Deus writes…

Well, the issue for me is that it hardly seems possible to have a reasoned debate at all when the key point of the original post is lost from the very first reply. A number of people did reply, mostly to counter Nunyabiz’ position, but everyone seemed to miss the original point. I guess I am saying that it would have produced a far more interesting discussion (and probably a far shorter one) if someone had attempted to keep things on point just a bit more at the beginning.
Oh Well.

And I’m in complete agreement with you there. All I can say is that we’re all human beings and thus not every discussion can be the high level of discourse we’d like it to be. Sometimes we just fail at that sort of thing. I like to think we manage it often enough here on SEB to make up for the ones were it just falls apart.

For the record, I came to this whole thing after watching a ridiculous paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory ramble called “Zeitgeist” which attempts to portray Illiminati-type connections between historical events, postulating a “man behind the scenes” cabal pulling the strings of the world’s government and economic institutions, and dictating the course of human history. It all started out with a section on religion, specifically how Christianity was fabricated as a means of world control, by people who used the Horus sungod myth as a template. It then went on to WW1/WW2/Vietnam conspiracies, the whole 911 was faked business, etc., and culminated in a warning that this behind the scenes group intended to manipulate events to force every person on the planet to have microchips implanted so that their entire lives could be tracked.

Those tend to be popular conspiracy theories with folks who need a sense that life isn’t just a bunch of random events happening with little cause or reason. However terrifying the shadowy forces that pull the strings seem to be the believers in such theories find comfort in the idea that at least reality has some since of order about it and they know the truth even if they’re not in a position to do something about it.

I came here while trying to formulate plot lines to fill in the story arc.

Let me know if you ever get around to writing it. Sounds like it’d be a fun read. Certainly you’ll find no shortage of ideas here as we talk about all sorts of crazy ideas.

  Deusex: What on earth does the variance in the dates have to do with anything!?! I find it very difficult to believe that what I wrote was actually read

OK, there would’ve been some difference between the dates at which various ancients individually came to believe in their mythology.

You are missing the point. The point is that there were NEVER any ancients who belived these things about Horus.

Consiglieri (and myself) are asking for anyone to post a citation to ANY ancient document that shows that this myth ever existed.

All this stuff was fabricated in the 19th century, well after Jesus. So it is IMPOSSIBLE that this 19th century creation inspired the creation of a Jesus myth.

  Deusex: HUH?!? Did Bahamat simply take the word “profitably” and fabricate an entire paragraph around it?

Sometimes one word, and the context it’s used in, can tell a lot about what direction you’re trying to head in.

This one is used to imply people are, almost obliged and expected to use their time and thought in certain ways.

Bahamat, you are not free to tell me what I was implying. I assure you I was implying no such thing. I can not stop what you INFER from my use of the word “profit” but I can tell you that I was not IMPLYING anything about people’s obligations and expectations.
My meaning was quite clear, if you choose to take the time to actually read what I wrote, instead of just picking word at random out of a sea of text and recombining them as you see fit into completely novel sentences that were not written by the original author, in this instance, myself.

You are missing the point. The point is that there were NEVER any ancients who belived these things about Horus.

I think we were making different points, I’m not meaning to challenge history, just saying that it categorizes stuff and there’s no clear boundries sometimes

I can not stop what you INFER from my use of the word “profit” but I can tell you that I was not IMPLYING anything about people’s obligations and expectations

You probably weren’t meening the end result directly, I’m not even meaning to suggest that you did it, i’m trying to make you aware that people do.

What you said appeared to be distinguishing that there were more efficient ways of using philosophy (which makes me cynically wonder - in terms of what? to what end?).

If it helps, I tend to talk in general terms about anything that comes up. I use any excuse I can to bring some stuff up, because I am so eager to make it known, I need only prompting. I will then talk all around the subject, this is why it sometimes appears to have little connection to the original quote. Indeed I’m not intending to link, accuse or anything like that normally, I’m talking about concepts on a completely impersonal level.

Far as I’m concerned I’m at peace with you, but I’m a bad communicator. Nethertheless I try to make sure everything I mean is ‘there’ in my comment should anyone need, and I’m always keen to resolve misunderstandings. Eventually we’ll reach mutual understanding on an increasing number of levels so long as this connection holds true. Indeed, that is the benefit of families - people are strongly connected to each other emotionally, so they are able to challenge each other more

If you grow tired of feeling frustration, perhaps stop choosing to feel it. You’d probably ask why it should be this way rather than me removing the pressure, here’s why;

There are many other situations that could annoy you, and frustration is not a feeling I like, so don’t let it get to you and you’ll feel less of it, and it’ll be a permanent boost that’ll help in future

Good things come out of bad deeds

*sigh

I can definitely see where DeusExMachina is getting at, and don’t understand why others do not.

