen Messiah was not understood by the assumed Jewish disciples.

Mark 9.31-32, ...The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed, he shall rise on the third day.

But they [the disciples] understood NOT that saying, and were afraid to ask him.[/b]


Mark 16.6-8 And he [an angel ?] saith unto them, Be not affrighted, Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucufied, He is risen, He is not here...............And they went out quickly and fled the sepulchre........

[Solitary Man]

Matthew's story is almost like a reverse of the Exodus story, depicting Jesus escaping INTO Egypt to escape a murderous tyrant.
On the contrary, the Hebrews went into Egypt to escape famine (Jesus' flight into Egypt).

I guess you could say that Matthew and Luke are both primary sources about Jesus' birth in the sense that both of them have probably made up their stories almost from scratch.
That sounds too weird. If I make up a story about your birth, is my authority thus considered primary, i.e. first hand?

On the other hand, you could say that none of the gospels are primary because they generally work on pre-existing pericopes.
Yep.

[dog-on]

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Yeah, like any of them are primary sources on Jesus' birth. Luke is more reliable in the sense that it describes some typical Jewish birth rituals, but that is more likely to be because he found out what the typical Jewish birth rituals were than because he found people who knew Jesus' parents and asked what happened. Matthew's story is almost like a reverse of the Exodus story, depicting Jesus escaping INTO Egypt to escape a murderous tyrant.

I guess you could say that Matthew and Luke are both primary sources about Jesus' birth in the sense that both of them have probably made up their stories almost from scratch.

On the other hand, you could say that none of the gospels are primary because they generally work on pre-existing pericopes.

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

[dog-on]

Does Mark refer to JC's birth? No.

Primary source for JC's birth is either Mat or Luke...

You got another one?

Red Herring.

Ummm, why?

[Malachi151]

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

[aa5874]

Do you have any "source" evidence for these "pre-existing pericopes"?

I would be grateful to see them...

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

[dog-on]

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

Maybe the "memoirs" was an early version of Matthew.

[aa5874]

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.



Maybe the "memoirs" was an early version of Matthew.

Maybe it was not.

[dog-on]

Maybe the "memoirs" was an early version of Matthew.

Maybe it was not.

If not, then who came up with the Virgin birth story, as related to JC? I discount Luke as later, (still in Marcion's hands during Justin's time), so that only leaves Matthew, imo...

[aa5874]

Maybe it was not.

If not, then who came up with the Virgin birth story, as related to JC? I discount Luke as later, (still in Marcion's hands during Justin's time), so that only leaves Matthew, imo...

I don't think the NT represents an accurate account of the origin of the Jesus story. Perhaps it was originally believed that Jesus was not born, but came directly from heaven.

[dog-on]

If not, then who came up with the Virgin birth story, as related to JC? I discount Luke as later, (still in Marcion's hands during Justin's time), so that only leaves Matthew, imo...

I don't think the NT represents an accurate account of the origin of the Jesus story. Perhaps it was originally believed that Jesus was not born, but came directly from heaven.

I do not disagree, but that does not preclude Matthew as being the story to which Justin is alluding.

[Malachi151]

Exactly, there is no evidence of such pre-existing pericopes, and the conjecture that they exist is really a Christian apologetic. There is no evidence for them, and I think there are very god reasons to conclude that there was no "Jesus birth" narrative until either they were created by the two Gospel authors, or shortly before such time, but the key is that the story of Jesus did not begin with a birth narrative, ti was added on at some later point.

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

What I'm saying is that THERE WAS NO JESUS STORY AT ALL.

The authors of the various Gospels INVENTED THE JESUS STORY.

My view is that the Gospel authors, at least Mark, Matthew, and John, weren't "passing on" ANY traditions, or ANY existing beliefs, they were INVENTING the traditions and beliefs out of whole cloth themselves.

I'm saying that there WAS NO "virgin birth" story prior to the author of the Gospel Matthew having invented it. The virgin birth story of Jesus came into existence with the pen of Matthew, it never existed prior to that.

The author of Mark invented the entire Markan narrative, there was no Jesus narrative at all until the author of the Gospel called Mark invented one himself from his own imagination without the use of any pre-exiting traditions or stories.

