Jesus and Horus

[volgadon]

I am wondering if claims like:

Horus was born of a Virgin on Dec. 25th

His birth was accompanied by a star and three kings

Horus was a teacher at age 12 and began his ministry after being baptized by Anup

Horus was known by numerous names, later used by Jesus

Horus was crucified, after first being betrayed

Horus was resurrected after 3 days

etc. etc. are actually agreed upon by historians and egyptologists? I was hoping to find some more reliable sources, to better understand these claims.

No, none of them are, apart from the Dec. 25th date, which has nothing to do with Jesus anyway. All claims come from Acharya S., who made up what she didn't borrow from Gerald Massey.

[maupayman]

No, none of them are, apart from the Dec. 25th date, which has nothing to do with Jesus anyway. All claims come from Acharya S., who made up what she didn't borrow from Gerald Massey.

Ok, thank you. Do you have any sources to support this claim?

[volgadon]

Ok, thank you. Do you have any sources to support this claim?

Not much, I guess, beyond the lack of any annotation for her boldest claims, the lack of any such in books by respected egyptologists, and the preponderance of footnotes referencing Massey's works.

Her main argument in support of her claims is that of course you won't find them in books and encyclopedias, because scholars don't want you to know the truth! All, that is, except Massey, whose works are supported by Wallis Budge, the bestest ever egyptologist. He was a Christian too. Of course, we aren't told what exactly Budge supported.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterJesusHorus.html

[mfbukowski]

You're suspiscion is correct, that is not what i'm asking.

I am wondering if claims like:

Horus was born of a Virgin on Dec. 25th

His birth was accompanied by a star and three kings

Horus was a teacher at age 12 and began his ministry after being baptized by Anup

Horus was known by numerous names, later used by Jesus

Horus was crucified, after first being betrayed

Horus was resurrected after 3 days

etc. etc. are actually agreed upon by historians and egyptologists? I was hoping to find some more reliable sources, to better understand these claims.

Well I should probably disclose that before I was LDS I was an atheist so my point of view is a little different from yours.

So you want the historians to verify that there was an actual person named Horus who's birth was from a virgin and accompanied by a star and three kings- that these were historical events, or that the STORY of Horus includes these elements? As does the STORY of Jesus?

No one can prove the events of Jesus' life or how much of that is legend itself, or how "historical" any of this is. No one.

The point I am trying to make is that NONE of this is knowable in any way if you are speaking scientifically- as if we can go back and observe any of it, so in a sense IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.

The entire point is that this is all taken on faith anyway- the historical evidence we have for Jesus is very sketchy at best, and worse for Horus.

So the real point is: do you believe or not? There are many false messiahs, so how do you decide which is the true one- which is genuine and which is the copy? Going on rationality there is no way to tell.

Bible literalists usually cannot tell you how they know the Bible is "true"- so it is the same problem. The only way you can know any of this is by the spirit. The "facts" have long been covered by the sands of time.

But I guess I am about done with this. I think we are on two very different wavelengths.

[maupayman]

Not much, I guess, beyond the lack of any annotation for her boldest claims, the lack of any such in books by respected egyptologists, and the preponderance of footnotes referencing Massey's works.

Her main argument in support of her claims is that of course you won't find them in books and encyclopedias, because scholars don't want you to know the truth! All, that is, except Massey, whose works are supported by Wallis Budge, the bestest ever egyptologist. He was a Christian too. Of course, we aren't told what exactly Budge supported.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterJesusHorus.html

Thanks for this link, it gives me some more background on this issue

[maupayman]

So you want the historians to verify that there was an actual person named Horus who's birth was from a virgin and accompanied by a star and three kings- that these were historical events, or that the STORY of Horus includes these elements? As does the STORY of Jesus?

No one can prove the events of Jesus' life or how much of that is legend itself, or how "historical" any of this is. No one.

No, that is not what I want. I am asking if the Egyptians claimed these things about Horus, long before the life of Jesus. I'm not asking anyone to prove that the events actually happened.

The point I am trying to make is that NONE of this is knowable in any way if you are speaking scientifically- as if we can go back and observe any of it, so in a sense IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.

So, we know nothing about Egyptian history and Horus?

But I guess I am about done with this. I think we are on two very different wavelengths.

Quite, I think you misunderstand what I am asking about.

[caudicus]

It seems pretty clear to me that the OP would like to know, NOT if Horus was a real figure, but if those beliefs about Horus were real.

First, you have to realize that, until the 4th century, no one made a claim of December 25th for the date of Jesus' birth. I have never encountered anything (reliable) that specifically pointed to Horus' date of birth, but there are different stories as to how his birth occurred. One of those stories is a virgin birth by the mother, Isis. I couldn't tell you how much more prevalent this version is over the others. There is definitely a parallel, but this isn't an isolated incident.

