Jump to content

Christ And Horus.


Ray Agostini

Recommended Posts

While doing some searching on the web I came across a site which mentions the work of S. Acharya. You can read more about her here at Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

Her real name is D. Murdoch. She claims, as mentioned on Wiki, that the "fictional" figure of Christ was taken from the Egyptian sun god Horus. Here are some of the parallels she outlines:

The Egyptian sun god Horus, who predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:

    *

      Isis and HorusHorus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

    *

      His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he...was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.

    *

      He was of royal descent.

    *

      At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

    *

      Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

    *

      He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

    *

      He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

    *

      Horus walked on water.

    *

      His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

    *

      He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

    *

      Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

    *

      He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

    *

      He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.

    *

      He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.

    *

      He came to fulfill the Law.

    *

      Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."

    *

      Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."

Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis--the original "Madonna and Child."

This might be one for the scholars. Her work has been challenged, but I'm wondering if any on the board can give rebuttals to her claims. I bought her book from Amazon but only just started reading it. If you have links, insight or information about her, her book, or her claims, I'd be interested to hear.

Wiki mentiones one of her critics:

Robert Price, a professor of Theology and another proponent of the Christ-myth hypothesis, is nevertheless critical of Acharya's writing:

Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations.

I do plan to read her book, and "chase" down her sources, but I'd like to hear comments from any who have already done this, or believe any of her claims are speculation and distortion.

Link to comment

Very simple. The fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been taught in all ages of the earth, and Christological things that predate Christ are a direct result of that.

Also, looking at her points, and how immensely similar to Christ's life they are, it leads me to wonder if she is twisting her sources to a certain extent, because those scholars who reject the divinity of Christ would jump for joy over such parallels if they were so clear and abundant.

Link to comment

It looks like a recanting of the "Christ Conspiracy" stuff that is oft copied/pasted on atheist and agnostic (or Alien conspiracy theorists like David Icke) websites all over the web. There is certainly an underlying truth to it in the sense that the common themes of sacrifice and redemption often recurr in various hero mythos.

I think there's a more interesting parallel between Yeshu and Krishna: both are saviors of their respective religions believed to return on a white horse to slay the wicked and bring in an era of peace.

Link to comment
Yup, I think she is majorly twisting her sources because something like this would have made a big splash in the Christian and scholarly worlds a long time ago if it was so readily evident.

There's only one way to find out, and that's to read her book and check her sources, which I am currently doing. Where is David Bokovoy? Any opinions, David?

Link to comment
This might be one for the scholars. Her work has been challenged, but I'm wondering if any on the board can give rebuttals to her claims. I bought her book from Amazon but only just started reading it. If you have links, insight or information about her, her book, or her claims, I'd be interested to hear.

Horus:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

Other claimed "parallel" pagan myths:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

Acharya specific:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

Other information:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3013/

Link to comment
This might be one for the scholars. Her work has been challenged, but I'm wondering if any on the board can give rebuttals to her claims. I bought her book from Amazon but only just started reading it. If you have links, insight or information about her, her book, or her claims, I'd be interested to hear.

Horus:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

Other claimed "parallel" pagan myths:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

Acharya specific:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

Other information:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3013/

Thanks for the links, Hooberus, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll email this to S. Acharya and see if she can provide a rebuttal. I'm not going to leave any stone unturned here, and want to get to the bottom of this. If it has any merit I will examine it. If it's an atheist/secular agenda, then I will scorn it.

Link to comment
This might be one for the scholars. Her work has been challenged, but I'm wondering if any on the board can give rebuttals to her claims. I bought her book from Amazon but only just started reading it. If you have links, insight or information about her, her book, or her claims, I'd be interested to hear.

Wiki mentiones one of her critics:

Robert Price, a professor of Theology and another proponent of the Christ-myth hypothesis, is nevertheless critical of Acharya's writing:

Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations.

I do plan to read her book, and "chase" down her sources, but I'd like to hear comments from any who have already done this, or believe any of her claims are speculation and distortion.

Happily.

Egyptian mythology is impossible to nail down because it changed with every pharaoh. Every time the capital was moved a new creation account was promulgated to justify moving the capital. Many think Egyptians didn't take their religion seriously, but many also recognize that they understood religion quite differently than we do. Some saw all the gods as different manifestations of one God. Some saw them all as children of one main God. They didn't have a problem with saying the universe was created in Thebes instead of Memphis. What cannot be denied is that their stories were edited repeatedly, and from the very beginning. After the Middle Kingdom, when contact with other nations was more and more acceptable, syncronization started to take place, and other nations' gods were seen as other manifestations of their gods. Ba'al, Marduk and El were seen as names by which other nations knew the sun God - Re. Re, by the way, was later assimilated with the God Amun, creating Amun-re - initially two gods, but combined to one. Re was also Re-herakhty (Horus) for a while. On to Horus...

