Jesus vs. Horus

[techboy]

then show me an orginal, without an orginal there is no way to compare, only offer up a guess

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. I'll go with the experts on the subject.

[CrabR]

The bottom line is the same, a few synonyms being used wo't hurt the overall theme of Christianity.

Besides HOW much more accurate can you get than the Vaticanus ,Sinaiticus & Septuagint....

Those things are like 1600 years old.....

Don't know how accurate you can get as the originals are no where to be found

How do you know they were not lying? Paul admits to using deception to make people believe and God sends lying spirits so people will believe a lie

[CrabR]

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. I'll go with the experts on the subject.

have the experts found an original ? am i missing something.

[techboy]

I read about the story of Jesus' life and all the usual things that come with it. Then I come across the story of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God. I'll let the tables at this link show the similiarities:www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

On another note, I think it is also very telling to examine just who the sources for this chart are. Primarily, the article cites Harpur (see my quote on page 8 for the opinion of modern scholarship regarding him, Massey, Kuhn, and company) and Acharya S, who is not only not an expert in any sense of the word, but is also very erroneous and probably crazy. (Click the link for more details, including how the Joos and the Mormons are enaged in a plot involving setting off a nuclear bomb to bring about armageddon... )

Further, if you read a little further down the page, you see that 10 egyptologists say that Horus did not have a virgin birth. That's pretty much par for the course with these things. Most of these "parallels" are either entirely made up, based on weak and tenuous interpretations, or use old, discredited research, while the actual experts (like Dr. Yamauchi or T N D Mettinger, who I cited earlier) say something completely different.

[techboy]

have the experts found an original ? am i missing something.

No, the originals are long since gone. What you are apparently missing is that textual critics do not need a copy of the original in order to reconstruct it, which actually makes sense, since if there was an original, textual criticism wouldn't be needed at all.

[Xameil]

I think you misremembered.

How It Works: The prisoner is hoisted off the ground, arms restrained to the sides or behind the back, and simply left alone. Over time, the prisoner will grow tired and fall forward--constricting the lungs and causing asphyxiation. Death by crucifixion can take hours or even days.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/ig/Types-of-Executions/Death-by-Crucifixion.htm

I think you should research more or read more of what I said not everyone died from it. there are several cases of people only being left up for a few hours. As I said later...you COULD die from it but it was NOT a death sentence persey. Jesus...did not die from the crucifiction...he died from the sword.

Now instead of trying to prove me wrong....why don't ya just admit THIS time you have no Christian source" to say it was an immediate death sentence

[Xameil]

So if Christ would not have risen (act) would we have Christianity? No! You are totally incorrect!

Totally disagree. Yes you would. It may not have gained the popularity and the foothold, but I bet it wouls still exist.

[techboy]

I think you should research more or read more of what I said not everyone died from it. there are several cases of people only being left up for a few hours. As I said later...you COULD die from it but it was NOT a death sentence persey. Jesus...did not die from the crucifiction...he died from the sword.

Actually, the Gospels record that Jesus was already dead when the sword was thrust into His side to make sure. This article from the Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association talks about the brutal process Jesus went through, and what the likely cause of death was. Here's the conclusion:

In summary, I would suggest that Jesus was unable to carry his cross because of his cruel treatment and scourging. He then fell with the 100 pound crosspiece on his back and was unable to break the fall because his outstretched hands were tied to the crosspiece. This resulted in blunt chest trauma and a contused heart. On the cross the workload of the heart was greatly increased due to multiple factors, but primarily the increased effort necessary to breathe. This resulted in a rupture of the free wall of the heart, which caused Jesus to cry out in a loud voice and suddenly die. This cause of death is confirmed for us by the sword pierce to the side, which resulted in the flow of blood and water. In effect, that was a brief and legitimate postmortem exam.

[The_cavalierman]

That portion was not a reference to Egyptian myths, per se, but more regarding cults of deities like Mithras, where we don't have anything definitive about them until the 2nd century or even later, and it does indeed appear that there was some borrowing from Christianity.

