Horus/Jesus

[AussieU2fanman]

Just stumbled across this Ancient Egyptian God named Horus. The parallels drawn between Horus and the life of Jesus are more than a little astounding!

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

and also http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

Hmm, the Bible is totally insipred and inerrant, (supposedly) that means it was not copied at ALL from any other sources, it is PURELY the word of God. These similiarities are quite conincidental I'd say! As a rational person, I would have to say that Christianity has plagarised from many other sources, in this case Horus (and most Christian rituals are indeed pagan as we all should know). What do you other RATIONAL Christians say about this? (After you read the similarities between Horus and Jesus, remember the Horus story is very old and dates many centuries before Jesus's time). Indubitabley, I'd have to say that these overwhelming coincidences can vindicate the notion that the Bible is not inspired and inerrant, anyone care to retort?

 

[nathan1977]

I didn't realize Horus was a real live human being who lived and breathed and walked among us.

Spend about five minutes with the mythology and you'll realize how far removed the one is from the other.

 

[AEON]

I have read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" as well as "The Jesus Mysteries" - which go into detail about the similarities between many of the Mystery Cults and the story of Christ.

While these books are certainly entertaining, Christianity certainly has more differences from the religions than they have things in common.

All religions are going to have "some" things in common. The idea of a redeemer, or suffering servant, goes very far back. The Book of Isaiah wrote about a redeemer several hundred years before the Mystery Cults taught it - does that mean they (ironically) copied the "idea" from writings that predicted the arrival of Jesus Christ?

 

[AEON]

Another thing regarding this subject - nobody denies that Christian holidays and festivals have pagan origin (Christmas in December, Easter in Spring...etc) But these holidays and traditions are not Biblical, they are simply cultural leftovers.

Also, listen/read to the words that Horus actually preached - aside from the discussions of there being an afterlife - there is precious little in common.

I was very fascinated by all forms of Gnosticism for several years. But the ides of esoteric and "secret" knowledge that only the wisest can perceive and be saved (the essence of Gnosticism) - goes against everything else Jesus Christ taught. Yes, some disciples “understood” what Jesus was saying before others, and even today, some verses require explanation from those who have studied the material at a greater length than the common person. That being said, nobody is saved by knowledge, they are saved by faith. That alone is the foremost reason that I leave Gnosticism as an intellectually entertaining read – and nothing more.

Moreover, isn't it possible that "Truth" was somehow imprinted on the hearts in every person, and many try/tried to express that Truth in art and religion? If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and everything about Him is literally true - wouldn't you think that perhaps God would "wet the soil" of these cultures in order that they would recognize Christ when He actually DID come?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I didn't realize Horus was a real live human being who lived and breathed and walked among us.

Spend about five minutes with the mythology and you'll realize how far removed the one is from the other.

Umm....I think the point I was alluding to was pretty clear, however everyone seems to have missed the point. The Horus Egyption God was obviously a Myth, he never walked among us....that's not the point. The point is the similarities between his life and Jesus's life are so INCREDIBLY astounding that any normal rational human would have to say beyond a trickle of doubt, that the early Christians copied the old story of Horus, did u read the links I provided you with...?

 

[melon]

Without either trying to defend or discredit this, I'll merely make an argument out of logic that will probably displease both sides.

The Zoroastrian religion was founded by a prophet named "Zarathushtra" (Greek: "Zoroaster"). In their scriptures, the "Avesta," there were two books on his life: an earlier text seen as likely being historical, and a later, mythical text on his life. Unfortunately, the earlier text is mostly lost, having been a victim of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire.

This, however, illustrates my point: that Jesus could have simultaneously existed, while also being given mythical treatment in scriptural writings. Unfortunately, a dedication to accuracy was not a quality valued in civilizations until well over a millennium later. Back then, it would not have been illogical for Jesus' believers, convinced that He was the fulfillment of Messianic prophesies, to have embellished on details to get others to follow. After all, the logic would have been that, as long as people were believers, the details of how to convert people would have been irrelevant.

Considering that none of the New Testament reliably dates prior to A.D. 70, it is very logical that the Biblical writers would have filled in details from myth that they did not know. However, that is not to say that Jesus didn't exist, much in the same way that the historical "Zarathushtra" and the legendary "Zarathushtra" are vastly different.

Melon

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Without either trying to defend or discredit this, I'll merely make an argument out of logic that will probably displease both sides.

The Zoroastrian religion was founded by a prophet named "Zarathushtra" (Greek: "Zoroaster"). In their scriptures, the "Avesta," there were two books on his life: an earlier text seen as likely being historical, and a later, mythical text on his life. Unfortunately, the earlier text is mostly lost, having been a victim of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire.