The author of Matthew used the Markan narrative and then made up his own additional story elements. None of them reflect any pre-existing traditions other than Matthew of course being based on Mark, and Mark being based on Paul.

So, Mark reflects Pauline traditions and Matthew reflects the Markan narrative, and that's it. There is nothing else. There are no other secret traditions there is no secret chain of stories leading back to some real person, there is no chain of myths originating from Horus or Osiris or Dionysus, or anyone else. There are just newly created stories that were created from the minds of the authors, based on the Pauline writings and the Jewish scriptures, and thats it, that's the whole beginning and end of it all. There is no "pagan" influence, there are no far reaching traditions, there are no eyewitness accounts, there is no apostolic tradition, there are just a few guys who wrote creative stories that later came to be believed by some hapless Romans as "true biographies" and that's the whole story of how the Gospels came to be.

[spamandham]

... and Mark being based on Paul.

This isn't so clear to me. It could be the other way around just as eaily, or both could have been based on a something common from an earlier time.

[Solo]

I am not familiar with any particular claim of a cryptic meaning behind the symbol. AFAIK as I know the chi-rho christogram are simply the first two Greek letters of Christos.
Well allegedly (p.148, 149 (http://books.google.dk/books?id=XvUONxT9Oh8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=symbols+sex+stars&sig=UzMD0WOYHbhMp4IYRx-rXpmo1P4#PPA148,M1)), in time as the mystery cults spread Haropcrates became symbolised simply by the sidelock (an Egyptian sign of youth) attached to a staff as a mystical symbol for youth or for Harpocrates or something else, and looking similar to both the Greek letter P (rho) aswell as the later Roman version R.
As the ones held here (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Hecate-Greek.jpg) by Hecate with her middle arms. Perhaps as a healing remedy? Youth, life, health? I've no idea. The 'sidelock-staff' seems to form a rho such as in the versions used by Herod the Great (a chi-rho? 1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho1.jpg), 3 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho2.jpg), 4 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/Herod-coin-chirho-a.jpg)) and in later Christian context (1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/StIgnatiusChurchSanFrancisco.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/chi-rho23300605.jpg)).
Or the Ptolemies who used the familiar chi rho as early as Ptolemy III in the 3rd c. (1 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho4.jpg), 2 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho7.jpg), 3 (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyIII-coin-chirho9.jpg) and Ptolemy V (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm95/Epsilon-dat/ptolomyV-coin-chirho.jpg)) I'd love to know if it meant Chrestos to them, as in "annointed ruler" of Egypt, or Chres, KRST, or something else.


This is good stuff. I was not aware of that. Sure worth while looking into.


I think one of the more ancient and widespread mystical themes on the birth of light is the female moon as the womb that generates and gives birth to the light of the world, a very dominent theme indeed in the whole near-east. And since caves and grottos were likewise regarded almost universally as wombs or "creator matrix" and consequently attributed (even still today) all sorts of supernatural fertility, healing or divine communication powers, in my view its not surprising to see the theme of the light in the cave in connection with Jesus' birth. The Roman-Catholic Church often have Mary idols inside caves btw.


No doubt of the female motif. I guess Kalypso's cave would come to mind first. It is not at all surprising that the cave was the original nativity scene for Jesus. But I think there is a second element present there. The cave was customarily the abode of hermits and mystics who sought solutide in the wild. The darkness of the cave would provide the effects of a sensory deprivaton chamber. The photic phenomena (of inner light) are much more readily summoned in complete darkness. So I think the nativity scene is a secondary symbolic rendering of the "spiritual birth", as per John 3:1-15, or Gospel of Thomas 4. (An old man heavy in years, will not hesitate to ask a baby seven days old about the Place of Life. And he shall live, for many who are first shall be last, and they will become as One.)

Jiri

[aa5874]

To use the NT to determine the origin of Jesus is just futile. The NT represents propaganda.

And further Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and he appeared to get that information from a document called "memoirs of the apostles".

When was the "memoirs of the apostles" written?

I have no good reason to think the Synoptics represents an accurate account of the Jesus story.

What I'm saying is that THERE WAS NO JESUS STORY AT ALL.

