PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Christian parallels to Christ



Old Earther
Jan 13th 2009, 07:58 PM
What does everyone here make of the striking parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Athanasius
Jan 13th 2009, 08:22 PM
Factually incorrect :D

HisLeast
Jan 13th 2009, 08:27 PM
What does everyone here make of the striking parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

First time I saw this was on Zeitgeist (or however you spell it) and I found it shocking. But in a few minutes of Googling I was able to find someone who did a pretty thorough job of debunking it. The interesting thing was it was a pretty adamantly atheist Egyptologist.

Gulah Papyrus
Jan 13th 2009, 08:30 PM
...same thing I think of the similarities with the others...

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html (http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html)

Romber
Jan 13th 2009, 10:29 PM
What does everyone here make of the striking parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Very interesting. I am tolerant to believe much of the information, as I don't know how much bias was put into the work. Jesus has been around much longer than Horus(he is the Alpha and Omega), and in the nitty-gritty it could be even foreshadowing of the King to come, just like the entire old testament is. It also has been debunked many times, as HisLeast pointed out. One last thing, all this proves nothing. Just because Sir Issac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz invented calculus independently of each other at nearly the exact time does not mean one copied the other. It is my understanding that many of these similar myths are taken after the sun. This is not surprising as the sun is the ultimate glorification of God we find in nature. In the end, all these similar myths do is take what is pure and true (God) and then corrupt it to their culture.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 13th 2009, 11:51 PM
What does everyone here make of the striking parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

The article greatly oversimplifies Egyptian mythology.

The name "Horus" is a general catchall for multiple deities, the most famous of whom is Harseisis (Heru-sa-Aset) or Horus-son-of-Isis (sometimes called Horus the Younger) who was conceived after the death of his father, Osiris (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/osiris.html), and who later avenged him. In all the Horus deities the traits of kingship, sky and solar symbology, and victory reoccur. As the prototype of the earthly king, there were as many Horus gods as there were rulers of Egypt, if not more.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html

shepherdsword
Jan 16th 2009, 12:31 AM
Sounds like someone just bought an old copy of Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand faces" ;)

DoctorZOomZoOm
Jan 16th 2009, 03:59 AM
What does everyone here make of the striking parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

The site is run by a couple of Wiccans and an atheist and it's a front for the Church of Scientology as well. The people who run that site are very biased against Christians, unless you consider the Manson family to be "a group with Christian beliefs" as they once said (they might still have that statement on there) to be a completely unbiased statement. The Manson's had Christian beliefs??? LOL! There's a reason Wiccans and Satanists love to reference the "religious tolerance" website.

Here's the story of Osirus/Horus in a nutshell:

Osirus is killed by his evil jackal headed brother Set. Set chops him up and scatters the pieces. Isis, their sister, finds the pieces (except for one eye), puts them back together with magic, has sex with his corpse, and gets pregnant with Horus. Horus grows up and avenges his father, killing Set.

Now, when you look at it that way, there's not a whole lot of similarities, are there?

I used to fall for this same load of malarky that Jesus was based on ancient Pagan charachters, but now I've discovered it just ain't so! The long and the short of it is, when you hear people saying these things, they are anti-Christian and have an axe to grind, and there's always a lot of bad scholarship involved. For instance, you'll read about Krishna being similar to Christ in the sense they both were raised from the dead. But the stories about Krishna rising from the dead don't appear until well after Christian missionairies visited India, and some scholars concede that the idea came from stories of Jesus rising from the dead, not the other way around.

shepherdsword
Jan 16th 2009, 03:50 PM
I agree with Doc. This is a clear case of apophenia.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 16th 2009, 05:06 PM
First time I saw this was on Zeitgeist (or however you spell it) and I found it shocking. But in a few minutes of Googling I was able to find someone who did a pretty thorough job of debunking it. The interesting thing was it was a pretty adamantly atheist Egyptologist.