If you don't believe me, go get Mettinger's book. It's in GMU's library, at least, because that's where I found it.

That is too massive a reach for me to believe that Egypt needed to borrow anything from Christianity. In fact Christianity is hard pressed to show anything they have not begged, borrowed or stolen from another religion.

Please give me the full name of the author so I can check it out.

[techboy]

Totally disagree. Yes you would. It may not have gained the popularity and the foothold, but I bet it wouls still exist.

The history of Israel is littered with people that claimed to be Messiah, only to be killed and have their movements fade away. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus should have been any different, and the actions of the Apostles confirm this, as they spent those three days in hiding, afraid and confused.

[techboy]

That is too massive a reach for me to believe that Egypt needed to borrow anything from Christianity.

Didn't I just say that I wasn't suggesting that Egyptian myths borrowed from Christianity? As I said, I was referring to cults like Mithras, the Western version of which seems to have come into existence in the 2nd century AD or later.

In fact Christianity is hard pressed to show anything they have not begged, borrowed or stolen from another religion.

As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you like, of course, but I think I'll go with the experts.

[The_cavalierman]

Didn't I just say that I wasn't suggesting that Egyptian myths borrowed from Christianity? As I said, I was referring to cults like Mithras, the Western version of which seems to have come into existence in the 2nd century AD or later.

Mithras is a cult now? If I'm not mistaken didn't Christianity borrow a little something from them as well?

As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you like, of course, but I think I'll go with the experts.

I think what you meant to say is you only agree with the experts that back what you want to believe. I guess you simply choose to ignore all of the experts that don't agree.:laugh:

[Major Harris]

The short answer is this is not my thread...

nah, the short answer is:

"i don't buy it, and won't no matter what."

the long answer would be:

"i don't buy it, and won't no matter what. i will however, troll in the thread, demanding links, and will just say "biased source" at every turn."

[techboy]

Mithras is a cult now? If I'm not mistaken didn't Christianity borrow a little something from them as well?

Yes, you are mistaken. Let's review once more, shall we?

And now we're to the internet myths about Mithras. Just a preface here... most of this stuff floating around the internet is based on work by Francis Cumont (or nobody at all), and has been since discarded by more modern research, which has determined that most of the parallels are bogus, and where they do exist, generally they would have to be the other way around (Mithraism borrowing from Christianity) due to the dating. The following quotes are from an interview Lee Strobel does with Dr. Edwin Yamuachi, a foremost expert in this field, who among his extensive qualifications, was a participant at the Second Mythraic Mysteries Congress in Tehran in 1975. Quotes are from Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. All quote Dr. Yamauchi directly.

Here's what happened at the Congress:

The Congress produced two volumes of papers. A scholar named Richard Gordon from England and others concluded that Cumont's theory was not supported by the evidence and, in fact, Cumont's interpretations have now been analyzed and rejected on all major points. Contrary to what Cumont believed. even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested to as early as the fourteenth century B.C., we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late-too late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity. (page 168)

More quotes from Dr. Yamauchi on the problems with the idea that Mithraism influenced Christianity:

The first public recognition of Mithras in Rome was the state visit of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, in AD 66.. It's said that he addressed Nero by saying, 'And I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras.' There is also a reference earlier to some pirates in Cilicia who were worshipers of Mithras, but, this is NOT the same as Mithraism as a mystery religion. (page 169)

Mithraism as a mystery religion cannot be attested before anout AD 90, which is about the time we seee a Mithraic motif in a poem by Statius. No mithraea [or Mithraic temples] have been found at Pompeii, which was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in AD 101. It's now in the British Museum. (page 169)

The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated to AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That's basically what's wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity (page 169)

Gordon dates the estanblishment of the Mithraic mysteries to the reign of Hadrian, which was AD 117-138, or Antoninus Pius, which would be from 138 to 161. (page 169)

Specifically, Gordon said, 'It is therefore reasonable to argue that Western Mithraism did not exist until the mid-second century, at least in a developed sense (page 169)

Editor's note: Dr. Gordon is a senior fellow at the University of East Anglia.

