IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"zeitgeist's" Interpretation Of Christianity

lunk
post Jun 15 2008, 08:39 PM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



What can disappear in a puff of logic
yet reappears in the strangest places?

I think that evolutionists are creationists,
and both "theories" were made up by
the shadowy puppet masters running
the place at different times.
These theories have been corrupted
from something, probably, vastly different,
from what either explains.

...No, I don't know what that is.

But you can't really get to it
until the assumptions and misinformation
about the past, are recognized, identified,
and cleared out of the way.

We seem to be very good at that here,
at P4T!

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jun 16 2008, 03:16 AM
Post #42


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 6 2008, 07:57 PM) *
1. Factually, Isis was no virgin

Peter Joseph replies-
QUOTE
It is often argued that Isis was not a virgin because, in one version of the myth, she impregnated herself using the severed phallus of Osiris after he was killed and torn to pieces.... a 'miracle conecption'.
However, in another version of the myth, Frazer points out that Isis was impregnated with Horus:
"while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband"... a 'virgin conception'

[ Frazer, James: The Golden Bough, p422 ]

" The late form of the legend goes on to say that Isis fanned the body with her feathers, and produced air, and that at length she caused the inert members of Osiris to move, and drew from him his essence, wherefrom she produced her child Horus."

[ Budge, E.A. Wallia: Legends of the Gods, Chapter 5 ]



One must understand that 'virgin birth'& 'miracle brith' share a core mythological line and, in regards to mythological history, are one and the same generally speaking, so the birth of Horus in both accounts are applicable, not to mention the precident for such miracle conceptions is absolutly widespread traditionally.

As Carpenter points out:
"There is hardly a god whose worship as a benefactor of mankind attained popularity in any of the four continents... who was not reported to have been born from a virgin, or at least from a mother who owned the child not to any earthly father."

[ Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10, page 115 ]

As Massey points out:
"The mythical Messiah was always born of a Virgin Mother--a factor unknown in natural phenomena, and one that cannot be historical, one that can only be explained by means of the Mythos, and those conditions of primitive sociology which are mirrored in mythology and preserved in theology."

[ Massey, Gerald: Lectures, 1900 ]

As Joseph Mccabe, a Catholic Presist for a time points out:
"Virginity in goddessess is a relative matter...Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or sexless ) goddess, and in the later period of egyption religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees."

[ McCabe, Joseph : The Story of Religious Controversy ]

Some other sources on this point:

Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10

Massey, Gerald: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ

Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Parallels to other Religions, Chapter 7
Acharya S.: Suns of God Chapter 7


"Those parallels between Egyptian legends and the Christ story are really pushing it"

Do you mean this list, Sanders? If so, it is from the appendix of Gerald Massey's book Ancient Egypt the Light of the World

Whether or not one agrees with everything in Part I of the movie, Part I does have a complete interactive transcript with references, further study and debate points. I'm still waiting for Parts II and III- though Part II should be fairly common knowledge around here and the Part III debunkers I've seen don't seem to have done all of their homework very well so far...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The artful dodge...
post Jun 16 2008, 02:27 PM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 68
Joined: 27-April 08
From: UK
Member No.: 3,237



QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Nov 24 2007, 11:31 AM) *
Ideas that claim to 'debunk Christianity' but which list, for example, similarities between its articles of faith and the beliefs of various ancient mystery religions) are irrelevant, since similarities between the two are not disputed, even by Christians. It's because similarities exist and because there was a global expectation of Christ coming in to the world that is one of the chief reasons for the amazing and widespread acceptance of the Christian religion. Never was a global truth more keenly anticipated by mankind.

But the difference between paganism and Christianity is that Christianity is NOT A MYSTERY RELIGION. It's a REVEALED RELIGION. And that's the whole point. Christianity marks the end of mystery religion by the arrival of revealed truth. This arrival of a revealed religion also explains the decline and fall of paganism, the collapse of useless philosophies and the arrival of the freedoms and liberties we today take for granted. All of these are products of the widespread acceptance of Christianity as a revealed religion.

Finally, there is of course a huge difference between the CHURCH and CHRISTIANITY. Not to recognise this fact and not to distinguish between these two is to remain grossly ignorant of what Christianity is and what it is not.


Forgive me Philadelphia (apart from anything else this is my first post here) but the idea of a revealed as opposed to mystery religion is one that troubles me a little.

I always thought that the death or, at least, diminution of paganism had rather a lot to do with the actions of Christianity - burning witches, inquisitions etc... (not to mention the theft of every major feast day!) and that, perhaps, there should be room for a panoply of beliefs. The relationship with one's God is, for all of us, a deeply personal one, reflected and refined through a variety of means - For example: dogma, upbringing, education etc. Sadly there seems to be too much emphasis placed upon some sort of hierarchy of beliefs where each of us is inclined to place our own version on top with the others beneath. This is writ large in ideas that only the adherents of one religion (or cult) or another will actually facilitate entry into heaven leaving behind masses of mankind in some sort of Godly lottery.

This itself would seem rather unfortunate for the so-called 'unbelievers' among us who, because of their aforementioned education, upbringing and dogma are somehow excluded from eternity (except perhaps to burn in hell). Actions must surely speak louder than words in the relationship between oneself and any concept of God otherwise the whole concept of religion is reduced to little more than the status of a very exclusive club with excellent perks! I do however agree wholeheartedly with your division of CHURCH and CHRISTIANITY although I have always thought the human race might do a little better if we just tried to get along and worried a little more about the issues here rather than arguing about different versions of what might, or might not, come next.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 17 2008, 12:10 AM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The newly anointed master free mason enters the hall.