Yeah, I had some friends finally talk me into watching it after listening to them go one about how it was the greatest thing in the world for a week. There's an hour of my life that will never come back. What a piece of garbage that flick was. It would be hilarious if so many people didn't buy into it.

HisLeast
Jan 16th 2009, 06:25 PM
Yeah, I had some friends finally talk me into watching it after listening to them go one about how it was the greatest thing in the world for a week. There's an hour of my life that will never come back. What a piece of garbage that flick was. It would be hilarious if so many people didn't buy into it.

Its an interesting phenomenon isn't it? I think Zeitgeist is so popular because it taps into two powerful thoughts...

1) "Its all someone else's fault". The reason why life sucks is because of the handfull of greedy hyper elitists (rather than the combined cause and effect of all of humanity).
2) "I told you so". Because even though there's apparently nothing we can do about it (despite the calls to "wake up", whatever that means) it gives the person a powerful trump card they can play when things get bad or worse. "I saw this coming. I always knew it. I told you so"

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 26th 2009, 12:05 AM
Its an interesting phenomenon isn't it? I think Zeitgeist is so popular because it taps into two powerful thoughts...

1) "Its all someone else's fault". The reason why life sucks is because of the handfull of greedy hyper elitists (rather than the combined cause and effect of all of humanity).
2) "I told you so". Because even though there's apparently nothing we can do about it (despite the calls to "wake up", whatever that means) it gives the person a powerful trump card they can play when things get bad or worse. "I saw this coming. I always knew it. I told you so"

Not that bringing this thread back from the dead is anyone's priority but I dug this up from a conversation a while ago and figured I'd throw it out there. Maybe take a break from pissing my own crowd off for a while.

Itinerant Lurker's Zeitgeist Review:

The first segment of Zeitgeist is concerned with religion and essentially makes the case (I'm using the term "case" very very loosely here) that the OT law is derived from egyptian religions, that Christ is just one of a series of "solar messiah's" that appear in every major religion and is a purely fictional literary character not an actual historical one, that Christianity is really based on ancient astrology, and that religion in general is a means by which the "elite" rule the masses and as such that the church is responsible for a myriad of evils including the dark ages, the crusades, and the inquisition. Unfortunately the mental giants who put this film together used up their budget making an intro of epic length and fantastic non-importance, leaving little funds left for any actual research.

From the start the movie leaves a bad taste in my mouth that smacks of arrogance of the worst kind (the ignorant kind) when the writers clue us ig'nant folk in that "good vs. evil is one of the most umbiquitous mythological dualities". No kidding brainiac, thanks for bringing me up to speed on that one. Let me just say for the record that it is impossible to catalogue the full extent of this films historical, theological, and logical errors so that I am reduced to pointing out the most glaring.

To begin with the film attempts to show that the ten commandments were plagerized from "spell 125 in the Egyptian book of the Dead" by scrolling through some of the commandments in spell 125 and highlighting the ones that match up with the ten commandments. And, wouldn't you know, after going through OVER 40 COMMANDMENTS they are able to nab one here or there that is also found in the OT. Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you look through every recorded code of law in history and see if they don't contain things like "don't steal, don't murder, don't lie in court, ect., ect.," Strangely enough the vast majority of the Egyptian laws that have no OT contemporary are ignored like "I have not cursed the king". Go figure.

Zeitgeist goes to great lengths to show that world religions are full of messianic figures who were born on Dec. 25th, had 12 disciples, were killed (sometimes on a cross), came back to life after three days, were called "the lamb of God", and so on and include, among many others, Horuss, Mithra, and Christ. Honestly I thought Thomas Paine made a better argument for this a few hundred years ago, at least he could do so with a bit more integrity as such theories had not been completely annihilated by comparative studies of these claimed parallels. The makers of Zeitgeist have no such excuses and instead seek merely to pander to the ignorant and the biased. . .luckily Lurker is here to mend their errors so get ready Zeitgeist - you're about to get owned.