Further, most of the parallels aren't even true! For example, Mithras was not born of a virgin. He sprang out of solid rock! Dr. Yamauchi again:

He [Mithras] was born out of a rock. Yes, the rock birth is commonly depicted in Mithraic beliefs. Mithras emerges fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he's holding a dagger and torch. In some variations, flames shoot out from the rock, or he's holding a globe in his hands. (page 171)

Also, Mithras didn't die and was ressurected (more on the uniqueness of this story later, by the way, and not just about Mithras). There's no record of Mithras dying at all!

We don't know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no supposed references to a death and resurrection. Indeed, Richard Gordon declared in his book "Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World" that there is "no death of Mithras"-and thus, there cannot be a resurrection. (page 172)

The December 25 parallel is often claimed, but the Christian church didn't adopt that date until the 4th century, so that's not a parallel with the Bible either.

I'll stop the detail here, because I have a lot to still cover, but I think that's sufficient to demonstrate that there is absolutely no evidence that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, and if anything, Mithraism may well have borrowed from Christianity!

I think what you meant to say is you agree with the experts that back what you want to believe. I guess you ignore all of those experts that don't.:laugh:

Thank you, but no, I said exactly what I meant.

You might have noticed, over and over, that the scholars I quoted, along with rejecting the "parallelism" theory, also noted that pretty much every other scholar does the same? If you didn't, I can quote those parts again, too...

[Helter_Skelter]

Lot's of good info here, guys. I wasnt looking to bash anybody's religion, just loooking for some to shed light on the subject. :applause:

[The_cavalierman]

nah, the short answer is:

"i don't buy it, and won't no matter what."

the long answer would be:

"i don't buy it, and won't no matter what. i will however, troll in the thread, demanding links, and will just say "biased source" at every turn."

So asking for some form of proof to back up all of these claims against the OP is trolling? So I guess anyone can just post a bunch of bunk here without any proof.

1. The original poster backed up his thoughts with links

2. Pretty much everyone in dispute with the OP's opinions with the exception of techboy have not provided anything to back up their opinions.

[techboy]

I think what you meant to say is you only agree with the experts that back what you want to believe. I guess you simply choose to ignore all of the experts that don't agree.:laugh:

I'll tell you what... Maybe we should review this too.

Mettinger:

As a result of the many decades of research since de Vaux (1933), "it has become commonplace to assume that the category of Mediterranean 'dying and rising' gods has been exploded... (I)t is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or ressurection." These words of J.Z. Smith aptly summarise the present state of research. (56)

Craig:

Now from D. F. Strauss through Rudolf Bultmann the role of myth in the shaping of the gospels was a question of lively debate in New Testament scholarship. But with the advent of the so–called "Third Quest" of the historical Jesus and what one author has called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus,"{1} that is, the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus and the gospels is first–century Palestinian Judaism, not pagan mythology. A most informative article on the demise of myth as a useful interpretive category for the gospels is Craig Evans's "Life–of–Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," in which he chronicles and accounts for the "major shift" away from mythology as a relevant factor in gospel interpretation.{2}

Given that Jesus and the gospels find their natural home in first century, Palestinian Judaism, recourse to pagan mythology to explain them has become otiose. Hence, we find James Dunn, called upon to write the article on "Myth" for the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, questioning even the need for such an entry in the dictionary: "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars"–Strauss and Bultmann.{3} In lamenting that most commentators have no "knowledge of–or at least, they certainly ignore–the tools that modern anthropology has provided for the analysis of myths and myth construction," Fales tacitly recognizes that his views in gospel interpretation would be rejected by the vast majority of NT critics (and not, therefore, simply by "fundamentalists!"). What he does not appreciate is that the construal of the gospels in terms of myth has been tried and found wanting by NT scholarship.

