Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus

Originally posted by Byrd

And you can find out that Osiris as a god predates any mention of "Nimrod" and that Nimrod was never a deity of any sort.

Can you get me a date on Osiris?

Thought so..................

There was an interesting refutation to Harpur on this site:
www.tektonics.org...


Here is a quote from that site (which, in turn, was a quote from another scholar):
________________
Harpur refers to Kuhn, Massey and Higgins as 'Egyptologists'; but he does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources.

He is especially dependent on Kuhn, whom he describes as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the 20th century" -- [one who] "towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religions." Further, "Kuhn has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong, C. S. Lewis, Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox." Harpur declares himself "stunned at the silence with which [Kuhn's] writings have been greeted by scholars."

As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who earned a PhD from Columbia University by writing a dissertation on Theosophy; his only other link with an institution of higher learning was a short stint as secretary to the president of a small college. Though he was a prodigious author, most of his works were self-published.

I emailed 20 leading international Egyptologists, regarding the contributions made to the field by Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. I also asked their opinion of the following claims by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):

* That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian Iusa, which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves."

* That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ . . . He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."

* That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with 12 followers.'"

* That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and . . . this word, when the vowels are filled in . . . is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."

* That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least 4,000 years BCE."

Only one of the 10 experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey! Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995); nor are any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).

Since he died in 1834, Kitchen noted, "nothing by Higgins could be of any value whatsoever, because decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was still being finalized, very few texts were translated, and certainly not the vast mass of first-hand religious data."

Another scholar responded: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." He dismissed Kuhn's work as "fringe nonsense."
_______________________


Eric

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Can you get me a date on Osiris?

Certainly. He's known from predynastic times, which places his earliest mentions around 2600 BC - 3000 BC:
www.philae.nu...

The earliest drawings and writings mention Osiris as a god of fertility around 2700-2600 BC. By then the worship was fairly well established -- so as a concept, he was around for some (unknown) time period before this.
www.udel.edu...

(also www.udel.edu... )

You can compare this with all the ancient texts on the king, Nimrod (including the extra-biblical texts). These were written about 70 BC or thereabouts. This literature says that Nimrod is a great-grandson of Noah, which puts his birth at somewhere around 2000 BC.

So the first writings about Osiris are about 2,000 years older than the first writings about Nimrod. If you assume Nimrod was a real person (there is no evidence of this), then the Bible records that he was born some 1,000 years after the first written mention of Osiris.

Additional mention of Nimrod comes only after 70 AD. Much of it comes from the Midrash Rabbah, which was written about 500 AD (3,000 years after the first mention of Osiris) and indicates Nimrod was a polytheist (not monotheist) and tried to coerce Abraham into worshipping multiple gods:
en.wikipedia.org...

Nimrod only appears in the Bible and in rabbinical commentaries. A radical group of Zionists rewrote him to be a folk hero in the late 1800's/early 1900's, but they made up all the information. It wasn't based on history or theology.


[edit on 8-8-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Try studying the facts. In St. Peters Square there stands an Egyptian Obelisk in a place of prominance. It was moved from the place where Christians were martyred. Constantine formed the Catholic church but was still a worshipper of Sol Invictus.

The Romans couldn't kill all the Christians so they took over the movement.

So the obelisk is a rather grisly reminder/trophy of acts occuring in the past. Significance? Another symbol of suffering like the cross.

No...that story's easily dismissed by simply googling for information on it. It was brought to Rome by Octavius and errected in the Julian square:
www.udel.edu...

It later gets moved to Caligula's circus, but was not associated with executions of anybody. There were quite a few Egyptian obelisks around Rome, and a number of Roman copies of these. They weren't standard markers for execution sites. Instead, they were highly visible objects that marked public buildings.
jsaw.lib.lehigh.edu...

Originally posted by Byrd

Certainly. He's known from predynastic times, which places his earliest mentions around 2600 BC - 3000 BC:

The earliest drawings and writings mention Osiris as a god of fertility around 2700-2600 BC. By then the worship was fairly well established -- so as a concept, he was around for some (unknown) time period before this.