Let's look at those examples of Horuss and Mithra again. For one thing there's a big gaping hole in the whole concept of Dec. 25th being earth shatteringly important because virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that Christ wasn't actually born on Dec. 25th. The church chose this date to celebrate his birth centuries after the death of Christ in order to replace pagan winter solstice celebrations. I highly doubt you'd have shepherds out in their fields with their sheep in the middle of the night in the dead of winter (Luke 2:8).

But wait, there's more cool stuff about Dec. 25th because on this date the three stars in Orion's belt align with the star Sirius. By referring to these three stars as "three kings" the movie claims a source for the Biblical account of Christ's birth in that the "three kings" of Orion's belt follow the star (Sirius) towards the birth place of the sun (East) = God's sun = God's son. Nice right? There are two very big problems here, one is that the only gospel that mentions the magi (Matthew) calls them "wise men" not "kings" and it does not specify how many of them there are, only that they brought three gifts. The other is that apparently the guys that wrote this stuff don't get outdoors much. The wise men were from the east right? If you're traveling FROM THE EAST then you are going west (well. . .maybe northwest or southwest but pretty much any direct except east) which would be a little problematic for finding the birth place of the sun IN THE EAST but works pretty well if you're going from Persia to Bethlehem.

Another problem is that Horuss is not exclusively a sun god but has been associated with the sun, the sky, and the moon depending on the tradition. Neither was Horuss the product of a virgin birth but was, instead, spawned by a pretty disturbingly incestuous reassembly of his father's (Osiris) remains by his mother (Isis) complete with artificial reproductive gear as Osiris' apparently didn't qualify for the Egyptian pantheon organ donor program. At best he's a semi-reincarnated Osiris. I have no idea where the movie gets it's claims that Horus was born on Dec. 25th, was crucified, resurrected after three days, ect, ect. I'm assuming they got it from the same place they got the idea that they were smart enough to make this film. . .which I think must be a very, very bad place.

Then we get to Mithra, a Persian diety who, depending on the tradition, was born from rock, a cave, a tree, or a big cosmic egg. There's no virgin births, twelve disciples, or crucifixions in any of these traditions. It's when the movie makes the claim that Mithra is referred to as "the lamb of God" that I seriously start wondering if these guys have gone beyond googling their favorite conspiracy sites in researching this. Mithra is associated with bulls not lambs, specifically in bathing in the blood of those bulls. . .I'm going to need some help with how you make the jump from "I slay powerful bulls and bathe in their blood" to "I'm a gentle innocent lamb". Help me out here fellas.

The claim that Jesus never existed, ostensibly "proven" by the claim that the Josephus accounts were inserted later by the Church, is wholly disingenuous and, to be a little more brutally honest, completely retarded. Most scholars agree that the first of the two accounts Josephus gives of Christ was altered, but when the altered text is removed we are still left with two recordings of the existence of Christ. It is also hard to believe Christianity would have spread throughout Jerusalem and, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the throughout the Roman world if it's opponents could have shown that Christ never existed. It seems like a pretty easy thing for them to have done and it is interesting that such arguments never arose until many, many centuries later.

This movie is obsessed with astrology and leaves no perfectly good explanation ignored in it's attempt to support it's fantastic claims. . .it's a bit like watching "Fantasia 2000" in an imax theater while plastered. . .but without the obvious fun factor. . .or all the pointing. Thus we get claims that the ambiguous man carrying water who is mentioned in Mark 14 by Christ,

""Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us."

Is actually an earth-shatteringly important reference to the constellation Aquarius. The justification for this atrocity of logic is that Aquarius is depicted as a man pouring water out of a jar. . .not carrying water but pouring it. You're right, that makes perfect sense.

