Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions/Jesus has nothing to do with Osiris,Isis, etc

stahrwe · Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:17 am

Tat,

Would you mind cleaning up AronRa's language? I prefer not to be assaulted with profanity.

Also, when you link to a book for a definition is it too much to link to the defintion and not just the front cover. I never did locate Hwnt in it.

stahrwe · Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:21 am

tat tvam asi wrote:

And here's GA's closing post to KD8 which completely shut the entire debate down:

GodAlmighty wrote:


	KD8 wrote: And, again, non-virgins can have sexless conceptions just as easily as virgins can, making this point irrelevant.

their hair to clean the torn pieces of Osiris's corpse.

tat,

Where did this discussion take place? I would like to view the entire discussion in its original setting, not your reproduction of it.

Please provide the url link to it.

thank you.

tat tvam asi · Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:17 pm

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =19&t=3206

Robert Tulip · Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:22 pm

Tat, I have followed this debate on the virginity of Isis quite closely, and I have a different perspective on it from you, Acharya and GodAlmighty. I may be wrong in this, but my sense of it is that for the Egyptians, the worship of Isis as eternal virgin was compatible, paradoxically, with a mythic belief that she had sex with Osiris to conceive Horus. In recognising that Christianity evolved out of Egyptian myth, we have to recognise the differing psychological perspectives. The Egyptians never insisted their myths were literal historical fact occurring at a specific moment in time, but rather took place in a sort of eternal dreaming, outside time. So proving that Isis was regarded as the eternal virgin, which is clear, does not actually prove that the conception of Horus did not involve sex between Isis and Osiris.


	Plutarch wrote: Osiris and Isis fell in love with each other and copulated under the cloak of darkness in the womb; some say that in this manner was Aroeris begotten, and therefore is called by Egyptians, the elder Horus. http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Isis.html

We have here an ancient source, Plutarch, who says Isis and Osiris had sex to conceive Horus. Wikipedia is slightly contradictory, saying "


	Myth of Osiris and Isis wrote: Isis created a phallus for him, and then attempted to revive him. In some versions, Isis sang a song around Osiris until he came back to life. She then took the form of a kite and flew around his body in order to conceive Horus. In other tellings of the story, Isis grows wings and hovers over Osiris. She breathes life into him in order to revive him and conceive Horus. Being simultaneously alive and dead, Osiris became the god and king of the afterlife.

but then including this picture, captioned "Isis, in the form of a bird, copulates with the deceased Osiris, observed by other gods".

I think we are dealing with a very different attitude towards sexuality than is found in Christianity. Egyptian myth includes overt discussion of masturbation, anal rape of Horus by Seth, and other images which Christians find shocking. Part of the Christian attraction, which has over time become a pathology, was the idea that spirituality has to rise above sexuality. It does not diminish the mythicist argument that Christianity evolved out of earlier myths to recognise that Isis and Horus, the Egyptian types of Mary and Jesus, shared many attributes with their later Christian derivatives, even though the eternal virginity of Isis in the Egyptian myth was paradoxically compatible with her having sex with Osiris to conceive Horus.

Vishnu · Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:19 pm

There are no contradictions. GodAlmighty covered that as well. There were many different versions. Afterall, Plutarch, a source you mentioned, said there was an entire book titled the BirthdayS of Horus, as in plural. There were several versions of the conception & births of Osiris, Dionysus, Ra, Horus, Attis, etc., fact remains, many of the ones that have parthenogenesis are still pre-christian.
Those quotes from Elizabeth Vandiver & Edmund Meltzer on the previous page sum up this point perfectly. Even Kd8 admitted that there was a non-sexual version of the conception of Horus.
Just as there were different account of the conception of Jesus, even within Jesus's own lifetime, as the gospels admit, there were already people claiming Joseph was his father. The Ebionites as well also believed Jesus was a product of sex between Joseph and Mary. Then there were gnostic groups that believed Jesus just descended straight out of heaven as a fully grown man at the time of his baptism. Some later traditions even claimed Mary had sex with Gabriel or even with Jehovah himself. There are many different versions of mythology.
Do understand me, I am not trying to refute the overall point of your post, but you came across to me as though you might have been trying to reconcile differing versions, when such a thing is not at all necessary.

tat tvam asi · Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:48 am

And that's what I mean about not watching the series Robert. These points were made very clear and easy to understand. And even in the sexual version depicted here, the bird is her Ba, not a physical body. Even if it were proven physically sexual the point remains that the Egyptians regarded Isis as an eternal virgin nonetheless, I completely agree with that. One of the most interesting points GA made cncerns the similarity between Christianity and the Egyptian religion in terms of the variations and twists given to the myths. Both do clearly present sexual natured renditions as well as non-sexual. KD8 was thrown down into a full on submission hold in that respect. I can't wait to see what GA comes up with in the newer revised series. Obsolete or not, there are some really good points made in these series, point that extend beyond the usual public debate.

