FTL99 wrote:If you know what the Pyramid texts are and how old they are then you'd know that they're ancient primary source evidence for the "great virgin." Along with Isis herself claiming "I am the great virgin".

What part of that are you not understanding? It appears that you have no idea what you're talking about at all. Before making commentary here it is probably wise to actually read the book especially since this forum is devoted to discussion of the book hence the name of this website, "Booktalk."

No everyone is not as smart and knows it all as you do do you know what you can do with this discussion................

Azrael wrote:Your dealing with a myth how would you know?

Oh, is that what you're drivin' at? Yeah, I think Az is just having fun trolling you, FTL. Of course, in that respect Isis was not a virgin since she didn't exist, just like Mary didn't, nor did Andy Stitzer of 'The 40 Year Old Virgin'.
On the other hand, since non-existent characters can't have real sex, should they be considered virgins anyway?

Vishnu wrote:

Azrael wrote:Your dealing with a myth how would you know?

Oh, is that what you're drivin' at? Yeah, I think Az is just having fun trolling you, FTL. Of course, in that respect Isis was not a virgin since she didn't exist, just like Mary didn't, nor did Andy Stitzer of 'The 40 Year Old Virgin'.
On the other hand, since non-existent characters can't have real sex, should they be considered virgins anyway?

What is myth and what is reality? I remember my childhood as an abusive one. My sister who is the Cinderella who thinks she made it to the ball sees it as a bright and shiny life of great love and fulfillment. Maybe it was if beatings every day and a constant diet of apple jelly sandwiches for lunch is paradise on earth. Actually we are both right. We were raised during the great depression. In a home where our parents went from middle class splendor to abject poverty. Depressed as they were they kept a roof over our heads and meager food on the table. They were both the king and queen my sister saw and the wicked stepmother I saw. Reality is whatever an individual perceives it to be. She saw the doll cradle her brother made from an oat meal box as if it were made of magonhy. Her brother was angry because it was not. He was older and remembered our past life. She could not. And what ever happened to the original topic here? Why is everyone getting so angry? Be cool. It is only one lifetime. There are many more to come. Save some energy for that.

Azrael, I know you've been answered on this before. But if you're asking how do we know if she was really a virgin or not, because it's a myth, the answer is that this myth is about the virgin dawn which gives birth to the sunrise each morning. Horus is a personification of the morning sun and the pure virgin dawn is rendered as Isis, "The Great Virgin." The virgin dawn remains pure / virgin even though the sun continually rises from it each morning. Thus Isis / the virgin dawn is a perpetual virgin mother goddess. This is the development of a mythological motif. We're not talking about real people, we're talking about nature. What sex occurs in order for the sun to rise at dawn? No literal sex occurs of course. And that's the very point that Vishnu has outlined with his summary of how this myth evolved. The writers were paying careful attention to have Isis's Ba conceive Horus (as opposed to her physical body), then lightning, then calling herself the "Great Virgin" because the objective was to relate a mythological personification of the natural solar cycle. They knew what they were mythologizing, it's modern audiences that continue to struggle with it...

Now enter the mystics, gnostic and otherwise. We find an established myth about the solar cycle. The Goddess is the Great Virgin in this myth. Then proceeds certain mystical interpretations of mythology which uses the symbolism of the natural world - the solar cycle - in order to have a basis for an analogy to a spiritual teaching. Just as the sun is virgin born from the purity of the virgin dawn, so too ought men have rites and rituals by which they too are symbolically "born again" and what-have-you. That is the reasoning behind the esoteric spiritual teachings that use solar myth. And thus enters the endless variations of both exoteric and esoteric religious belief, baptism, and the like. The important thing to understand here is that it all traces backwards to humanity observing their surroundings, mythologizing these observations, and then attaching mystical belief to the mythologized observations. This is what paved the way right down to the Christian era in the first few centuries. They simply made use of very ancient mythological motifs that had long been in circulation. And that is where and why the Virgin Mary myth came about...

Thanks TaT that's all I was asking..........that clarifies it...

No problem. If you honestly want to try and understand the reasoning then I'll try to honestly explain it for the sake of you or anyone else following along with similar questions.

tat tvam asi wrote:Azrael,
Now enter the mystics, gnostic and otherwise. We find an established myth about the solar cycle. The Goddess is the Great Virgin in this myth. Then proceeds certain mystical interpretations of mythology which uses the symbolism of the natural world - the solar cycle - in order to have a basis for an analogy to a spiritual teaching. Just as the sun is virgin born from the purity of the virgin dawn, so too ought men have rites and rituals by which they too are symbolically "born again" and what-have-you....