Horus was originally the falcon God. He was actually a "she" at first, because the sky was a girl and the earth was a boy (opposite of most cultures). This was because the sky did not provide fertilization for their crops (via rain), the Nile did (via the inundation). Kings names were writen in a box with a little falcon over it. Horus was believed to be the first king of the world, but he was murdered. Every time a new king took the throne they were considered to be a kind of reincarnation of Horus, thus the king-god idea. Horus was born of Osiris and his wife Isis, now gods of the underworld. Later, the idea became popular that the king was horus in life and Osiris in death. Horus is assimilated with too many other gods to have a really definitive biography. Some feel Egyptian art may have influenced early Christian art. Horus and Isis are sometimes seen as a prot-Mary and baby Jesus.

You'll find that the source of most of the silly ideas above are a man by the name of Massey. He is the one responsible for these connections. Massey was never trained in ancient Egyptian. Massey never even went to college. Massey never even went to secondary school. He's an entirely self-taught "scholar" who spoke a couple of languages and "evidently some Hebrew and Egyptian." This is never proven, though, only guessed. All of the nomenclature used in the above article (immaculate concpetion, anointed one, virgin birth) is purely made up by the author. It is not present in the text. Basically, the text says a god impregnated a woman and the son became king. This is then paraphrased as an annunciation, an immaculate conception, a virgin birth and the "logos". It's ridiculous. Here is why:

1. The impregnation is not "immaculate". It has been called by some scholars "soft-core porn". It was not a virgin birth.

2. The birth is not Isis', but that of a queen of Egypt.

3. The impregnation does not come at the hands of a spirit, it comes from real sex between two palpable beings.

4. Amon tricks the queen into sleeping with him by pretending to be her husband, but he smells funny to her and she figures out he is a god. They get it on anyway. Thoth is standing by having a good time watching. There is a bunch of very dirty pillow talk going on, and the child is given a name that means "I love Amon".

5. The people with the ankhs are actually announcing the birth well after the impregnation takes place, and the ankhs infuse the baby with a divine soul.

6. The idea that a god fathers the king on earth with a human woman is actually present in just about every ancient culture, whether it had contact with Christianity or not. There is no reason on earth to think this depiction is in any way connected with Christianity.

Link to comment
This might be one for the scholars. Her work has been challenged, but I'm wondering if any on the board can give rebuttals to her claims. I bought her book from Amazon but only just started reading it. If you have links, insight or information about her, her book, or her claims, I'd be interested to hear.

Horus:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

Other claimed "parallel" pagan myths:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

Acharya specific:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

Other information:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3013/

I just had a careful look at your links, and they are all apologetic Christians. That's fine, I will still read them, but I'm mainly looking for independent commentary, that is, people who do not have any stake in "defending" something. That's not to say I'll ignore what Christian apologists have to say, but to be fair, I could also fully rely on what "secularists" have to say. I am looking for independent scholarly commentary, primarily.

Link to comment
I just had a careful look at your links, and they are all apologetic Christians. That's fine, I will still read them, but I'm mainly looking for independent commentary, that is, people who do not have any stake in "defending" something. That's not to say I'll ignore what Christian apologists have to say, but to be fair, I could also fully rely on what "secularists" have to say. I am looking for independent scholarly commentary, primarily.

Try this one out. This guy is an atheist.

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carri...inscription.htm

It has to do with the Luxor temple inscription that they say refers to the immaculate conception and so on (funny that the Immaculate Conception refers to how Mary was conceived, but this article applies it to a completely unrelated story about how a god-king was born, erroneously attributing the Christian legend to CHrist's birth. I guess the Christian copycats got the story wrong when they stole it from the temple in Luxor.)

Link to comment
I just had a careful look at your links, and they are all apologetic Christians. That's fine, I will still read them, but I'm mainly looking for independent commentary, that is, people who do not have any stake in "defending" something. That's not to say I'll ignore what Christian apologists have to say, but to be fair, I could also fully rely on what "secularists" have to say. I am looking for independent scholarly commentary, primarily.

Read the section on "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Encyclopedia of Religion. Also look up the individual pagan gods (eg. Horus, Oriris, Attis) in encyclopedias.

Link to comment

Why should we be bothered with the idea of Christian concepts in Egyptian theology? After all, they had Abraham teach them, as well as Joseph. The Hebrews were an important part of the Egyptian heritage for quite some time. The BoA teaches us that Pharaoh attempted to live according to the ancient ways and gospel. Why should we be surprised if Horus or Osiris (who died and was resurrected) should have similarities to Christ?