Take a look at this list of miraculous births.

The main argument here, obviously, is that the story of Jesus is not unique and many aspects of his story are borrowed. Kersey Graves wrote of 16 crucified saviors and, like Zeitgeist, he gets a lot of his facts wrong. However, I think Zeitgeist and Kersey Graves were fairly on track with the truth. What they speak of is religious syncretism where, as different cultures interact a sharing of ideas creates a blend of religion that contains ideas from both sides.

Here are some images from Zeitgeist that try to demonstrate how these stories are all really just allegories for the movement of Celestial bodies.

This knowledge is nothing new. Many people condemned as "sorcerers" and "witches" had knowledge of these astrological parallels. If you ever visit the Tower of London, you can see where, hundreds of years ago, an imprisoned "sorcerer" carved a meticulous astrological chart into the stone wall that suggests exactly what is said by Zeitgeist and Acharya S.

The major rebuttal here (on this forum) seems to be that these other stories are a trick of the devil or an attempt by forces of the spirit to reveal the truth (but get it wrong over and over). First, the notion that anything is Satan's trick is just stupid. Sorry for putting it so bluntly, but if someone else was able to exert that kind of control over the minds of so many people, then the notion of agency goes up in a puff of smoke.

As to the spirit trying to reveal the truth and getting it wrong? Well, how do you know one of those other stories weren't actually the right one? If anything, that is just confirmation of the problem of inconsistent revelation.

The most reasonable explanation for the parallels in these stories is religious and cultural syncretism. It goes on with every religion and within every culture. To me, it seems obvious that most of these stories are allegories for the movements of the Heavens, but that is less obvious to anyone who wants to play dumb.

Edit: A brief recap of the Horus parallels with sources can be found on Wiki.

[Bill Hamblin]

The most reasonable explanation for the parallels in these stories is religious and cultural syncretism. It goes on with every religion and within every culture. To me, it seems obvious that most of these stories are allegories for the movements of the Heavens, but that is less obvious to anyone who wants to play dumb.

I'm sorry, this stuff is complete nonsense. It involves ignoring sources, distorting sources, and fabricating sources, as well as a wide range of faulty methodologies. The list of problems with these types of theories is almost interminable.

What we need to see is specific ancient dated primary sources for these claims, instead of simply lists of alleged parallels which distort both Christian ideas and non-Christian ideas to which they are allegedly parallel.

[caudicus]

I'm sorry, this stuff is complete nonsense. It involves ignoring sources, distorting sources, and fabricating sources, as well as a wide range of faulty methodologies. The list of problems with these types of theories is almost interminable.

You deny religious syncretism occurs?

You deny cultural syncretism occurs?

[Bill Hamblin]

You deny religious syncretism occurs?

You deny cultural syncretism occurs?

No. Syncretism is a universal phenomena. But I deny it occurs in the way these people think it does, and that it implies what these authors think it implies. Parallelomania is bad methodology.

For example, it is absurd--absolutely and completely absurd--for anyone to claim that Hindu or Buddhist ideas had any impact whatsoever on the writing of the gospels.

[caudicus]

So you would posit that there are no parallels? Or that there are parallels and they are just coincidence? Or there are parallels and they are the result of higher powers?

[mfbukowski]

You deny religious syncretism occurs?

You deny cultural syncretism occurs?

I think that one of the problems is that we see what we want to see because we are totally conditioned by our culture and time and there is no way to look into another culture and time without seeing it through the "rose colored glasses" we all wear. We cannot escape seeing the interpretation we are conditioned to see.

So in a sense we cannot know what the ancient Egyptians "really thought" about Horus, because we ourselves cannot think the way they did without being in their culture and time.

[Bill Hamblin]

So you would posit that there are no parallels? Or that there are parallels and they are just coincidence? Or there are parallels and they are the result of higher powers?

There is no grand unifying theory of historical parallels. Each alleged parallel needs to be examined independently.

But many of the parallels proposed by the "Christ myth theory" are utterly imaginary and completely bogus.

Like I said, each alleged parallel needs to be carefully examined based on dated primary sources.

[caudicus]

I think that one of the problems is that we see what we want to see because we are totally conditioned by our culture and time and there is no way to look into another culture and time without seeing it through the "rose colored glasses" we all wear. We cannot escape seeing the interpretation we are conditioned to see.

So in a sense we cannot know what the ancient Egyptians "really thought" about Horus, because we ourselves cannot think the way they did without being in their culture and time.

Nice tu quoque mixed with a little attempt to mix up the unexplained with the unexplainable. It does little for your cause.