Evans:

Not long ago Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ created a sensation by presenting in new form the odd notion that Jesus did not exist. (11) I say odd because almost no serious academic- of any ideological, religious, or nonreligious stripe- doubts that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived some time in the first century and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea. The evidence for the existence of Jesus- literary, archeological and circumstantial- is overwhelming.

According to Harpur,

"There is nothing the Jesus of the Gospels either said or did- from the

Sermon on the Mount to the miracles, from his flight as an infant from

Herod to the Ressurection itself- that cannot be shown to have

originated thousands of years before, in Egyptian Mystery rites and other

sacred liturgies such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead. (12)"

In short, the Gospel writers have transformed an important Egyptian theme of spirituality into a Jewish allegory of a man who never existed. In this way the fictive Jesus passes on an ancient religious legacy, a legacy that might be called the "Pagan Christ". It is hard to imagine how the evidence of history could be more forced and distorted than what we have in The Pagan Christ.

Harpur at one time believed that Jesus was a historical person. In fact, as seen in his earlier writings, Harpur believed that Jesus truly healed people and was raised from the dead. He now denies all of this in The Pagan Christ. What brought on the change? Judging by the comments that he makes at the beginning of his book, his change in thinking had little to do with critical, historical work (though the work of "minimalists", that is, those who minimize the historical elements in the Bible, exerted some influence). It had more to do with adopting the theosophic views of Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). The work of these men, especially their reconstructions of ancient history and attempts to draw lines of continuity between Egyptian religion and Christianity, is deeply flawed. No qualified historian takes the theories of these men seriously. Anyone charmed by Harpur's Pagan Christ should beware. We are talking old, odd stuff here. Personal philosophy and introspection it may be; history in any responsible, recognized sense it is not. (13)

Emphases mine.

These are all highly qualified experts, citing the opinions of the rest of the highly qualified experts.

[Major Harris]

So asking for some form of proof to back up all of these claims against the OP is trolling? So I guess anyone can just post a bunch of bunk here without any proof.

1. The original poster backed up his thoughts with links

2. Pretty much everyone in dispute with the OP's opinions with the exception of techboy have not provided anything to back up their opinions.

it's just at some point, if you're going to cry about backing things up, while saying all links are biased, you should back up some of what you're trying to say.

maybe it's not trolling. hell, around here, it's par for the course.

[techboy]

So asking for some form of proof to back up all of these claims against the OP is trolling? So I guess anyone can just post a bunch of bunk here without any proof.

I don't know what kind of proof would convince you, but at this point I'm willing to drive you to the university campus of your choice so you can ask one of the professors there directly, because that's about all I've got left.

[mad4comp]

On the other hand, when one has thousands of copies, spread out over a wide variety of areas, it becomes possible to compare between them, working backwards, determining where such changes have been made, and correcting for them. This is what textual critics do. I go into more detail here, but the upshot of it is, again, that the texts we look at today are substantially identical to the originals.

So I see, Argumentum ad copies. So if one person made a copy, and then distributed that false copy around (copying more times) does that make it true just because there are hundreds of copies all around?

Unless you have the original, there is no way to compare....Sorry your argument doesn't hold water.

Lastly, you say "critics, and historians" yet you consistently provide excerpts by Dr. William Craig and other Christian apologetics, how about the non-Christian ones? Oh thats right, you provide one weak reference by Dr.Bart Ehrman (who in every other case has disagreed with everything Craig said). BTW William Craig is a douche, I've read a bunch of his articles and in each one of them he either references biblical scriptures or his own book and basically says "Look its there, therefore it's true."

Give me more sources please, and leave the biased sources such as Craig's out of it. I don't care much for his books either, they are a load of crap.

[Zguy28]

I think you should research more or read more of what I said not everyone died from it.

You said:

common misconception...Crucifiction was torture, not a death sentence. Most who were crucified lived. It was the sword to the side that would be blamed for the death.

there are several cases of people only being left up for a few hours. As I said later...you COULD die from it but it was NOT a death sentence persey. Jesus...did not die from the crucifiction...he died from the sword.