I believe truth is of the highest value, beside love, and compassion. So please prove the first poster Consigliere’s claims wrong. Please.

DeusExMachina:

I just don’t have the time to monitor threads here like I used to do.  So, I was pleasantly surprised this morning to see that understood precisely the point of the initial post. 

In all fairness to some of the other regulars, and Les, I’d like to add some context to the thread for you.  Hopefully, it allows you some insight into why the thread started and why I’ve not been disappointed by the outcome of the discussion.

I came here at the request of a an individual that I knew from another forum.  Although Nunya was obnoxious, there are others here that are quite skilled at taking farm folk to the woodshed.  They had done that to this individual, and probably for good reason, given the individual’s comments on at least one other topic here. 

When I first posted here, it was on another thread that I don’t have the time or inclination to find.  I don’t recall the main topic of the thread, but it had drifted to some inane statements being made about the Romans creating the story of Jesus. (Being of Italian heritage, I must say that I was thrilled to hear I had such a conniving pedigree). I was able to get Nunya to drop his claims in that thread.

In that thread, I then advised Nunya (and Les by inference) that I would be taking issue with the Horus/Jesus comparison in a separate thread.  It was a direct challenge to Nunya and Les.  My desire was to segregate him and Les from some of the other regulars here, most notably elwed, zilch and geekmom.  (As I noted early on, and as you have mentioned here as well, burden of proof is important and zilch and elwed switch it up all the time.  GM, well, she is sharp, snarky, funny and just too damned irresistible for me to stay focused for long.) 

So, in all fairness to the other regulars, I really didn’t want their comments.  With respect to Les, he has never posted a comparison between Horus/Jesus on his blog anywhere since I made this entry.  I’ve always understood that his silence on the subject was capitulation. (Though, it’s nice to finally read that Les )

So, give the folks here the benefit of the doubt on the subject.  Les is right that it is difficult to read context into posts some 2 1/2 years after the fact.  If you give them a chance, you’ll find that for the most part they can carry a bucket or two of water without spilling most of it.

As to Bahamat, I can’t help you there. 

Thank you again for your interest in the thread and for accurately pointing out the inconsistencies that developed herein.

It’s a topic I intend to revisit some day when I have access to a decent volume on Egyptian myths and a little time to study up. Most of what’s out on the Internet is woefully brief or inconsistent so it seems I’ll need to turn to old media for the sort of in-depth accounting I’d prefer to have.

It’s not so much that I expect to be able to rebut your argument so much as now I’d like to find out one way or the other.

Philemon: I believe truth is of the highest value, beside love, and compassion

Sometimes it’s kinder to lie, although it can increase the pain if discovered, it can buy time until the person is more able to handle truth. If a person never finds out, perhaps false hope was kinder

- but it’s painful to be in constant hope, craving, not able to focus on other things…

Consi: As to Bahamat, I can’t help you there.

By nature of my approach - everythng I say is reinforced by an intention, all I have to do is explain the intention, which I will change if convinced wrong (hence I changed my signature + now align myself on the opposite side of that issue)

Sometimes it’s kinder to lie, although it can increase the pain if discovered

Though lies are useful, there are no “white lies”; only lies. Eventually, someone’s gonna follow your lies squarely in a bad direction.

I hold a different opinion of general deception (keeping secrets, for instance), but even when lies seem like the best option I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a better honest option?

there are no “white lies”; only lies./quote]

Depends what it is - if your partner now/future asked how she looked after going to an effort, or asked your opinion on a piece of artwork she made or something, she might need a positive response (that looked genuine enough not to doubt) regardless of what the truth is - that would be kinder, and being a lie on a subjective thing it’s not as if it can be challenged or found out as long as you’re consistent

Eventually, someone’s gonna follow your lies squarely in a bad direction.

IF they find out and IF they are insecure enough not to be able to understand why one lied.

If someone lied with good intention, that intention should be recognised, people who’s opinion is worth caring about can see beyond the action and don’t hold the view that all of a particular ‘sin’ is equally bad. It’s not the action that’s right/wrong, it’s the intention behind it, that is what people must see.