Thank you for your response. These dates seem good to me. Since Nimrod is Osiris no problem here. These dates also agree with the dating of Gilgamesh who is Nimrod. Gilgamesh(Nimrod) was considered a Man/God. As I'm sure you know, Nimrod was killed and cut up in the same fashion as Osiris(original death story) and the missing phallus is the Babylonian or Egyptian obelisk.

This literature says that Nimrod is a great-grandson of Noah, which puts his birth at somewhere around 2000 BC.

This is the time of Abraham and not the time of Nimrod.

Additional mention of Nimrod comes only after 70 AD. Much of it comes from the Midrash Rabbah, which was written about 500 AD (3,000 years after the first mention of Osiris) and indicates Nimrod was a polytheist (not monotheist) and tried to coerce Abraham into worshipping multiple gods:
en.wikipedia.org...

Nimrod did not live at the time of Abraham. These are false stories.

The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod's fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51-71; 29:16, 17; 37:97,98). It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time. Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran who did not live at the same time.

Originally posted by Sun MatrixThank you for your response. These dates seem good to me. Since Nimrod is Osiris no problem here.

Big problem. If Nimrod is Osiris, then Nimrod would be mentioned first. Otherwise, the concept should be "all gods are Osiris"... and that's also easily overturned since there are gods still older than Osiris (Bast is one of them, Horus is another one.)

These dates also agree with the dating of Gilgamesh who is Nimrod. Gilgamesh(Nimrod) was considered a Man/God.

Check your Bible again. Nimrod was never worshipped as a god anywhere, and Osiris isn't Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh isn't Bast, either.

As I'm sure you know, Nimrod was killed and cut up in the same fashion as Osiris(original death story) and the missing phallus is the Babylonian or Egyptian obelisk.

Point to some ancient texts that show that, please. As far as I have been able to determine, the only place Nimrod appears in ancient texts is the Bible, and he isn't cut up in that one.

Nimrod did not live at the time of Abraham. These are false stories.

The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod's fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51-71; 29:16, 17; 37:97,98). It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time. Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran who did not live at the same time.

Right...and as I said, the Midrash Rabbah that you cite (which is not Muslim, by the way) is a much later compilation. The first books of the Midrash Rabbah were written about 500 AD and the whole group was compiled as a single book about 1400 AD:
www.myjewishlearning.com...

So these things come much later than the Bible (by about 600 years.)

Do you have any text sources that date from 500 BC, for example?

To the author of this thread. You should really get out more often.

Most every avatar in history was born of a virgin.

There are lots of religions that are reminicent of Christian theology. Remember that the cross was a mystical symbol long before Jesus is said to have been around.

This doesnt mean that Christianity came from Egypt though.

If you read about Archetypes you will realize that if you took a culture of people and put them on mars and they had no knowledge of earth and its cultures, they would come up with pretty much the same mystical symbology. There is nothing new under the Sun, even Ecclesiastes tells us that.

Originally posted by Byrd

Big problem. If Nimrod is Osiris, then Nimrod would be mentioned first. Otherwise, the concept should be "all gods are Osiris"... and that's also easily overturned since there are gods still older than Osiris (Bast is one of them, Horus is another one.)

No problem. If Osiris is mentioned first what problem is that, they are the same person. If Gilgamesh is mentioned before Osiris, there is no problem, they are the same in a different language. If there is a flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and years later Moses writes of the flood, what's the problem.........it's the same flood.

As far as Horus being older than Osiris, Horus is the son of Osiris. There is a constant circle jerk with these false gods. As another sun god, Horus became identified as Ra.....Ra blends into Osiris as does Ptah.

It's no different than Nimrod at his death becoming Baal the sun, and having a son Tammuz. Tammuz is the reincarnated Nimrod.

