[Editor’s Note: It was my intent to have a reply ready before posting this, but I’ve found myself putting it off due to a busy weekend so I’m going to go ahead and post it as is. I’ll address it properly in the comments as soon as I have the opportunity though I’m sure there are several regulars who will probably be more than capable of addressing it first.]
I’ve heard repeated here several times that Horus, an Egyptian god, is carbon copy of Jesus. The obvious implication by those that have made this statement is that Jesus is a copycat version of an earlier Egyptian deity. The purpose of this entry is to disembowel that proposition once and for all.
When I first heard that Horus was the inspiration for Jesus several years ago, I didn’t give it much credence because I couldn’t establish any source material for the claims. I still can’t, but the internet is as adept at allowing anybody and everybody to pass on misinformation.
Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927. He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt. He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself. Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture.
It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus. According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities. There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of, excepting Superman’s power to stop a speeding bullet.
Since Massey, there is a dearth of anybody with any credentials that has adopted a straight Horus=Jesus theory. There is a one individual that has adopted some of Massey’s thoughts and incorporated them into a book-The Christ Conspiracy. This appears to be the basis for the claims that I see. The author is Acharya S. Her website is http://www.truthbeknown.com I note that Richard Price, a noted Christ Myther, and one that I take much more seriously then Acharya, said the following:
His other criticism, like mine, is that she uses very dated sources (19th Century) who were in Price’s words “eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists.”“Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else.....
Les, I am using your post from 1/3/05 as an example of the claims because you carry more credibility than most. That said here are the claims and what I have found:
Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.
Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.
Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)
As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.
Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.
This is accurate.
Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.
I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds. In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave. Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave.
Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.
There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth. To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm
Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)
There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen. The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus. See the website referenced in Claim #5.
Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.
There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.
Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.
There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.
Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.
Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.
Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not.
Claim #10-Both walked on water.
Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did. Massey does not maintain that Hours did. Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus. Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night. Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day.
As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this.
Claim #11-Both performed miracles.
This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.
Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.
The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.
Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.
These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate none of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it. I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.
Massey does compares a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion. There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way. There is no mention by Massey of any Sermon on the Mount. No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb. Massey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus.
In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them.
Posted on 03/30/2008 at 12:48 PM 
Posted on 04/26/2008 at 09:50 PM 
I don’t keep tabs on this thread or this forum, so this is in response to Infernus, going back several pages now.
Unfortunatelty, just as the internet affords the possibility for meaningful discussions to be had, it also affords fools to go wild without accountability, pretending to be an authority without having half a clue: enter Infernus.
Invented history and dreamed up “undisputed” facts is not a surrogate for intelligence and real knowledge. I hope you learn this. What is very odd is you announce that anyone can look the facts up for themselves, while it’s obvious that you have not even done so yourself.
”The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I’s appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
“Pope Urban II called for a Crusade in 1095. The principal stated objective was to drive the Turks out of Anatolia. The principal hidden agenda was to heal the Great Schism on Rome’s terms once and for all by rescuing the Byzantines from a grave threat and thereby obligating them. The objective of going on to reconquer the Holy Land for Christendom (as long as we’re in the neighborhood) was almost an afterthought.”
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xcrusade.htm
Now are those the undisputed facts you talked about? Welcome to reality.
Infernus, it’s wonderful that you have an active imagination, less so an unintelligent mind, but in solid fact it wasn’t cared for that the holy land was under Muslim control until they started killing European pilgrims, and calling for destruction of the church in Jerusalem.
Sidenote:
Apparently, in your delusional mind, I’m Christian (obviously, I’m not), and this is my dogma. You exemplify greatly how detatched from objective or rational thought your mind is. Unlike yourself, I’m not arguing dogma from any other biased foundation. I’m just someone who was willing to clarify your misinformation, little did I expect you to be so rabid. I’m sorry to have to say it, but you carry an intelligence and education no greater than your respectability.
This actually wasn’t a topic of discussion, and accordingly I haven’t made comment on any such subject. No points earned for being capable of following a conversation.