Robert Tulip · Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:28 am

I still think there is a contradiction, but one that the Egyptians must have been happy to live with, just as Christians accept the contradiction that Jesus was fully man and fully god.

Christianity says Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. This involves immediate contradiction with the 'fully man' dogma because virgin birth, as a literal historical event, which is what Christians claim, cannot produce a Y chromosome to give birth to a male child. It is an immediate logical fail to say Jesus was both fully human and born of a virgin, leading to the desperate Tertullian/Stahrwe defence of ridiculing logic. This fundy attitude is why the church is regarded with such contempt. The virgin birth story illustrates that the primary identity of jesus is as myth, with the historical details added for effect.

Egyptian religion is similarly contradictory. There is no simple equivalent creedal statement, as far as I am aware, that Horus was born of the Virgin Isis. Yet, Horus is the son of Isis, and Isis was the perpetual virgin, so a belief on the creedal line similar to the Christian formula can be reconstructed. But still, it contradicts the statement in Plutarch that Isis and Osiris had sex in order to produce Horus.

Over the long history of ancient Egypt there were many contradictory beliefs. The idea that Osiris was simultaneously alive and dead is a case in point. The boofhead attitude of Stahrwe in ridiculing the parallels observed by Massey illustrates how fundamentalist blinkers prevent people from seeing the paradox in myth. There is no point debating fundamentalists on this topic as their brains are hardwired for reaction, and they just use discussion as an excuse for mindless proselytising. What I don't like about the focus on the virginity of Isis is that it plays into the Christian game of demanding proof that Egyptian religion was more like Christianity than was actually the case. The real agenda, in my view, should be to explore how the evolutionary structure of religion deepens our understanding of the meaning of Christian faith. There was a rupturous memetic mutation between Egypt and the Gospels as part of the transition between ages, but the evident continuity is so strong that we cannot understand the Bible properly without respecting its Egyptian roots.

stahrwe · Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:36 am


	tat tvam asi wrote: And that's what I mean about not watching the series Robert. These points were made very clear and easy to understand. And even in the sexual version depicted here, the bird is her Ba, not a physical body. Even if it were proven physically sexual the point remains that the Egyptians regarded Isis as an eternal virgin nonetheless, I completely agree with that. One of the most interesting points GA made cncerns the similarity between Christianity and the Egyptian religion in terms of the variations and twists given to the myths. Both do clearly present sexual natured renditions as well as non-sexual. KD8 was thrown down into a full on submission hold in that respect. I can't wait to see what GA comes up with in the newer revised series. Obsolete or not, there are some really good points made in these series, point that extend beyond the usual public debate.

Why are you waiting for AronRa to do it? Why don't you write something original?
What is a Ba?
Did you ever discover Finkelstein's error in the list of OT books. Hint, how many are in the list?

stahrwe · Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:03 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: I still think there is a contradiction, but one that the Egyptians must have been happy to live with, just as Christians accept the contradiction that Jesus was fully man and fully god.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.


	robert tulip wrote: Christianity says Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. This involves immediate contradiction with the 'fully man' dogma because virgin birth, as a literal historical event, which is what Christians claim, cannot produce a Y chromosome to give birth to a male child. It is an immediate logical fail to say Jesus was both fully human and born of a virgin, leading to the desperate Tertullian/Stahrwe defence of ridiculing logic. This fundy attitude is why the church is regarded with such contempt. The virgin birth story illustrates that the primary identity of jesus is as myth, with the historical details added for effect.

It does not dispute logic. In the case of the birth of Jesus, his mother is Mary but His father is God. Under those circumstances, to be hung up on the origin of the Y chromosone is so pedestrian an objection as to render it irrelevant.

The bolded statement goes back to my comment about organized/disciplined thinking. Your premise is flawed. You should have said, 'comparing virgin birth stories which are known to be mythological with the claim of Christians that Jesus was virgin born strongly suggests that the story of His birth is also mythological.'


	robert tulip wrote: Egyptian religion is similarly contradictory. There is no simple equivalent creedal statement, as far as I am aware, that Horus was born of the Virgin Isis. Yet, Horus is the son of Isis, and Isis was the perpetual virgin, so a belief on the creedal line similar to the Christian formula can be reconstructed. But still, it contradicts the statement in Plutarch that Isis and Osiris had sex in order to produce Horus.