Since Horus, as the son of Osiris, was only in existence after Osiris's death, and because Horus, in his earlier guise, was the husband of Isis, the difference between Horus and Osiris blurred, and so, after a few centuries, it came to be said that Horus was the resurrected form of Osiris.

en.wikipedia.org...

Check your Bible again. Nimrod was never worshipped as a god anywhere

If you understood Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 14, your view would change.

Point to some ancient texts that show that, please. As far as I have been able to determine, the only place Nimrod appears in ancient texts is the Bible, and he isn't cut up in that one.

www.ancientdays.net...

As shown in the link the Epic of Gilgamesh is dated around 2000BC. But that is not the date that Gilgamesh lived. It's the same as the Bible. Moses wrote some 500 years later and yet Nimrod lived prior to that.
As the link shows historian Josephus links Nimrod to Gilgamesh. After the scattering at Babel, there are many names for the same individual as there were now many languages. I'm not sure why you are having a problem with that concept as facts support it.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Byrd

Big problem. If Nimrod is Osiris, then Nimrod would be mentioned first. Otherwise, the concept should be "all gods are Osiris"... and that's also easily overturned since there are gods still older than Osiris (Bast is one of them, Horus is another one.)

No problem. If Osiris is mentioned first what problem is that, they are the same person. If Gilgamesh is mentioned before Osiris, there is no problem, they are the same in a different language. If there is a flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and years later Moses writes of the flood, what's the problem.........it's the same flood.

As far as Horus being older than Osiris, Horus is the son of Osiris. There is a constant circle jerk with these false gods. As another sun god, Horus became identified as Ra.....Ra blends into Osiris as does Ptah.

It's no different than Nimrod at his death becoming Baal the sun, and having a son Tammuz. Tammuz is the reincarnated Nimrod.

Since Horus, as the son of Osiris, was only in existence after Osiris's death, and because Horus, in his earlier guise, was the husband of Isis, the difference between Horus and Osiris blurred, and so, after a few centuries, it came to be said that Horus was the resurrected form of Osiris.

en.wikipedia.org...

Check your Bible again. Nimrod was never worshipped as a god anywhere

If you understood Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 14, your view would change.

Point to some ancient texts that show that, please. As far as I have been able to determine, the only place Nimrod appears in ancient texts is the Bible, and he isn't cut up in that one.

www.ancientdays.net...

As shown in the link the Epic of Gilgamesh is dated around 2000BC. But that is not the date that Gilgamesh lived. It's the same as the Bible. Moses wrote some 500 years later and yet Nimrod lived prior to that.
As the link shows historian Josephus links Nimrod to Gilgamesh. After the scattering at Babel, there are many names for the same individual as there were now many languages. I'm not sure why you are having a problem with that concept as facts support it.

Keep in mind that most of the first part of Genesis is an abridged version of Sumerian myths...

Originally posted by Quazga

Keep in mind that most of the first part of Genesis is an abridged version of Sumerian myths...

Sorry, I can't go with that comment.

I am no expert in these matters, though I tend toward the view that most hero-god types have many simularities, Christ and Horus being no exception. They may not have exactly the same particulars but in the myth as a whole they generally have the same role as a figure of hope and redemption (which I think is the genuine point of these kinds of creation/creator myths). Listened to the lastest Strieber show and the featured guest mentioned in passing that Osiris and Horus are actually not seperate entities but that Horus could be seen as the ressurection OF Osirus in a new body - which seems more in keeping of what I understand to be the majority of myth-making historically i.e. shamanistic myths of the dis-memberment and re-making of the hero-figure. Egyptian myth in particular has many resonances with shamanistic myth-making, and I have often wondered if it were not a fairly direct depiction of much older shamanistic worldview, esp the fact that Egyption gods have direct animal features, typical of the totemistic kind of view.

Sounds true to me.. but I am no expert on christianity

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
No problem. If Osiris is mentioned first what problem is that, they are the same person. If Gilgamesh is mentioned before Osiris, there is no problem, they are the same in a different language. If there is a flood mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and years later Moses writes of the flood, what's the problem.........it's the same flood.