And yes, I consider the ‘right to confidentiality’ (of self/others) far outweighs a ‘right to know’ - in fact I don’t think there even is a right to know anything that someone may have emotional connections to (‘right to know’ is an easy card for judgemental people to obtain information and to justify gossip in their own mind)

IF they find out and IF they are insecure enough not to be able to understand why one lied.

No. You tell me I’m going to make it through cancer, count on surviving and I make pertinent financial decisions that demand my survival. Those decisions get obliterated when you’re wrong. If someone takes a lie you say as true, and uses it for any task, you have done them harm.

And, I’m actually known for this with a few women, but when I criticise art, I tell them everything I don’t like about it, and I offer advice insofar as I am able, and I admit when I am unable to give advice. I am upfront about my opinions being my own, and that they reflect the style of art I’m sympathetic with. I confront issues of “is my art nice” when they mean “do you support me in doing this?“. This is especially true on capturing dynamic body form - use of foreshortening, vivid seperation of muscle categories and tension, etc. etc. I mean, if they don’t want to take that advice, then by all means; that’s just a matter of style. Be Phil or Kaja Foglio if that rocks your socks.

But I do stand by this: lies, while useful, need to be minimized in considerate relationships, precisely because they are harmful.

Those decisions get obliterated when you’re wrong. If someone takes a lie you say as true, and uses it for any task, you have done them harm

In this case it was not the patient who is harmed though, they never did find out. Their family might’ve been less well off from not planning, but no different than they would’ve been if the person died in a car accident or something unexpected, and the family would’ve had hope and not would’ve been dreading the upcoming death - it might’ve let them sleep easy, which can count for a lot, I wouldn’t want to be in fear in my last days.

Lies can sometimes help, depending on the situation, it needs weighing up.
I see though that financial decisions are one of those unforgiving, physical things, that is why you used it as an example. Though physical factors affect comfort, I feel state of mind is more important, because you need to be in good state of mind to enjoy it - you would probably prefer a loved relative to be oblivious to their death at your financial expense than to be dreading their death at your financial gain.

On art - I think it depends on what they need more, proper advice or comfort. I’ve learned a little criticism mixed in with a lot of nice lies can make the lies more believable. Anyway art’s a subjective opinion thing, so it’s much easier to lie on that without real challenge or measure than an exact science

But I do stand by this: lies, while useful, need to be minimized in considerate relationships, precisely because they are harmful

An important line I draw is when the subject is emotionally important, if I would lie then it’d be with extreme caution because someone’s emotionally dependant on what I say. What they 100% will never know won’t hurt them, so it’s not as if they’d be able to lose trust or be broken by such cases if they never knew…

My conciounce would be clean as long as I don’t hurt them, sometimes i’d feel more guilty telling a harsh truth than a kind lie because I’d be hurting them. Some things also really don’t matter, like when I can’t remember details to a story or am too lazy to go through the full explanation of a complex situation so I make stuff up - things that don’t have any emotional effect on anyone, or any importance at all. The importance of trust only needs to kick in on important issues - you can trust someone to always look out for +comfort you, but not trust the same person to, say keep their promise to water the plants, I say it’s far more important when on an emotional issue, the rest doesn’t matter to me, as long as I can depend on them when I emotionally really need them

To treat all lies in all circumstances as bad things to be avoided would be much like the xian approach of equally demonizing anything that violates their arbitary blind principles, in fact I think bible influence is in part why society takes blind stances on issues like this

It’s a topic I intend to revisit some day when I have access to a decent volume on Egyptian myths and a little time to study up. Most of what’s out on the Internet is woefully brief or inconsistent so it seems I’ll need to turn to old media for the sort of in-depth accounting I’d prefer to have

While this is true, it is interesting to note that the only sources that refer to this supposed myth are those purporting to support this Jesus=Horus connection. It is similarly noteworthy that not a single source unrelated to this topic relates the myth in this manner. I have found not a single scholarly source dealing with Egyptology, brief, inconsistent, or otherwise, that tells the myth this way, either in whole or in part.

Those who have only scratched the surface by reading encyclopedia entries can hardly be considered “experts” who should have the last word. Nor is someone who reads one article of mine online an “expert” on my work. If this person were truly an “expert,“ he would know that I cite my sources carefully in my books. My online article “Origins of Christianity” served as the basis for my book “The Christ Conspiracy,“ which contains some 1400 footnotes. So, to say that “she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this” merely reflects how ill-informed the writer is about my work. As such, he should not be fallaciously and dishonestly presenting himself as an “expert” on it.