This, however, illustrates my point: that Jesus could have simultaneously existed, while also being given mythical treatment in scriptural writings. Unfortunately, a dedication to accuracy was not a quality valued in civilizations until well over a millennium later. Back then, it would not have been illogical for Jesus' believers, convinced that He was the fulfillment of Messianic prophesies, to have embellished on details to get others to follow. After all, the logic would have been that, as long as people were believers, the details of how to convert people would have been irrelevant.

Considering that none of the New Testament reliably dates prior to A.D. 70, it is very logical that the Biblical writers would have filled in details from myth that they did not know. However, that is not to say that Jesus didn't exist, much in the same way that the historical "Zarathushtra" and the legendary "Zarathushtra" are vastly different.

Melon

I agree that there is no doubt he existed. However, I firmly believe that he was in no way a God, this came about due to generations of heresay and chinese whispers.
If he was actually a God, and did all these wounderful things, there would have been some historical writings/scriptures written during his lifetime, not 30 years after! After all, Jesus exposed himself to soooooo many people (thousands and thousands in fact). Surely SOMEBODY would have written ANYTHING about him during his lifetime, but this is not the case.
Anyway, I agree that the mythology of Horus was copied by the Biblical writers to fill in all the many many gaps.

 

[AEON]

Considering that none of the New Testament reliably dates prior to A.D. 70,
Melon

Actually - James is dated around 45 AD

 

[melon]

Actually - James is dated around 45 AD

Well, I'll admit that what I said about the date was sloppy of me, so I decided to search for a comprehensive list of how the NT is thought to have been dated:

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

* Gospel of Mark: +70 CE (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
* Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 CE (conservative dating in the 60s)
* Gospel of Luke: +80–90 CE (conservative dating in the 60s)
* Gospel of John: +95–110 CE (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)
* Acts: +80–90 CE (conservative dating in 60s)
* James: ca.70–200 CE (conservative dating ca.45–62 CE)
* Colossians: +60 CE+
* Corinthians: +57 CE
* Ephesians: +65 CE
* Hebrews: +60–90 CE
* Epistles of John: +95-110 CE
* Jude: +70–100 CE (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier)
* First Peter: ca. 90–96 CE (conservative dating ca.64 CE)
* Second Peter: 100–140 CE (conservative dating ca.64 CE)
* Philemon: +56 CE
* Philippians: +57–62 CE
* Romans: +57–58 CE
* Galatians: +54–55 CE (conservative dating in the late 40s)
* Thessalonians: +50 CE
* Timothy: +70–100 CE (conservative dating ca.60)
* Titus: +70–100 CE (conservative dating ca.60)
* Revelation: +81–96 CE (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)

Either way, all of them are dated after the traditional date of Jesus' death, circa A.D. 30.

Melon

 

[Se7en]

Without either trying to defend or discredit this, I'll merely make an argument out of logic that will probably displease both sides.

The Zoroastrian religion was founded by a prophet named "Zarathushtra" (Greek: "Zoroaster"). In their scriptures, the "Avesta," there were two books on his life: an earlier text seen as likely being historical, and a later, mythical text on his life. Unfortunately, the earlier text is mostly lost, having been a victim of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire.

This, however, illustrates my point: that Jesus could have simultaneously existed, while also being given mythical treatment in scriptural writings. Unfortunately, a dedication to accuracy was not a quality valued in civilizations until well over a millennium later. Back then, it would not have been illogical for Jesus' believers, convinced that He was the fulfillment of Messianic prophesies, to have embellished on details to get others to follow. After all, the logic would have been that, as long as people were believers, the details of how to convert people would have been irrelevant.

Considering that none of the New Testament reliably dates prior to A.D. 70, it is very logical that the Biblical writers would have filled in details from myth that they did not know. However, that is not to say that Jesus didn't exist, much in the same way that the historical "Zarathushtra" and the legendary "Zarathushtra" are vastly different.

Melon

no, melon. i don't think you get it. jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or savior. there is no possible way that the 4 gospels selected out of many more by a few guys in rome are not divinely inspired, inerrant, or in any way something other than 100% fact.

 

[nbcrusader]

I always find it interesting that atheists or the non-religious, given the array of religious belief floating out in this world; feel compelled to disprove the existence of Jesus. I wonder what is tugging at their hearts.

 

[melon]

I always find it interesting that atheists or the non-religious, given the array of religious belief floating out in this world; feel compelled to disprove the existence of Jesus. I wonder what is tugging at their hearts.