So that means that Tammuz is George Washington. And Nimrod is Harry Potter.

I'm not convinced. I don't think anyone else is, either.

As far as Horus being older than Osiris, Horus is the son of Osiris.

Yep. That's what happens when cultures collide. Myths get merged and the gods get turned into relatives of each other.


It's no different than Nimrod at his death becoming Baal the sun, and having a son Tammuz. Tammuz is the reincarnated Nimrod.

Check your Bible again. Nimrod was never worshipped as a god anywhere

If you understood Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 14, your view would change.
I've read both, and in fact have read both Jeremiah in its entirety and Isaiah in its entirety. I've worked through the passages in Latin and peered at the Hebrew.

The dividing of the text into chapters and verses was not the way it was originally done. Numbering the books of the Bible into chapters and verses was done sometime after 1400 AD.

So if you are relying on an interpretation by taking what's essentially only one paragraph, then you've missed the whole point of what they're talking about in those books of the Bible.

Point to some ancient texts that show that, please. As far as I have been able to determine, the only place Nimrod appears in ancient texts is the Bible, and he isn't cut up in that one.

www.ancientdays.net...

That's not an ancient text, I'm afraid. That's a modern interpretation and his "ancient sources" are Josephus who was writing about 80-100 AD. My challenge was "point to something written before 1000 BC that does not relate to the Bible that says the two are one."

The flood story was stolen from Noah by the Babylonians who congregated after the flood and built the
"tower of Bable"
Naoh's great-great-great-great grandson Nimrod became the first
antidiluvian Tyrant. He wrote what he wanted to.
This book was written in the late 1800's by Rev. Alexander Hislop
The hard copy has Many archaological references. Very knowledgable and accurate!
The Two Babylons

It makes Zietgist look useless.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Quazga

Keep in mind that most of the first part of Genesis is an abridged version of Sumerian myths...

Sorry, I can't go with that comment.

That's fine Sun, you don't have to.. Its an archeaological accepted fact.


www.meta-religion.com...

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Quazga

Keep in mind that most of the first part of Genesis is an abridged version of Sumerian myths...

Sorry, I can't go with that comment.

That's fine Sun, you don't have to.. Its an archeaological accepted fact.


www.meta-religion.com...

I certainly don't doubt that they are parallel or that they talk of the same things..............I DOUBT THEY ARE MYTHS

Originally posted by Clearskies
The flood story was stolen from Noah by the Babylonians who congregated after the flood and built the
"tower of Bable"

really? because it seems that the babylonian story in the epic of gilgamesh came first (especially as it seems to be the very first piece of literature)

Originally posted by Clearskies
The flood story was stolen from Noah by the Babylonians who congregated after the flood and built the
"tower of Bable"
Naoh's great-great-great-great grandson Nimrod became the first
antidiluvian Tyrant. He wrote what he wanted to.
This book was written in the late 1800's by Rev. Alexander Hislop
The hard copy has Many archaological references. Very knowledgable and accurate!
The Two Babylons

It makes Zietgist look useless.

Ok, I realize that Clearskies and I are going to disagree about this but I encourage anyone that is interested in this topic to PLEASE look into Hislop and his poor logic, unsupported assumptions and questionable academics.

For those interested, here is a well reasoned refutation from someone that once was an adherent to Hislops religious paradigms:


www.ralphwoodrow.org...

Here are a few more sites that discuss the flaws of Hislop:

www.tektonics.org...

www.geocities.com...

homepages.paradise.net.nz...



Eric

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Quazga

Keep in mind that most of the first part of Genesis is an abridged version of Sumerian myths...

Sorry, I can't go with that comment.

That's fine Sun, you don't have to.. Its an archeaological accepted fact.


www.meta-religion.com...

I certainly don't doubt that they are parallel or that they talk of the same things..............I DOUBT THEY ARE MYTHS

Well, if one is a derivative of the other than that means at least ONE of them is a MYTH.