The authors of the various Gospels INVENTED THE JESUS STORY.

My view is that the Gospel authors, at least Mark, Matthew, and John, weren't "passing on" ANY traditions, or ANY existing beliefs, they were INVENTING the traditions and beliefs out of whole cloth themselves.

I'm saying that there WAS NO "virgin birth" story prior to the author of the Gospel Matthew having invented it. The virgin birth story of Jesus came into existence with the pen of Matthew, it never existed prior to that.

The author of Mark invented the entire Markan narrative, there was no Jesus narrative at all until the author of the Gospel called Mark invented one himself from his own imagination without the use of any pre-exiting traditions or stories.

The author of Matthew used the Markan narrative and then made up his own additional story elements. None of them reflect any pre-existing traditions other than Matthew of course being based on Mark, and Mark being based on Paul.

So, Mark reflects Pauline traditions and Matthew reflects the Markan narrative, and that's it. There is nothing else. There are no other secret traditions there is no secret chain of stories leading back to some real person, there is no chain of myths originating from Horus or Osiris or Dionysus, or anyone else. There are just newly created stories that were created from the minds of the authors, based on the Pauline writings and the Jewish scriptures, and thats it, that's the whole beginning and end of it all. There is no "pagan" influence, there are no far reaching traditions, there are no eyewitness accounts, there is no apostolic tradition, there are just a few guys who wrote creative stories that later came to be believed by some hapless Romans as "true biographies" and that's the whole story of how the Gospels came to be.

I completely disagree with this theory. It is my opinion that the NT represents distortions of the origin of Christianity and the stories of the origin of Jesus.

Eusebius in Church History claimed Mark was a disciple of Peter and receive his gospel from the very same Peter, and you claim that Mark used "Pauline" tradition.

There is more to Christianity and Jesus than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

The NT is just propaganda.

[spamandham]

What about the ritualistic consumption of the body and blood of Jesus to gain new life? I can't think anything similar to that in Judaism, but it is remarkably similar to Horus/Osiris rituals:

...some fairly weak parallels individually (all pyramid text references/translations gathered from http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com). Keep in mind in all these, that Unas = Horus

Pyramid text utterance 32:22
"This is your libation, O Unas, coming
-Libation (and) two pellets of natron-
from your son, coming from Horus."

- and the parallel of Jesus providing the wine at both the wedding of Canna and the last supper

From the same utterance:
" I have come, I bring you the Eye of Horus,
so that your heart may be refreshed by it.
I bring it to you to carry you, (to be) under your soles. "

- contrast with 1 Philemon 20 "Refresh my heart in Christ."

Utterance 39:31
"Unas, take the Eye of Horus to which he went! I bring it to you, put it into your mouth. "

- here we have the idea of new life through the drinking of a libation identified with Horus...a parallel to the win of the eucharist?

Utterance 41:32
"Take the tip of the bodily breast of Horus, take it into your mouth!"

- a parallel to the bread of the last supper?

Utterance 42
"Take the full (?) breast of your sister Isis, bring it unto your mouth!"

...ok, I just through that one in for fun

Utterance 83:
"The Eye of Horus is given to him that he may be satisfied with it. "

proverbs 20:13 (OT, buy hey)
"open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread."

utterance 89
"take the Eye of Horus, pulled out of him! "

utterance 118
Osiris Unas, take your Eye, seize it!

utterance 121:77
Osiris Unas, take the Eye of Horus, pulled out of him!

142:87
Osiris Unas, take the Eye of Horus! It shall not be cut off from you!

Mark 9:47
"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell"

Utterance 261:334
"The fury of the Great Lake (S wr) avoided him.
His fare is not taken in the Great Ferryboat.
The Shrine of the Great Ones (Hedj-uru) could not ward him off the road (msk.t) of the sehedu-stars. "

...a parallel to the story of Jesus walking on water during the storm?

Utterance 267:365
"The earth is beaten into steps for him towards heaven,
that he may mount on it towards heaven,
and he rises on the smoke of the great fumigation."

and

271:390
Unas ascends on that ladder which his father Re has made for him.
Horus and Seth seize the arm of Unas and take him to the Duat Region.