Probably the frustration of seeing "believers" trying to legislate their seemingly irrational morality into law, while being simultaneously told that they, as "non-believers," don't matter.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H.W. Bush, 1987.

Of course, then there's the added frustration of watching "believers" berate Muslim countries for enshrining their own morality into law. Hypocrites, anyone?

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

Interesting analysis, but the member raising the issue is from Australia. The usual cut 'n paste arguments regarding GWB don't apply.

 

[melon]

Interesting analysis, but the member raising the issue is from Australia. The usual cut 'n paste arguments regarding GWB don't apply.

Completely besides my point. I'm sure you can think of plenty of people who would hold an identical opinion to him.

Likewise, there doesn't seem to be too many believers who would disagree with that contention openly.

Melon

 

[AEON]

"irrational morality"
Melon

Melon,

You do raise some interesting issues that Christians must address. However, in order to attempt to address your assertion - I need a clearer picture of the actual problem. Could you please explain to me what is irrational about Christian morality - as it is taught in the New Testament, not by George Bush?

If you have the time - could you please cite the NT passages that correspond to your grievance?

Thanks!

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I always find it interesting that atheists or the non-religious, given the array of religious belief floating out in this world; feel compelled to disprove the existence of Jesus. I wonder what is tugging at their hearts.

I find it increasingly interesting that whenever I confront Christians or any other religious people with clear cut questions, (in a non-malicious way) they seem to never...ever....under any circumstances....answer the quesiton in the least..... or failing that, aknowledge the veracity of what im trying to insinuate.

 

[maycocksean]

Tom Petty once sang that people will "believe what they want to believe."

If you want to disprove Christianity, I'm sure you can find ways to do so. If you believe you have a relationship with a living God, various attempts to discredit your faith will generally not have much impact.

I'm a Christian and I didn't find the Horus and Jesus comparisons to be that compelling. The fact that they were written as a list of comparisons to me seems particularly suspect. I have a feeling that if we were to read the story of Horus "in context", not with "similarities" gleaned out and lined up next to details from Jesus life, we'd find the comparisons to be even less compelling.


We're dealing with two groups--Christians and atheists-- with an "agenda." The websites can't claim impartiality--they clearly want to discredit Christianity. I'm not claiming any more impartiality for myself either. I just don't see much "objectivity" on either side of the issue.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

goolgle it for unbiased views objectively reviewing the story of Horus. I can agree that the links I provided you with are pertaining to a certain viewpoint, however, it is all backed up with fact, something which appeals to pragmatists such as myself (it may scare some fervent christians however ...)

 

[maycocksean]

I find it increasingly interesting that whenever I confront Christians or any other religious people with clear cut questions, (in a non-malicious way) they seem to never...ever....under any circumstances....answer the quesiton in the least..... or failing that, aknowledge the veracity of what im trying to insinuate.

Another song, an old 10,000 Maniacs lyric:

"Science is truth for life. Religion is obsolete."

I find that mentality difficult to argue with, much as you find the insistence on faith aggravating in dealing with believers.

We who have Absolute Truth--by that I mean you AND me--are difficult to convince aren't we?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Another song, an old 10,000 Maniacs lyric:

"Science is truth for life. Religion is obsolete."

I find that mentality difficult to argue with, much as you find the insistence on faith aggravating in dealing with believers.

We who have Absolute Truth--by that I mean you AND me--are difficult to convince aren't we?

What are we (Absolute truth holders) being convinced with......? If you are implying that we cannot be convinced arguments based on an empty, intellectually sterile, yet surprisingly common human propensity of 'faith,' you'd be correct.

 

[Kieran McConville]

When someone says 'I find it interesting that', my internal clockspring translates 'I'd like to THROTTLE YOU!!!!!". Take this as a light-hearted aside. Don't worry, I say the same things, all the time, in my room.

 

[maycocksean]

What are we (Absolute truth holders) being convinced with......? If you are implying that we cannot be convinced arguments based on an empty, intellectually sterile, yet surprisingly common human propensity of 'faith,' you'd be correct.

Well, the words "empty" and "intellectually sterile" are certainly loaded and hostile terms (since my life of faith hardly feels empty or intellectually sterile to me), but yeah, what the heck, I'll concede that point.

My "arguments" for faith are not based on science. And when I enter into an argument with someone who believes that "science is truth for life" I cannot win. And really neither can you. We are at an impasse.

The thing is that the Christian and the Atheist Know.

The Atheist Knows that there is no God. He/She bases that certainty on scientific evidence.