Vary good, except for this being "symbolical." It is those who follow the Christian, earthly, path and for this reason create rites etc to replace a reality they cannot see. A true Gnostic knows that rebirth, second birth is a real experience. It is what makes one a Gnostic, a born again nut, as opposed to a born again Christian who has no idea what womb he or she comes from. Gnosis; Greek, for a special kind of knowledge that comes directly from the Divine Spirit, Mother goddess. If one has not experienced it they cannot conceive of it. If they have experienced it they cannot deny it. It is not an exercise in intellectualizing. It is getting down in the muck and experiencing it, Spending the 40 days in the desert. Make no mistake you will pay a price for it and not in $$$$. Old Gnostic's love allegorical stories: My grand nephew just returned from Afghanistan where he lost a leg and foot from a road side bomb. You will not find him in his bed moaning and groaning, needing a shrink. He is rolling around in his chair giving support to those laying in their beds. He found his humanity. it cost him a foot and a leg. I am urging him to become a chaplain. He has truly been gifted by what ever you chose to call the Great Mother.

tat tvam asi wrote:No problem. If you honestly want to try and understand the reasoning then I'll try to honestly explain it for the sake of you or anyone else following along with similar questions.

Thanks. I will be more able to have a reasonable discussion on this when I get the book but that won't be before tomorrow....

First of all I: in my own language, Dutch, the word "Maagd" means virgin, but it is also used in the (old) word "dienstmaagd" which means "servant girl". So what the word implies is in fact "a maid" (which is the same word as "maagd") and just means: an unmarried woman.
So it is important that we understand what the word "virgin" for Mary, mother of Jesus, means. We know she wasn't "married", that is obvious from the story, but was she really a virgin? And how do we know that?
In the case of Isis it is very different. She was not a human, but a goddess. She impregnated herself, something Mary couldn't do.
What the book says is that the idea of Isis was transfered to Mary in an attempt to make Jesus a Son of God. I think that observation is correct because of the Isis cult in Rome. The problem with that idea is that Jesus was a semi-god, hardly a jewish concept, but very Greek indeed. And of course the Greek influence during the time Jesus is supposed to have walked the earth was immense. Also Egypt was a Greek province, from the time of Prolemy I, who was turned into the God Serapis, who was also called "the saviour", to Cleopatra. It all points to adaptation.
The problem with adaptation is that the true meaning of the original (the Isis story) might already have been forgotten, or misinterpreted by people outside Egypt. So Isis WAS a virgin, but Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a baby. However, the baby was regarded as a semi-god - which means his father is a god - and in the male society this story came to be, a god would of course not have a baby from a woman who was NOT a virgin. It is still very important in Islam and we all know about virginity repair!!
The step from Isis to Mary is an easy step considering the very popular Isis cult and christians who were eager to win men AND women to their side.
But is it correct to transfer the (hidden?) meaning of the Isis-Horus story to the Mary-Jesus story?

drdalet wrote:First of all I: in my own language, Dutch, the word "Maagd" means virgin, but it is also used in the (old) word "dienstmaagd" which means "servant girl". So what the word implies is in fact "a maid" (which is the same word as "maagd") and just means: an unmarried woman.
So it is important that we understand what the word "virgin" for Mary, mother of Jesus, means. We know she wasn't "married", that is obvious from the story, but was she really a virgin? And how do we know that?
In the case of Isis it is very different. She was not a human, but a goddess. She impregnated herself, something Mary couldn't do.
What the book says is that the idea of Isis was transfered to Mary in an attempt to make Jesus a Son of God. I think that observation is correct because of the Isis cult in Rome. The problem with that idea is that Jesus was a semi-god, hardly a jewish concept, but very Greek indeed. And of course the Greek influence during the time Jesus is supposed to have walked the earth was immense. Also Egypt was a Greek province, from the time of Prolemy I, who was turned into the God Serapis, who was also called "the saviour", to Cleopatra. It all points to adaptation.
The problem with adaptation is that the true meaning of the original (the Isis story) might already have been forgotten, or misinterpreted by people outside Egypt. So Isis WAS a virgin, but Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a baby. However, the baby was regarded as a semi-god - which means his father is a god - and in the male society this story came to be, a god would of course not have a baby from a woman who was NOT a virgin. It is still very important in Islam and we all know about virginity repair!!
The step from Isis to Mary is an easy step considering the very popular Isis cult and christians who were eager to win men AND women to their side.
But is it correct to transfer the (hidden?) meaning of the Isis-Horus story to the Mary-Jesus story?

Thank you a very well thought out truth.