...the famous stairway to heaven parallel'ed by Jacob's ladder?

Utterance 268:372
"Horus takes him to his side, he purifies this Unas in the Jackal-lake (S zAb),
he cleans the ka of this Unas in the Lake of Dawn (S dA.tj),
he rubs down the flesh of the Ka of this Unas as well as his own,"

...a parallel to the annointing of Jesus with oil prior to his death?

utternace 269:379
"They come the ones who have risen up.
They come, the ones who have risen up. "

...the idea of bodily resurrection is not Jewish. So where did the Christians get it?

Utterance 269:382:
"That land into which Unas goes,
he will not thirst in it,
he will not hunger in it, eternally."

...where did they get the idea of an land of the afterlife with no thirst or hunger? That's not Jewish either.

utterance 301:448
Say to your father that Unas has given you your bread of eternity,
that he satisfied you with what is due to you.

...more parallels to the eucharist

utterance 301:451
Lo, Unas brings you your great left Eye as healer.
Receive it from the hand of Unas, being uninjured (wDA),
the water in it uninjured, its red (blood ?) is in it, uninjured,
its breathing is in it, uninjured!

...a parallel to the water mixed with blood from Jesus' pierced side?

Utterance 215:140
O Unas! Your messengers go, your heralds hurry to your father, to Atum.

...a possible parallel to the transfiguration?


There are many many more eyebrow raising passages in these tombs for anyone who wants to go read more at the site I referenced above.

[Solitary Man]

What about the ritualistic consumption of the body and blood of Jesus to gain new life? I can't think anything similar to that in Judaism, but it is remarkably similar to Horus/Osiris rituals:

...some fairly weak parallels individually (all pyramid text references/translations gathered from http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com). Keep in mind in all these, that Unas = Horus

Pyramid text utterance 32:22
"This is your libation, O Unas, coming
-Libation (and) two pellets of natron-
from your son, coming from Horus."

- and the parallel of Jesus providing the wine at both the wedding of Canna and the last supper

From the same utterance:
" I have come, I bring you the Eye of Horus,
so that your heart may be refreshed by it.
I bring it to you to carry you, (to be) under your soles. "

- contrast with 1 Philemon 20 "Refresh my heart in Christ."

Utterance 39:31
"Unas, take the Eye of Horus to which he went! I bring it to you, put it into your mouth. "

- here we have the idea of new life through the drinking of a libation identified with Horus...a parallel to the win of the eucharist?

Utterance 41:32
"Take the tip of the bodily breast of Horus, take it into your mouth!"

- a parallel to the bread of the last supper?

Utterance 42
"Take the full (?) breast of your sister Isis, bring it unto your mouth!"

...ok, I just through that one in for fun

Utterance 83:
"The Eye of Horus is given to him that he may be satisfied with it. "

proverbs 20:13 (OT, buy hey)
"open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread."

utterance 89
"take the Eye of Horus, pulled out of him! "

utterance 118
Osiris Unas, take your Eye, seize it!

utterance 121:77
Osiris Unas, take the Eye of Horus, pulled out of him!

142:87
Osiris Unas, take the Eye of Horus! It shall not be cut off from you!

Mark 9:47
"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell"

Utterance 261:334
"The fury of the Great Lake (S wr) avoided him.
His fare is not taken in the Great Ferryboat.
The Shrine of the Great Ones (Hedj-uru) could not ward him off the road (msk.t) of the sehedu-stars. "

...a parallel to the story of Jesus walking on water during the storm?

Utterance 267:365
"The earth is beaten into steps for him towards heaven,
that he may mount on it towards heaven,
and he rises on the smoke of the great fumigation."

and

271:390
Unas ascends on that ladder which his father Re has made for him.
Horus and Seth seize the arm of Unas and take him to the Duat Region.

...the famous stairway to heaven parallel'ed by Jacob's ladder?

Utterance 268:372
"Horus takes him to his side, he purifies this Unas in the Jackal-lake (S zAb),
he cleans the ka of this Unas in the Lake of Dawn (S dA.tj),
he rubs down the flesh of the Ka of this Unas as well as his own,"

...a parallel to the annointing of Jesus with oil prior to his death?

utternace 269:379
"They come the ones who have risen up.
They come, the ones who have risen up. "

...the idea of bodily resurrection is not Jewish. So where did the Christians get it?