Did Isis and Horus breathe air? That would be another similarity equally as relevant. BTW, Mary was not a perpetual virgin so your bolded statement fails.


	robert tulip wrote: Over the long history of ancient Egypt there were many contradictory beliefs. The idea that Osiris was simultaneously alive and dead is a case in point. The boofhead attitude of Stahrwe in ridiculing the parallels observed by Massey illustrates how fundamentalist blinkers prevent people from seeing the paradox in myth. There is no point debating fundamentalists on this topic as their brains are hardwired for reaction, and they just use discussion as an excuse for mindless proselytising. What I don't like about the focus on the virginity of Isis is that it plays into the Christian game of demanding proof that Egyptian religion was more like Christianity than was actually the case. The real agenda, in my view, should be to explore how the evolutionary structure of religion deepens our understanding of the meaning of Christian faith. There was a rupturous memetic mutation between Egypt and the Gospels as part of the transition between ages, but the evident continuity is so strong that we cannot understand the Bible properly without respecting its Egyptian roots.

Did you make the bolded up? I don't believe in memes.

Being both alive and dead is not a paradox or a contradiction, it is an impossiblity. One might be physically alive but spiritually dead, or physically and spiritually dead, or physically and spiritually alive, or physcially dead but sprititually alive, but one cannot be physically alive and dead unless I suppose one is dealing with Shrodinger's Cat. Are we?

Interbane · Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:21 am


	Quote: It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

Contradictions apply to beliefs. Paradox's apply to real things "out there". Which means your belief is a contradiction by definition, and not a paradox. Before you can say it's a paradox you must establish the truth of the claims, namely that there is such a thing as a god, and such a person as a Jesus has certain traits, etc. That must be established, not merely believed.


	Quote: It does not dispute logic. In the case of the birth of Jesus, his mother is Mary but His father is God. Under those circumstances, to be hung up on the origin of the Y chromosone is so pedestrian an objection as to render it irrelevant.

Appealing to the way the world actually works is not pedestrian. In fact, it's a precedent. You're claiming an event happened that goes outside the bounds of anything we know is possible. Not to say it's impossible, but the precedent is a mile high. Here's the thing, when we say the onus is on you, it truly is. Without fulfilling that burden, there's no reason to even mention such a thing as the virgin birth as real. Robert's position is far more defensible, because it has an incredible amount of support for inductive reasoning based on empirical observation. That is strong support.

tat tvam asi · Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:47 am

Robert, you mean that one particular version of the myth suggests sex, while others do not. And as GA made clear to KD8 so too is the Christian myth fractured into both sexual and non-sexual renditions of the conception of Jesus. The main core is of a non-physical conception in both the Egyptian and Christian mythos, with the older texts having it non-sexual and by plutarchs time a sexual-Like version in circulation. Just as with the Christ myth later generations began to play around with making variations on the virgin birth motif. Neither Murdock nor GA have ever denied or failed to call attention to the fact that sexual versions of the Isis myth were in circulation. It's just that they've emphasized that regardless of it all Isis has always been The Great Virgin who gave birth to the sun-god. And this extends to many other nature goddess's as well. The argument is rock solid in my view and we have yet to see any apologist shake it. It's been tried and proven several times over.

Just look at Stahrwe asking what Isis's Ba is? He has no clue. Didn't bother watching the series in the first place. Therefore has no clue as to how the Ba of Isis compares to the Christ myth with imagery of the Holy Spirit conception of Christ and such. This is a perfect demonstration of why bible thumping idiots have no business speaking about what is or is not part of the Egyptian mythos and whether it does or does not compare in significant ways to the Christ myths.

"Ba, Ba, Ba, bird, bird, bird, bird is the word..."

stahrwe · Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:00 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

Contradictions apply to beliefs. Paradox's apply to real things "out there". Which means your belief is a contradiction by definition, and not a paradox. Before you can say it's a paradox you must establish the truth of the claims, namely that there is such a thing as a god, and such a person as a Jesus has certain traits, etc. That must be established, not merely believed.