The Christian Knows that there is a God. He/She bases that certainity on their personal experience with a living God, an experience that CAN be rooted in a reasonable faith (reasonable does NOT equal scientifically based), and guided by the Bible (the degree of guidance varies within Christianity varies as I'm sure you know).

If there is be any real discussion at all, both sides have to be willing to listen respectfully, answer what questions are asked when it's possible, and PERHAPS be willing to concede at least the possiblity that they might be wrong.

 

[verte76]

Faith can't be based on science. Faith is something that you believe, not something that you can objectively prove with experiments. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that it's not true. Far from it, it can be as real as day and night to the believer.

 

[AEON]

Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."

 

[nbcrusader]

I’m not sure AussieU2fanman asked any sort of clear cut question. He “stumbled across” a web site that provide parallels between two different belief systems and declared, on the basis of the parallels, that one must have plagiarized the other (and declared Christianity as myth in the process). Perhaps that is not the best method to invite discussion despite the self declaration of non-malicious intent. The process of drawing parallels between two sets of facts, absent other forms of direct evidence, does little to create a logical connection between the two.

I noticed that AussieU2fanman hinges the divine nature of Christ on a thirty year delay in writing on his life. Would that really make all the difference for you?

 

[DrTeeth]

Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."

Intriguing

Care to illustrate this with a few examples?

 

[AEON]

Intriguing

Care to illustrate this with a few examples?

search on some of these scientist for a start:

biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

 

[melon]

Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."

Specifically, there's a general revival towards "deism," the Enlightenment-era theology that God is defined through reason and observation. Deists, traditionally, have a negative attitude towards tradition and scripture (the "Jefferson Bible," most famously). However, it is not inherently anti-Christian, as the Jefferson Bible also illustrates.

Secondly, there is another trend towards Buddhism and Hinduism (particularly the Buddhist-inspired "Advaita Vedanta" school), particularly amongst those who put a lot of weight into quantum theory. Their philosophy on the nature of Brahman fits in well with quantum theory.

Really, I'd say that both still require large amounts of faith, but, most importantly, they demonstrate that science and religious beliefs are not inherently incompatible.

Melon

 

[AEON]

.

Really, I'd say that both still require large amounts of faith, but, most importantly, they demonstrate that science and religious beliefs are not inherently incompatible.

Melon

Wow! Melon and I actually agree

There is an age old Muslim argument, the "Kalam" argument, that has re-emerged into philosophy and physics debates after nearly a century of absence. It actually goes back to Aristotle.

In a strange twist of fate/providence - the proponents of the Big Bang have brought this argument back into focus.

The Kalam argument is this:

What begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause

For quite sometime, scientist reasoned that physical universe was eternal and static. However, over the last half century, scientists have compiled hard, empirical data about the Big Bang. Today, the Big Bang is almost universally accepted by the scientific community. All matter and energy seem to point back to a singularity – a specific point and place where the entire physical universe “began to exist.”

The Theist or Deist would argue that “something” cannot come from “nothing.” Creatio Ex Nihilo. It is logically impossible. So, ironically, men like Stephen Hawking have given the Theist and Deist a tremendous “leg to stand on” when they argue for a Creator.

This is a very fascinating time for science, philosophy, and theology. In a strange way – many things have come full circle, only this time – the scientific community has helped provide humanity with an even more intense “awe” factor of God and His marvelous creation than we could have ever imagined before.

I really wonder how the next 10 -20 years will unfold.

 

[melon]

This is a very fascinating time for science, philosophy, and theology. In a strange way – many things have come full circle, only this time – the scientific community has helped provide humanity with an even more intense “awe” factor of God and His marvelous creation than we could have ever imagined before.

I really wonder how the next 10 -20 years will unfold.

Well, everything is cyclical, as I see it. We just live variations of the same cycles, with minor changes in the details. It's kind of like how a 60s fashion revival never quite looks like the clothes people actually wore in the 1960s.

In terms of religion, I think we're moving beyond fatalist apocalyptic-centered theology, and we are gradually re-entering a trend towards "mysticism." Well, I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but once people realize that the alternative to religious fundamentalism isn't just atheism, I think we're going to start seeing more of it. Religion has never stayed static in history, and has gone through many philosophical cycles like any other school of thought.

As I see it, you'll never be able to explain the origin of the singularity. Even if you could trace the origin of humanity to the work of an alien species and the origin of the universe as a spawn of another universe (multiverse), there will always be the question of what created that alien species or what created that predecessor universe. There is always room for faith in God in science, without having to bastardize the actual science.

Melon