Now instead of trying to prove me wrong....why don't ya just admit THIS time you have no Christian source" to say it was an immediate death sentence

What are you talking about? What cases of a few left up for only a few hours?

And Jesus died because of trauma to his heart, but not from the spear.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/crucifixion/

[Zguy28]

So I see, Argumentum ad copies. So if one person made a copy, and then distributed that false copy around (copying more times) does that make it true just because there are hundreds of copies all around?

Unless you have the original, there is no way to compare....Sorry your argument doesn't hold water.

Lastly, you say "critics, and historians" yet you consistently provide excerpts by Dr. William Craig and other Christian apologetics, how about the non-Christian ones? Oh thats right, you provide one weak reference by Dr.Bart Ehrman (who in every other case has disagreed with everything Craig said). BTW William Craig is a douche, I've read a bunch of his articles and in each one of them he either references biblical scriptures or his own book and basically says "Look its there, therefore it's true."

Give me more sources please, and leave the biased sources such as Craig's out of it. I don't care much for his books either, they are a load of crap.

And with that, I fear any chance there was left at rational dialog may have flown right out the window.

[techboy]

So I see, Argumentum ad copies. So if one person made a copy, and then distributed that false copy around (copying more times) does that make it true just because there are hundreds of copies all around?

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the Bible is true because there are lots of copies. I'm arguing that the Bible is accurate because there are lots of copies.

That's not my opinion, that's the result of years of textual criticism.

Unless you have the original, there is no way to compare....Sorry your argument doesn't hold water.

Take it up with the textual critics.

Lastly, you say "critics, and historians" yet you consistently provide excerpts by Dr. William Craig and other Christian apologetics, how about the non-Christian ones?

Is Mettinger a Christian? He's a professor in Sweden. Is that a hotbed of evangelical fervor these days?

Oh thats right, you provide one weak reference by Dr.Bart Ehrman (who in every other case has disagreed with everything Craig said). BTW William Craig is a douche, I've read a bunch of his articles and in each one of them he either references biblical scriptures or his own book and basically says "Look its there, therefore it's true."

Again you seem to be unable to grasp that the New Testament texts are historical documents, as any other writings, and used by historians of all stripes to derive data as to the events of the time period. It is in this manner that Dr. Craig cites the Bible, generally, as does Dr. Ehrman, and pretty much every other historian of the time period, as it is the best source.

Give me more sources please, and leave the biased sources such as Craig's out of it. I don't care much for his books either, they are a load of crap.

Look, if trustworthy experts, in peer-reviewed journals and published books, citing the opinions of all the other experts isn't enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.

There is a problem here for me, actually. Given that no one has taken the "Jesus myth" hypothesis seriously for years, no one except Christians have any incentive to write about it, and then people decry me for "biased sources"!

The equivalent would be if some poster here cited an article from the internet talking about building a time machine, and Corcaigh responded that this was not feasible under current technology and our laws of physics, and someone demanded that he provide journal articles as proof. There wouldn't be any, of course, because who bothers wasting time refuting theories no one takes seriously?

Now, I have cited credible, academic sources from a variety of places, all pointing out that the myth hypothesis is bunk and no serious scholar places any value in it. Inside of those references are probably 10 to 15 experts, Christian and non.

If you don't have anything more than dismissive comments without substantiation, then we have nothing else to discuss.

Believe what you want. I'll go with the experts.

[mad4comp]

And with that, I fear any chance there was left at rational dialog may have flown right out the window.

Like there was ever a chance to begin with. Posting excerpts from biased sources = rational dialog?

[Kosher Ham]

Still they are experts regarding a book.

There are experts in plenty of fields. Most of them have more than a book with missing chapters to back up their claims.

Example; Automotive Expert. All of them have seen and touched a automobile, they have made repairs, yes they have read books and such, but the automobile is tangible, and there is proof that they exist beyond just a book saying so.