Well you’re talking about entire civilizations, and while they adhered to one religious faction or another, it is astonishingly unintelligent to think that everything they do, from taking a dump to waging a war, must therefore be done for religious reasons. As the above references I provided illustrate, the Crusades did not start for a religious reason.
Within you is presented the trouble with arguing against stupid people: they hold to their stupidity as if it were their intelligence, and favour suggesting themselves to be “winning” an argument with ROFL-isms over actually making any coherent presentations of thought.
Of course it’s already established that you didn’t actually understand what caused the crusades. I wish people like you would get tired of talking out of their asses.
But aside from that you’ve completely missed the point that was made. If you put less energy into foaming at the mouth in your own Crusade of ineptitude you could give some more attention to thinking, and may yet catch a point or two.
What kind of people do you know that would spit in your face for saying such a thing, are they rabid like you? Where is this mythological place that acts so melodramatically? I suspect it is only a pitiful construct of a pitiful mind.
Now, that aside, of what relevance is it that people might think Dec 25th is Jesus’ actual birthdate? The fact is that it isn’t, so why do you bring up what other people might think, as if such a comment absolves you of your personal ignorace in thinking that Dec 25th was Jesus’ birthdate?
So, these hypothetical people would apparently spit in my face for pointing out that error, yet here you are trying to bite my face off over it. Which should I be more concerned over? You appear to be the biggest and nuttier beast.
If there are Christians who believed that Dec 25th is Jesus’ birthdate then they are only as ignorant as yourself. And since I am willing to educate you, I would certainly be willing to do the same for them.
And you’ve taken a census… ?
Well, of course I can’t comment on what those Christian parents are teaching their kids, as I have no idea who you’re referring to with that comment, but can only speak from what I’ve witnessed myself. I rationally suspect you could only possibly be similarly doing, despite what your arrogant manner would hope to trick other to think.
That is why my comment was validated by the words “I think,” and why you embarrass yourself by speaking for people you don’t know.
Sadly, you’ve only offered a mess of insanity and self-delusion. Now how is my illustrating a birthdate to be unknown an example of a lack of truth (seems more like the opposite)? Your sentence doesn’t appear to hold any tangible message behind it, but appears to be simply more empty banter. Whether Christianity is valid or not has never been part of any discussion I’ve taken part in, nor was it the point of what I responded to. So, again, pay attention to any conversation you want to engage in, or stay out of it, please.
That “no one is expected to worship [other historical figures without known birthdates] as GODS” is truly not a point of anything that’s been discussed. Talk about an attack backfiring. You are unbelievably unaware of the discussions you partake in.
If you have the emotional need to try and cover your mental arse on that one, by all means, go for it. I guarrantee you, I’ll enjoy a laugh as you falling over your mental feet again.
Finally we can agree: you don’t know what’s being talked about. Why made you randomly bring up the Protestant reformation? “There was no indictment given of Romans “messing up” anyone’s religion,” was in reference to the people and our dialogue in this thread. As you consistently make clear, you “don’t know” much at all.
If you cannot follow a conversation then please think twice before emanating mental diarrea all over them. Why should anyone have to clean up these bellyflop posts of yours?
Well that’s a huge excuse, but it is still only an excuse, something little kids use. Are we to pity and sympathize with you because of what you’ve experienced? No, it makes you all the more deplorable because you think your lashing out is justified because you’ve had someone else treat you wrongly, which means you’re just a spiteful and demented hypocrite.
According to what you said above, your mind creates delusions concerning what kind of person you’re arguing, as well as what their motivation is. You’re also paranoid that someone will think they’re sticking it to you (and in this case, I’m sorry, but you just set your self up for it), pretending “like they have something that looks like a valid argument against” you. Do you by chance have low self esteem?
Attention to this bizarre thought process: “if I try to be nice to them I’ll just get run over.” Logically, you were receiving respectable responses from everyone, and would have continued to, before you let the rationality out of your behaviour.
If your dad is truly as dumb as you made him out to be, then I guess there is no doubt that you are truly his offspring,
But seriously, if you can’t control yourself or think straight just do something else. The last thing the internet needs is another delirious schizo posting out of control.