To take but one example of how shallow are the refutations concerning Massey and my work (and now Zeitgeist) circulating around the net, let us look more closely at the correspondence between “Anup the Baptizer” and John the Baptist.

“Anup” is another name for the Egyptian god Anubis. In chapter 97/XCVII of The Egyptian Book of the Dead, we find the following:

Said at the Bark: Staff of Anubis, may I propitiate those four Glorified ones who follow after the Master of [all] things.

I am the Master of the champaign at their behest, and I am the Father of the Inundation, when he who hath charge of the canals is athirst.

Look therefore upon me, oh ye great and mighty gods, who are foremost among the Spirits of Annu; let me be exalted in your presence. I am a well-doer towards you. Lo I come, that I may purify this Soul of mine in the most high degree; let not that impediment proceeding from your mouth be issued against me which giveth one over to ruin: let me be purified in the lake of propitiation and of equipoise: let me plunge into the divine pool beneath the two divine sycamores of Heaven and Earth.

Now let my Fold be fitted for me as one victorious against all adversaries who would not that right should be done to me.

I am the Only one; just and true upon the Earth. It is I who say it.

(The Egyptian Book of the Dead, p. 165, tr. by Peter Le Page Renouf, Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1904)

Here Horus is approaching the “staff of Anubis” at the boat, asking for purification and exaltation in the “lake of propitiation” and “divine pool.“

It is evident why Massey made the connection between Horus approaching Anubis/Anup for water purification and Jesus approaching John for baptism.

The rest of these objections can be, and have been, dealt with in like manner, including Isis’s virgin status - this “expert” apparently doesn’t know that there is an alternative version of the myth, as is the case with so many myths.  Contrary to this person’s ill-informed and erroneous claims, Massey does indeed discuss Horus’s “crucifixion” and the “two thieves,“ as a simple internet search would have revealed.

For more information on these subjects, see especially my book “Suns of God.“

http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

You may also wish to read the “FAQs” section of my forum for more on the objections raised surrounding the Zeitgeist movie.

http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?p=5620#5620

Acharya - it’s unnecessary to put down or attempt to discredit other ‘experts’

I am always suspicious of people who, one way or another, ask the trust of others, in your case you make it evident you wish others to trust your view by discrediting others. It is good though, that you quoted a reason to support your view, to give us an actual reason (beyond intelectual trust, which says nothing real), but I don’t have the energy for this subject myself so havn’t really read into it.

Acharya:
Your response is indicative of the level of scholarship that you imbue in your works, and an example of why this thread began in the first place. What is also telling is your complete failure to empirically address ANY of the complaints herein.
First, no one, at any point, claimed to be an “expert” on your work, so what point you are trying to make with your first paragraph is beyond me. Nor did any one in this thread claim to be an expert in Egyptology. (That said, a number of actual Egyptolgists HAVE analyzed your work, and that of Massey, and found it “wanting.“) What WAS claimed is that no where has this supposed myth of Horus been substantiated. Just as this initiated a flood of non-responsive replies, so too have you failed to even address the issue at hand.
That said, I challenge the relevance of your supposed 1400 footnotes. Footnotes are not the same thing as citations, and not all citations are equal. I have an excellent annotated edition of “Alice in Wonderland.“ It is replete with footnotes and citations. Are you claiming that this massive volume of references substantiates a claim that Alice was a real girl, and that she really followed the white rabbit down the hole? Likewise there are annotated bibles. Does this lend credence to the idea that Jesus existed? Clearly the answer to both of these questions is no, and your failure to understand this, and your decision to defend your position with this declaration only serves to diminish you claim to valid scholarship. It certainly indicates that you have failed to comprehend the central issues in this thread.
That said, I have little doubt, especially if your online work serves as a valid reference (and why should it not) that a significant bulk of those 1400 footnotes refer back to the work of Massey. If you had bothered to take the time to read even just the first page, you would have seen that his work too suffers from the same shortcomings as are being attributed to yours, and as such citing his work does not serve to lend credence to your position.
In fact, your entire reply failed to directly address any of the issues raised in this thread, but instead simply restated your position, of which no one was in any doubt.
That having been said, let’s look at the substantive content of your reply. You write:

To take but one example of how shallow are the refutations concerning Massey and my work (and now Zeitgeist) circulating around the net, let us look more closely at the correspondence between “Anup the Baptizer” and John the Baptist.