I do not agree that parallelism is bad methodology. I do not think it is a complete methodology, by any means, but it gives anyone a jumping off point in which to conduct further inquiry. Seeing parallels in statistics usually does not occur from random chance. Correlations can be seen, easily enough. Confirming the cause and the connection requires a lot more work, but where would you be if you weren't able to make the initial leap of logic between multiple sets of data, or multiple stories?

Personally, I think there is a little more to it that simply syncretism, but it no doubt accounts for a great deal of the parallels. One has but to take a look at the map of Alexander the Great's conquered lands to see how mythology could have traveled from the East to the West.

No. Syncretism is a universal phenomena. But I deny it occurs in the way these people think it does, and that it implies what these authors think it implies. Parallelomania is bad methodology.

For example, it is absurd--absolutely and completely absurd--for anyone to claim that Hindu or Buddhist ideas had any impact whatsoever on the writing of the gospels.

How does religious syncretism occur, then? Are the mechanisms important? Do we need to know more than "two cultures meet, both religions change?" I believe that is as far as any of these authors take it. It implies that religion is merely a cultural construct and that revelation has more to do with personal culture than actual divine inspiration. How does your view differ?

You would be foolish if you denied that Christianity did not adopt some beliefs and traditions from other religions. But religion, culture, and politics are all yarns in the same blanket, so there is more to it than just a blending of beliefs. There are people with economic interests manipulating writing and attitudes at every turn. There has been an ever-present, conscious effort by people to exert power and control using religion.

This conscious effort poses a more sinister aspect of religious syncretism. There is a dishonest approach by the leaders of any large organization to save face and preserve authority. It doesn't matter if people work for the government, a corporation, or a religion. People protect their organization even in many unconscious ways. In the times that are relevant to this discussion, authorities were especially prone to decieve "for the greater good."

[Bill Hamblin]

Nice tu quoque mixed with a little attempt to mix up the unexplained with the unexplainable. It does little for your cause.

I do not agree that parallelism is bad methodology. I do not think it is a complete methodology, by any means, but it gives anyone a jumping off point in which to conduct further inquiry. Seeing parallels in statistics usually does not occur from random chance. Correlations can be seen, easily enough. Confirming the cause and the connection requires a lot more work, but where would you be if you weren't able to make the initial leap of logic between multiple sets of data, or multiple stories?

Personally, I think there is a little more to it that simply syncretism, but it no doubt accounts for a great deal of the parallels. One has but to take a look at the map of Alexander the Great's conquered lands to see how mythology could have traveled from the East to the West.

How does religious syncretism occur, then? Are the mechanisms important? Do we need to know more than "two cultures meet, both religions change?" I believe that is as far as any of these authors take it. It implies that religion is merely a cultural construct and that revelation has more to do with personal culture than actual divine inspiration. How does your view differ?

You would be foolish if you denied that Christianity did not adopt some beliefs and traditions from other religions. But religion, culture, and politics are all yarns in the same blanket, so there is more to it than just a blending of beliefs. There are people with economic interests manipulating writing and attitudes at every turn. There has been an ever-present, conscious effort by people to exert power and control using religion.

This conscious effort poses a more sinister aspect of religious syncretism. There is a dishonest approach by the leaders of any large organization to save face and preserve authority. It doesn't matter if people work for the government, a corporation, or a religion. People protect their organization even in many unconscious ways. In the times that are relevant to this discussion, authorities were especially prone to decieve "for the greater good."

It is odd that you prefer to theorize and speculate about syncretism rather than actually engage the specific claims and evidence of the "Christ myth" crowd.

Check out, for example, the claims that Horus was crucified. Here is Acharya S's explanation:

My link

Note that nowhere in the article does she provide a single piece of ancient evidence that ancient Egyptians claimed that Horus was crucified. Rather, she says things like: lots of religions had cross symbolism, ancient Egyptians used the ankh cross, and ancient Egyptian gods are depicted as having outstretched arms, post-Jesus Gnostic speculations, the djed pillar kind of looks like a cross, etc. etc.

So please note: SHE FAILS TO PROVIDE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY ANCIENT TEXT DESCRIBES HORUS AS BEING CRUCIFIED. So how could this possibly be the source of the crucifixion story of Jesus?

And this is as good as it gets in the Christ-myth theory.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let's try another claim:

Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer at Age 30.

Ancient evidence, please? There is none. It is pure assertion. It is a complete fabrication. It derives from Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt The Light of The World), and is simply endlessly repeated by the Christ-mythers without providing any evidence.