Link to comment
Why should we be bothered with the idea of Christian concepts in Egyptian theology? After all, they had Abraham teach them, as well as Joseph. The Hebrews were an important part of the Egyptian heritage for quite some time. The BoA teaches us that Pharaoh attempted to live according to the ancient ways and gospel. Why should we be surprised if Horus or Osiris (who died and was resurrected) should have similarities to Christ?

Shouldn't it be Egyptian concepts in Christian theology? Diffusionism works in a linear fashion, but forward not backward.

Link to comment

Ray A

I do plan to read her book, and "chase" down her sources, but I'd like to hear comments from any who have already done this, or believe any of her claims are speculation and distortion.

Ray - It isn't my field so I won't be able to give you specifics, but I am very familiar with the technique of creating these parallels between differing characters. The very process of creating the parallel list so distills and modifies the actual information that the "parallels" look more remarkable than they are. Note Maklelan's comments above about the subtle differences.

I chased similar parallels between Quetzalcoatl and any number of foreigners to whom that deity had been compared. The parallels always looked much better than the actual evidence. I strongly expect that you will find the same thing.

As for the widespread nature of certain themes - that is well known. There are some universals in the human experience that lead to similar ideas. The miracle of agriculture has lead to any number of death/rebirth/planting/regrowth themes all over the world. They do appear quite similar - but they should. While they are different "dead" seeds and different "resurrected" plants - the process is still very much the same and is personified similarly.

Link to comment

Ray - It isn't my field so I won't  be able to give you specifics, but I am very familiar with the technique of creating these parallels between differing characters. The very process of creating the parallel list so distills and modifies the actual information that the "parallels" look more remarkable than they are. Note Maklelan's comments above about the subtle differences.

I chased similar parallels between Quetzalcoatl and any number of foreigners to whom that deity had been compared. The parallels always looked much better than the actual evidence. I strongly expect that you will find the same thing.

As for the widespread nature of certain themes - that is well known. There are some universals in the human experience that lead to similar ideas. The miracle of agriculture has lead to any number of death/rebirth/planting/regrowth themes all over the world. They do appear quite similar - but they should. While they are different "dead" seeds and different "resurrected" plants - the process is still very much the same and is personified similarly.

Brant, that was my original impression, which is why I posted it here. This not the first time I've seen this either. I've read up quite a bit on Mithra as well, and the combinations don't just fit one figure, such as Horus. The other thought that came to me was the possible connection of Horus with the Book of Abraham. I have a lot of reading to do.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Brant, that was my original impression, which is why I posted it here. This not the first time I've seen this either. I've read up quite a bit on Mithra as well, and the combinations don't just fit one figure, such as Horus. The other thought that came to me was the possible connection of Horus with the Book of Abraham. I have a lot of reading to do.

Ray, I was wondering if you finished the book and what your thots were..

I am finshing Freke & Gandy's book the Jesus Mysteries which argues that todays literal christianity is an evolution of a more older spiritual christianity/gnostism which evolved from pagan beliefs 1000s of years before.

I think there are several gods such as Osiris -Dionysus that had similar myths to todays Christ.

Link to comment

If you do a study of "The Real Meaning of the Zodaic" or The Gospel In The Stars" you will see how much ancient mythology is based on the Zodiac.

The difference is that Jesus was not a myth, but an actual person - the 'prophetic word made sure'.

Link to comment

If you do a study of "The Real Meaning of the Zodaic" or The Gospel In The Stars" you will see how much ancient mythology is based on the Zodiac.

The difference is that Jesus was not a myth, but an actual person - the 'prophetic word made sure'.

I suspect number 12 is a reoccurring number in many mythologies, do you have a specific reference to the zodiac you had in mind?

As to whether Jesus was real is debatable.. I think there is very little evidence from the first century that would demonstrate that. The most commonly trotted out proof (aside from the bible that has its own inherent problems.) is the quote from Josephus that is out of context from his writing and was most likely inserted in the 4th century.

Link to comment

I don't know about Horus, but when I looked into the Osiris cult and the Christian Eucharist, there were parallels aplenty. I agree, though, that the Mithras stuff is much less interesting. Most of it's just hokey, trumped up, even downright bad interpretations of ancient Mithraic sources. On top of that, the dates are all wrong, and dependence might easily have gone in the opposite direction than what the atheists claim.

Link to comment

CK:

that the Mithras stuff is much less interesting. Most of it's just hokey, trumped up, even downright bad interpretations of ancient Mithraic sources. On top of that, the dates are all wrong, and dependence might easily have gone in the opposite direction than what the atheists claim.

Can you clarify that? Are you suggesting that a variant of Mirtha was not found being practiced in Rome in the first few centuries of CE?