Where some have a problem with undisciplined thinking, it seems that you have become so disciplined that your thinking that it has solidified. When you use the phrase, 'you must establish the truth..' Who is the 'you' you refer to? Stahrwe? doubtful. Dawkins? No. The Pope? no. Then who? The majority of the people in the US believe the Bible. Is that the you? And who decides when the truth has been established? Interbane? No. I suspect you have no legitimate answer to this question just as you had no idea what evidence you would accept. It seems that your only real strategy, defense against Christianity is to put up a wall and keep repairing it. It is a workable defense, in the short run but will ultimately fail as there is no foundation.


	Quote: It does not dispute logic. In the case of the birth of Jesus, his mother is Mary but His father is God. Under those circumstances, to be hung up on the origin of the Y chromosone is so pedestrian an objection as to render it irrelevant.


	interbane wrote: Appealing to the way the world actually works is not pedestrian. In fact, it's a precedent. You're claiming an event happened that goes outside the bounds of anything we know is possible. Not to say it's impossible, but the precedent is a mile high. Here's the thing, when we say the onus is on you, it truly is. Without fulfilling that burden, there's no reason to even mention such a thing as the virgin birth as real. Robert's position is far more defensible, because it has an incredible amount of support for inductive reasoning based on empirical observation. That is strong support.

See my argument above. Who it the 'you'? I maintain that the basics of Chritianity are not in doubt. They never have been. What you and those in your camp are trying to do is reverse 2000 years of history and set yourselves up as arbiters. Attempting to do so and invoking some pithy quotes from intellectually challenged leaders of your movement is not. BTW, please keep supporting Robert, not only does he need it but it helps my position.

stahrwe · Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:07 am


	tat tvam asi wrote: Robert, you mean that one particular version of the myth suggests sex, while others do not. And as GA made clear to KD8 so too is the Christian myth fractured into both sexual and non-sexual renditions of the conception of Jesus. The main core is of a non-physical conception in both the Egyptian and Christian mythos, with the older texts having it non-sexual and by plutarchs time a sexual-Like version in circulation. Just as with the Christ myth later generations began to play around with making variations on the virgin birth motif. Neither Murdock nor GA have ever denied or failed to call attention to the fact that sexual versions of the Isis myth were in circulation. It's just that they've emphasized that regardless of it all Isis has always been The Great Virgin who gave birth to the sun-god. And this extends to many other nature goddess's as well. The argument is rock solid in my view and we have yet to see any apologist shake it. It's been tried and proven several times over. Just look at Stahrwe asking what Isis's Ba is? He has no clue. Didn't bother watching the series in the first place. Therefore has no clue as to how the Ba of Isis compares to the Christ myth with imagery of the Holy Spirit conception of Christ and such. This is a perfect demonstration of why bible thumping idiots have no business speaking about what is or is not part of the Egyptian mythos and whether it does or does not compare in significant ways to the Christ myths. "Ba, Ba, Ba, bird, bird, bird, bird is the word..."

The whole Isis virgin/non-virgin/perpetual virgin/great bird of the galaxy thing is self-impeaching. Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

You might suggest that AronRa and Murdock hurry.

Still waiting for you to explain the major error Finkelsteing committed on page 7 of Unearthing the Bible. What's taking you so long?
No, not a clue what Ba is since the only source of knowledge about it is from AronRa's videos.

Robert Tulip · Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:52 am


	stahrwe wrote: Joseph of Arimathea was not the custodian or keep of the body of Jesus, the Romans were.

I love the way Stahrwe again demonstrates his Biblical ignorance, despite passing himself off as knowledgeable. This story of Joseph of Arimathea appears in all four canonical Gospels, such as the following from John 19:38 "Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. ... With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away."

stahrwe · Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:27 am

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: Joseph of Arimathea was not the custodian or keep of the body of Jesus, the Romans were.

I love the way Stahrwe again demonstrates his Biblical ignorance, despite passing himself off as knowledgeable. This story of Joseph of Arimathea appears in all four canonical Gospels, such as the following from John 19:38 "Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. ... With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away."

The body of Jesus was under Roman control. If Joseph had not asked for it the body would have remained on the cross potentially for days inviolation of the Jewis law. Joseph taking the body down, preparing it for burial and placing it in his tomb did not in any way shape or form make him the custodian of Jesus. Robert, who was guarding the tomb? Who? And again Robert WHO? That's right Robert, the Romans! If Joseph was the custodian he would have posted guards then they would not have been ROMAN would they Robert.

It is good that you bring Joseph of Arimathea into the discussion though as there is another prophecy from the OT fulfilled here:

The prophecy in Isaiah chapter 53, is known as the "Man of Sorrows" passage:


	Quote: He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Forum rules

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions/Jesus has nothing to do with Osiris,Isis, etc Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!