[caudicus]

I never made that claim that Horus was crucified, but the image of Dionysus in my previous post clearly shows the cross and that was 400 years? before Jesus. I believe a man by the name of Appolonius was also crucified. Also in my previous post, I stated that the like of Kersey Graves and the Zeitgeist film got their facts wrong. In the case of Zeitgeist, I suspect it was made to send a shocking message to a mainstream audience. Kersey Graves didn't have the Internet, and Acharya S has no excuse. Easy enough to pick one point of the easiest one to refute.

Some of their facts may be wrong, but some of them are right, too. My main point is that religious syncretism occurs and has occurred extensively in regards to Christianity. Do I even need to start citing specific examples? Do I need to outline early Christian authorities who lied in the interest of the greater good? Do I need to get specific as to how much was cut out of the Bible and how it was rearranged for strictly political reasons? Are you suggesting that there were not ANY crucified saviors before Christ?

[Bill Hamblin]

I never made that claim that Horus was crucified, but the image of Dionysus in my previous post clearly shows the cross and that was 400 years? before Jesus. I believe a man by the name of Appolonius was also crucified. Also in my previous post, I stated that the like of Kersey Graves and the Zeitgeist film got their facts wrong. In the case of Zeitgeist, I suspect it was made to send a shocking message to a mainstream audience. Kersey Graves didn't have the Internet, and Acharya S has no excuse. Easy enough to pick one point of the easiest one to refute.

Some of their facts may be wrong, but some of them are right, too. My main point is that religious syncretism occurs and has occurred extensively in regards to Christianity. Do I even need to start citing specific examples? Do I need to outline early Christian authorities who lied in the interest of the greater good? Do I need to get specific as to how much was cut out of the Bible and how it was rearranged for strictly political reasons? Are you suggesting that there were not ANY crucified saviors before Christ?

The Orpheos-Bakkikos image has been dated to the third century after Jesus. (By the way, it is now lost, and many scholars think it a forgery.) But, if it is authentic, it is an example of pagan syncretism with Christianity some 200+ years after Jesus, not the other way around. Do you have any pre-Christian evidence of the crucifixion of Dionysus? (By the way, a shift to the question of Dionysius is a fallacy of distraction, since the question here is Jesus-Horus.)

There are two separate issues here. Does religious syncretism occur? Of course it does. Who has denied this? Do Christians do it? Of course.

Are all claims of religious syncretism therefore correct because we know that it occurs? Of course not. So the only question at hand is: are the Jesus-Horus claims accurate? They are not. It is utterly bogus.

I am unaware of any authentic ancient evidence of a crucified savior before Christ. Do you have any? I'd like to see it.

[Bill Hamblin]

I never made that claim that Horus was crucified, but the image of Dionysus in my previous post clearly shows the cross and that was 400 years? before Jesus. I believe a man by the name of Appolonius was also crucified. Also in my previous post, I stated that the like of Kersey Graves and the Zeitgeist film got their facts wrong. In the case of Zeitgeist, I suspect it was made to send a shocking message to a mainstream audience. Kersey Graves didn't have the Internet, and Acharya S has no excuse. Easy enough to pick one point of the easiest one to refute.

First of all, Apollonius of Tyana died around 100 AD or after, so his death could not possibly have had any impact on the crucifixion stories in the Gospels, which were all written before he died. Secondly, I know of no evidence he was crucified. Finally, essentially our only source for Apollonius is the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus, written in the early third century, two centuries after the death of Jesus. So, if there is syncretism, it is again flowing from Christians to Philostratus, not the other way around.

Once again, an utterly bogus Christ-myth claim.

[maupayman]

It is odd that you prefer to theorize and speculate about syncretism rather than actually engage the specific claims and evidence of the "Christ myth" crowd.

Check out, for example, the claims that Horus was crucified. Here is Acharya S's explanation:

My link

Note that nowhere in the article does she provide a single piece of ancient evidence that ancient Egyptians claimed that Horus was crucified. Rather, she says things like: lots of religions had cross symbolism, ancient Egyptians used the ankh cross, and ancient Egyptian gods are depicted as having outstretched arms, post-Jesus Gnostic speculations, the djed pillar kind of looks like a cross, etc. etc.

So please note: SHE FAILS TO PROVIDE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY ANCIENT TEXT DESCRIBES HORUS AS BEING CRUCIFIED. So how could this possibly be the source of the crucifixion story of Jesus?

And this is as good as it gets in the Christ-myth theory.

Thanks, Bill and Caudicus, this is more the discussion I was hoping would take place. Addressing specific claims.

[maupayman]

So, from what I have read, from your links etc, it seems that there are some possible ideas that may have influenced christianity, such as the relationship of Isis and Horus. However, most of these claimed links are murky, at best. For example, Horus was resurected, but certainly not in any fashion similar to Christ. He stayed in the underworld etc. So, these claims seem to be a little strong, given what Egyptologists claim about Horus.