Another smug example thrown out in Zeitgeist is that Christians are actually ignorant about the "actual" source for the fish symbol associated with Christianity and typically displayed on many a station wagon. Zeitgeist chortles away that this is actually the pagan astrology symbol for Pisces and has a merry little giggle about how clever it is. I have a hard time comprehending the gall of this movie labeling anything other than itself as "ignorant", but to do so in this instance is a perfect example of it's own dubious nature. I suppose it would be too much to expect Zeitgeist to have actually researched why the early church adopted the symbol of the fish, if they had they might have realized that the Greek word for fish, "IXTHUS", happens to be an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior" in Greek. And that the early church adopted it for exactly this reason.

The movie then claims that religion is a means of social control for the elites


http://www.freewebs.com/ryanat0or/Halo2ELITE.jpg

(This is who actually controls all world religions)



and goes on to blame the church for the dark ages, the crusades, and the inquisition. Really? The church is responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire? Don't you think little things like the waves of Visigoth invasions that sacked Rome and took power might have had something more to do with that? Teutoburg and Adrianople had a far greater impact in the crumbling of the empire that would kick off the dark ages than Christianity and if you don't know what Teutoburg and Adrianople are than you have absolutely no business trying to comment on such topics while maintaining any kind of credibility. Furthermore if there had been no church what would have held western europe together? Would there have been a strong enough uniting force for Charles Martel to oppose the Muslim invasions at the battle of Pontiers? Would there have, then, been a Carolingian dynasty? A Charlemagne? A Holy Roman Empire? Without the monastaries would there have been the educated layer of society necessary to have a Renaissance if no one could read to rediscover the classics? Who would have stopped Attila from sacking Rome if there had been no pope? Anyone who has studied the crusades would know that they were a complex series of engagements initiated by multiple parties, painting them all with the same broad brush displays a whole lot of ignorance and not much else. I'll grant Zeitgeist the inquisition, though the actual numbers of those charged, jailed, and executed are far, far, less than what is commonly believed and, in fact, more executions took place during the Renaissance than the middle ages ("dark" ages was a term invented by the Renaissance much like the "flat earth" myth was invented by the Enlightenment).

But nothing tops this atrocity of logic:

". . .for 1600 years the Vatican maintained a political strange hold on all of Europe."

Really? After the council of Nicea it took quite a while for the position of Pope to achieve the kind of political power usually associated with the Holy See. It's not until the mid 5th century that you start getting assertions of papal power with the decline of the Roman Empire and the slow shift of civil authority to church officials clearly demonstrated in the confrontation between Pope Leo I and Attila the Hun in 452. And it won't be until 800 A.D. that Pope Leo III will crown Charlemagne emperor to kick off the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. Technically there isn't even going to be a "Roman Catholic Church" until the schism in 1054. And what about periods in which the papacy is dominated by political forces like, oh I don't know, the 70-year Avignon captivity? Seriously guys, google it or something.

I've got to wonder, did anybody bother to run these numbers before hand or did "1600" just have a magic ring to it? Nicea was what? 324 A.D.? That means that even if I grant your ludicrous starting date for a Papal "strangle hold on all of Europe" we're looking at an end date of 1924. Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the Reformation? How about the Church of England? Apparently Europe is a total wuss that can be strangled with incredible ease.

There's just so much wrong here that it ruins what might have been a good film. The tragedy is that human history is filled with enough actual odd coincidences and fantastic stories that there's no need to make so much of this up in order to build a conspiracy theory. So here's my two-fold suggestions to conspiracy theorists; either at least try to research your "evidence" or make your theory audacious to the point of hilarity (see the phantom time hypothesis) so that, at least, it'll make someone laugh.

ilovemetal
Jan 26th 2009, 02:25 AM
religious tolorance; sound like an oxymoron.

"let's be tolorant, unless you think we're wong"
"i believe in tolorance, but don't dissagree with me"

shepherdsword
Jan 26th 2009, 05:23 AM
""if i must die then i must inspire while i live" -shai hulud"

Is that a reference from one of Herbert's "Dune" series books?
I have read them all and I don't recall that one