You then post a supposed translation of a section of the Book of the Dead. This translation, supposedly by Renouf, is interesting in its intricacy. While bearing a superficial resemblance to mainstream modern translations, it appears to take great liberties with the text, adding terms and expounding on concepts in a way that is hard to justify against modern translations of the original text. You also take the chapters (96 and 97, not just 97, as you claim) out of context. In the preceding text, you see that the quoted excerpt is a formulaic plea for priests to use to implore Thoth to give the deceased entry into the underworld. This is hardly equivalent to the story of John the Baptist.

O night-bark, O sceptre of Anubis,
Those spirits who are in the following of the lord of offerings are content for me.
I am the lord of the marsh by their command.
I am the father of the flood, removing thirst, guarding the pools.
See then, O those great and grand gods,
the foremost of the powers of Iunu:
I am higher than your heads,
I am the effective one among you.
See, I am cleansed for my soul, great and grand.
I have not been given to that obstacle that comes from your mouths;
it is gone - it did not turn on me.
I am purified in the pool from pacifying the judgement,
when I had tied the headband with my divine eye,
under the sycamore of my divine quality of the sky.
Indeed all the previously justified are refreshed,
as those who travel in What is Right arrive.
I am one who is exact and right, who is in the earth.
I am the interpreter for his speech,
the powerful one of the sole lord, Ra, the great one who lives on What is Right.
Do not inflict injury on me.
The day is unveiled with those who are foremost in all offerings.

Even if we accept your translation, it certainly does not lend significant credence to your claim that it is the prototype for the biblical story. For one thing, the Book of the Dead was never intended to be a religious text akin to the bible, but rather was a collection of prayers and devotions, often from coffin inscriptions, and served more as a prayer book than an expounding of religious tenets. Also, there is no reason to believe that this passage has this connection to Horus.
That you find something compelling in the choice of water as a mechanism of cleansing, and think that this is enough to establish a connection to John the Baptist, is an example of the over reaching nature of your scholarship. In fact, this similar use of water is neither surprising, nor compelling. That use of water to purify crosses cultural barriers is hardly a surprising find.
If the rest of the objections raised in this thread are “dealt with in like manner,“ I think we can consider the matter closed.
I would be interested in knowing to whom you are referring with your retort. No one claimed that Massey did not discuss the supposed crucifixion of Horus. What was claimed is that there is no Egyptian source for this belief, and in fact, that both you and Massey are mistaken, at best.

All one needs to do is read the GOD DELUSION and that settles everything. Right there. No God. All religions are groups of mother goose loving blind folks.

A single book isn’t going to make a difference without a compelling and meticulously sourced and referenced argument, whether it’s the Bible or The God Delusion. Saying that you’re going to “find the truth” in any one book is just as stupid when atheists start laying it out as it is when religious whackjobs start with it.

Being that the issue is the providing of citations to ancient Egyptian sources that detail a particular myth as described by Acharya, Massey, et al, unless this book has said citations, I fail to see how it is relevant, let alone provides a solution to the central issue of this thread.
Funny how Acharya visits, has every opportunity to set the record straight by providing a citation to ANY of the issues relating to the Jesus=Horus debate, and fails to even attempt to do so, instead posting irrelevant (and erroneous) citations regarding Anubis=John the Baptist.

Something to consider. In some tribes in Africa, woman actually give birth without the presence of a man. Don’t yell at me , just check it out.

That is like a fully-stocked cattle truck.

thinking man- my kids could have been born without the presence of a man, seeing as their mother and their midwife were both women, but I insisted on being present too.  Or were you talking about something else?

I don’t know of any cases of human virgin birth, except the one, and that ended sadly.  I don’t know why Jesus passed Herself off as a man, when anyone knows that parthenogenetic mammals, lacking the Y chromosome from the father, are without exception females.  Maybe that’s why She had so much trouble in Her life.

Just for the record, there have been several cases of virgin birth, including the case of a Southern girl during the civil war who was hit by a stray bullet in the abdomen, and gave birth some months later. Turns out the bullet had not made a non-stop trip to her belly, but rather detoured through the testicles of a union soldier hiding nearby.

Deus, come on.  That’s so old.  http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/bullet.asp