You're welcome to 'think outside the box' all you like, I'm still going to question whether or not the views you've come up with (or adopted from others) - while 'thinking outside the box' - are warranted, historical beliefs given the information available. If indeed you are a real student of history (I apologize if I insinuated otherwise) then you won't mind examining the claims of both the aforementioned websites (focusing more on religious tolerance since they say the same thing and it's easier to sort through).
Originally Posted by questionmark
I would like to mention my uncertainty of an article written almost exclusively from Harpur's Pagan Christ and Google (see footnote 6). The issue with Harpur's book is that the foundation for his writing - Higgins, Massey and Kuhn - is predicated upon poor history, even worse research on the part of the aforementioned authors. Another author who held to the above beliefs is Miller, however his views are equally as mistaken (and unfortunately cited).
So lets go through a few things, I'll post what I know and you can perhaps come back and substantiate your view, perhaps I'm overlooking pertinent historical documents. Oh and by the way, there is no 'heat' of emotions - I simply enjoy a good debate; examinations of my beliefs as they are challenged by those around me. Anyway... Let's deal with a few claims.
1. Horus was born of a virgin, the only begotten son of the God Osiris whose mother was Isis-Meri.
In reviewing the 'birth narrative' of Horus I'm actually unable to find anything remotely similar to the claim above or to the birth narrative of Jesus. The 'birth narrative' of Horus as held in Egyptian mythology is as follows:
"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it. The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..." [CANE:2:1702]You'll find that Isis and Osiris were married; there's nothing too virginal about that (hence, no comparison to Jesus' birth narrative). There is absolutely nothing in the Horus myth to suggest 'only begotten son' status and furthermore 'Isis-Meri' is not the name 'Mary'.
2. Both had 'foster fathers' named Joseph (Seb).
Seb (or Geb) was the father of Osiris, who was the father of Horus. Seb (Geb) being a distinct name from Joseph. I can provide links to this if you wish, however, it's fairly common knowledge.
3. Both of royal descent.
No disagreement here.
4. Horus and Jesus were both born in caves.
I haven't found any stories claiming Horus was born in a cave. Rather, he was born in a swamp.
5. Birth was announced by angels, stars and shepherds.
Nothing in the Horus account of angels, stars or shepherds.
6. Birth date, winter solstice.
Horus was born the 31st day of the Egyptian month Khoiak, what we would call November 15th. Jesus wasn't born on December 25th...
Now, I could keep going with this but do you see my point? There is absolutely no historical substantiation of any of the claimed similarities between Horus and Jesus, in fact there are examples above of such poor historical inquiry that there are factual details that are wrong (such as Seb (Geb) being the father of Horus). The fact of the matter is that if I kept going down the list (and this would be the same for Mithra, Dionysus, Krishna, etc.) we would come to the same conclusions - these claims are fictional, unsupported and not believed (initially) by the cultures these beliefs originate in.
Now on the other hand there is quite a lot supporting the view that Jesus existed as a historical person, that is a real good discussion if you're willing to get into it. As for the above, well, unfortunately to say it's shoddy. You know what they say, how can I fully understand, appreciate and defend my views if I don't also understand those views contrary and inimical to mine?
By the way, I'm not a fan of the King James Bible Too many 'ye's'.