Link to comment

CK:

Can you clarify that? Are you suggesting that a variant of Mirtha was not found being practiced in Rome in the first few centuries of CE?

Hi TAK,

In order to make a convincing case that the Christ-myth derives from the Mithraic mysteries, one needs to demonstrate that the Mithraic mysteries-- and especially the elements of them that are supposed to have been borrowed-- predate the corresdponding Christian elements that appear in Paul's epistles and the gospels. There is one reference (I think it's in Tacitus) to a worship of Mithras among pirates in 50 BCE, but this may or may not have been the Mithras of the mystery-religion. The mystery-religion actually borrowed its deity Mithras from Zoroastrianism (to whose Mithras Christ bears little or no resemblance). There is no real evidence for the Mithras mystery-cult until the end of the first century AD, and even then the mysteries were not in their final form. We cannot look at a third-century Mithraic site, reconstruct the rites that were performed there, and assume that they existed in the same form three centuries earlier. Unfortunately, this is what many of Christianity's secular critics have done.

Furthermore, some of the more damning reconstructions of the Mithraic mysteries have been discredited; the picture of Mithraism that has recently emerged in scholarly circles is that of an astrology-cult, not of a savior-cult.

Peace,

-CK

Link to comment

Hi TAK,

In order to make a convincing case that the Christ-myth derives from the Mithraic mysteries, one needs to demonstrate that the Mithraic mysteries-- and especially the elements of them that are supposed to have been borrowed-- predate the corresdponding Christian elements that appear in Paul's epistles and the gospels. There is one reference (I think it's in Tacitus) to a worship of Mithras among pirates in 50 BCE, but this may or may not have been the Mithras of the mystery-religion. The mystery-religion actually borrowed its deity Mithras from Zoroastrianism (to whose Mithras Christ bears little or no resemblance). There is no real evidence for the Mithras mystery-cult until the end of the first century AD, and even then the mysteries were not in their final form. We cannot look at a third-century Mithraic site, reconstruct the rites that were performed there, and assume that they existed in the same form three centuries earlier. Unfortunately, this is what many of Christianity's secular critics have done.

Furthermore, some of the more damning reconstructions of the Mithraic mysteries have been discredited; the picture of Mithraism that has recently emerged in scholarly circles is that of an astrology-cult, not of a savior-cult.

Peace,

-CK

Mithra dates back hundreds if not thousands of years before Christ. Its thought by some that when the armies concured Pompey the troops were converted to its teachings of brotherhood (and Anti female) and were brought back to Rome and was significant religion for the next 300 years until 321 when Constantine became the first "christian" emperor. Mithras also had a pope/Papa and the Vatican is believed to have been built over a Mithraic cave. Mithra has the same traits we see in other myths, Virgin birth, had 12 companions, sacrificed himself in the form of a bull for mankind .. So who has discredited the Mithra/Christian connections?

I believe Zoraster/Zarathustra also has many of the same traits as other myths.. Born of a virgin, baptized with water, fire and holy wind, confounded elders, his word was made flesh, etc..

Link to comment

I suspect number 12 is a reoccurring number in many mythologies, do you have a specific reference to the zodiac you had in mind?

As to whether Jesus was real is debatable.. I think there is very little evidence from the first century that would demonstrate that. The most commonly trotted out proof (aside from the bible that has its own inherent problems.) is the quote from Josephus that is out of context from his writing and was most likely inserted in the 4th century.

I think you would find CASE FOR CHRIST an interesting read. The author was an atheist set out to discredit the myth of Jesus Christ. Rather than prove his pupose reasonable, he concluded Jesus is the Christ and converted to Christianity. He covers historical non biblical evidence in the book. Can you out think the author? Are you really being reasonable in light of the evidence? Check it out.

Link to comment

Mithra dates back hundreds if not thousands of years before Christ. Its thought by some that when the armies concured Pompey the troops were converted to its teachings of brotherhood (and Anti female) and were brought back to Rome and was significant religion for the next 300 years until 321 when Constantine became the first "christian" emperor. Mithras also had a pope/Papa and the Vatican is believed to have been built over a Mithraic cave. Mithra has the same traits we see in other myths, Virgin birth, had 12 companions, sacrificed himself in the form of a bull for mankind .. So who has discredited the Mithra/Christian connections?

I believe Zoraster/Zarathustra also has many of the same traits as other myths.. Born of a virgin, baptized with water, fire and holy wind, confounded elders, his word was made flesh, etc..

Hi TAK,

I could regurgitate what I've read on the subject, but maybe it would be better to just point you to this article by JP Holding that nicely answers the specific points you raised.

-CK

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...