Utterance 269:382:
"That land into which Unas goes,
he will not thirst in it,
he will not hunger in it, eternally."

...where did they get the idea of an land of the afterlife with no thirst or hunger? That's not Jewish either.

utterance 301:448
Say to your father that Unas has given you your bread of eternity,
that he satisfied you with what is due to you.

...more parallels to the eucharist

utterance 301:451
Lo, Unas brings you your great left Eye as healer.
Receive it from the hand of Unas, being uninjured (wDA),
the water in it uninjured, its red (blood ?) is in it, uninjured,
its breathing is in it, uninjured!

...a parallel to the water mixed with blood from Jesus' pierced side?

Utterance 215:140
O Unas! Your messengers go, your heralds hurry to your father, to Atum.

...a possible parallel to the transfiguration?


There are many many more eyebrow raising passages in these tombs for anyone who wants to go read more at the site I referenced above.

This is everything wrong with amateur "scholarship". There's nothing "eyebrow raising" in any of these fake parallels. These aren't even real parallels!

[spamandham]

This is everything wrong with amateur "scholarship". There's nothing "eyebrow raising" in any of these fake parallels. These aren't even real parallels!

In what sense are they 'fake'? The similarities are there on the walls of the tombs for anyone to verify. I provided a link to the tranlsated source material that you can read and verify for yourself. This isn't just handwaving based on a book based on another book rooted in 'the 16 crucified saviors'. It's source material (well, English translations thereof).

I'm making no claim of a causal link, just noting some similarities, in particular where I'm unaware of a Jewish tradition from which they would be derived.

[Solitary Man]

This is everything wrong with amateur "scholarship". There's nothing "eyebrow raising" in any of these fake parallels. These aren't even real parallels!

In what sense are they 'fake'? The similarities are there on the walls of the tombs for anyone to verify. I provided a link to the tranlsated source material that you can read and verify for yourself. This isn't just handwaving based on a book based on another book rooted in 'the 16 crucified saviors'. It's source material (well, English translations thereof).

I'm making no claim of a causal link, just noting some similarities, in particular where I'm unaware of a Jewish tradition from which they would be derived.

They're fake as in your just listed two passages side by side, but nothing suggests any sort of parallel at all. I mean seriously

Utterance 83:
"The Eye of Horus is given to him that he may be satisfied with it. "

proverbs 20:13 (OT, buy hey)
"open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread."

There's nothing at all which suggests a parallel. There's not even any straws here to grasp at.

[spamandham]

They're fake as in your just listed two passages side by side, but nothing suggests any sort of parallel at all. I mean seriously

Utterance 83:
"The Eye of Horus is given to him that he may be satisfied with it. "

proverbs 20:13 (OT, buy hey)
"open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread."

There's nothing at all which suggests a parallel. There's not even any straws here to grasp at.

I'm claiming no causal relationships. I'm simply pointing out similarities, either in imagery or context. In this case, the imigary is similar though certainly not the context (assuming you know that the Eye of Horus is ritually represented by bread and beer).

You searched the list for the weakest point rather than the strongest.

[Solitary Man]

I'm claiming no causal relationships. I'm simply pointing out similarities, either in imagery or context. In this case, the imigary is similar though certainly not the context (assuming you know that the Eye of Horus is ritually represented by bread and beer).
Imagery? Don't you mean imaginary?

You searched the list for the weakest point rather than the strongest.
No, that would be the last one you quoted:

Utterance 215:140
O Unas! Your messengers go, your heralds hurry to your father, to Atum.

...a possible parallel to the transfiguration?

And there are factual errors as well. Judaism had both an afterlife and resurrection of the dead.

[spamandham]

And there are factual errors as well. Judaism had both an afterlife and resurrection of the dead.

Can you support that?

[Solitary Man]

And there are factual errors as well. Judaism had both an afterlife and resurrection of the dead.

Can you support that?

Josephus says so, and he's just one. A good study would be C. D. Elledge's Life after Death in Early Jud