"Upon the table, near the center of the hall are three holy books; the Bible, the Qaran, and the Bitavitagista... or something, you know the one for the Hindus?"

This was more or less the story told to me by a master free mason.
It makes me wonder...

If the Freemasons have been around for a long time...
could their predecessors have compiled and written these books?

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 17 2008, 01:09 AM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Waterdancer)
Do you mean this list, Sanders?


I was referring more to the main points that are in the narration. I haven't looked closely at that list.

QUOTE
Cary is correct in that "Jesus is basically just yet another version of the Sun god" "the writings were bastardized by the Council of Nicaea" "and that the Bible is an Astrological drama with the Sun as a central figure" these are all true and easily proven by mountains of Archaeological evidence.


It might surprise you, nunayabiz, but I essentially agree with you (and Cary, and Peter of Zeitgeist, and a million others who think along these lines).

I just am of the opinion that Peter was a little sloppy in part one. How can you call Mithra's being born of a rock a "virgin birth"? Even Acharya states, in her writings about Mithra: 'In any case, while Mithra may not precisely have been perceived as "born of a virgin," certainly he was considered the product of a "miraculous birth."' That's from one of Peter's favorite sources, the woman who wrote the Zeitgeist companion guide. Where in the Egyptian myths did Horus have 12 disciples? Wasn't it 4? Did Peter get that from Massey or from Acharya? Where'd they get it from? Is it in the original texts? What about the ressurection - where in the myths is Horus ressurected? Nowhere - unless you consider that he and Set destroy each other on a daily basis and return the next day. Yes, it can be argued that in that sense Horus was ressurected, but it is not explained that way, it isn't the impression one gets from watching Zeitgeist.

I have heard people say that Paul Warburg, engineer of the Fed Reserve Act, warned the US Senate that we're gonna get one-world-government whether we like it or not, I ask them where they heard that, they say Zeitgeist. The fact is, it was his son James Paul Warburg who went before the Senate in 1950. These incidents of sloppy research reflect poorly on the other things in Zeitgeist, which are solid, and on the overall premise of his film, which I think is valid.

Personally, I look at Zeitgeist Part I as an op-ed. 'Here's my position, in 300 words or less'. Very thought provoking, beautifully done, but to really get the full picture I think you have to look deeper, for example I think one missing piece of this conversation is the fiece competition that went on between the Vatican and groups like the Templars, Cathars, Normans (Vikings), Merovingians, Freemasons etc. But while that's an important part of the story IMO and very pertinent with regard to the astrological (pagan) roots of the Christ story, to touch on it would make the movie 3 hours long. So Peter can be forgiven, to an extent, for trying to make his point in a succinct and easy to grasp manner. But does that make it OK to play loose with the facts? In my opinion it only serves to open his seminal work up to criticism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 17 2008, 01:58 AM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (lunk @ Jun 20 2008, 10:10 PM) *
The newly anointed master free mason enters the hall.

"Upon the table, near the center of the hall are three holy books; the Bible, the Qaran, and the Bitavitagista... or something, you know the one for the Hindus?"

This was more or less the story told to me by a master free mason.
It makes me wonder...

If the Freemasons have been around for a long time...
could their predecessors have compiled and written these books?

imo, lunk


Isn't the Hiram Abiff legend based on the Osiris myth?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 17 2008, 08:24 AM
Post #47



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Looks like the same music played with different instruments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 17 2008, 12:09 PM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Lunk, you got a way with words. yes1.gif

Yup.

Why the Templar and Freemason and "End-Timer"'s obsession with Solomon's temple? Accident? ... no, they're playing the same music. I haven't quite learned to read all the notes yet, but I'm pretty sure it's the same page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Nov 20 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #49





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



I finally had a chance to download and watch "Zeitgeist" (up to now, either the download got stuck somewhere in the middle leaving me with a corrupt file, or it didn't work at all. I eventually got it in 13 parts from youtube).
So, I can finally say something about it.

The Egyptian word 'Neter' or 'Netjer' was mistranslated by the ancient Greeks as meaning "God".
What it means is something like "Divine Aspect".
There were about 700 Netjeru- 700 Aspects, 700 different ways of looking at one and the same thing.
This one thing was what the Egyptians called "Ua".
"Ua" is the Egyptian numeral for "One", and describes "One-ness" in every form imaginable.
It was not directly worshipped; instead it was supplicated through those 700 "Aspects", and no temples to "Ua" were ever build.

One of the consequences of this kind of outlook was the concept that everything which exists is a thought in the mind of god.
If that statement is true, then it must by neccessity mean that the thoughts which you think within your own mind are also thoughts in the mind of god.
(The kind of thought in question is a *conscious* thought- not the kind of things which happens when at a quarter past midnight some memory pops into your head because you can't sleep;
a memory which brings along all kinds of other memories by association- and before you know it, it's six in the morning...
That's what you could call "mind-babbling", but not conscious thought)

What all of this means is that your soul is not something which was graciously given to you by god, but it's what god consists of:
Consciousness pure.
Consequently, within the confines of your own inner universe, you *are* god.

Provided that you remind yourself that outside of those confines, you are merely another component part...
Each and every human being is effectively another "Netjer", as is each and every animal or plant.
There is nothing which is ever separate from that entirety.

The Egyptians projected that very concept unto their rulers:
A Pharao in life was the embodiment of Horus.
In death, he became the embodiment of Osiris.
This is were "Zeitgeist" gets muddled:
Horus was never 'crucified'.
What must be understood is that Horus and Osiris were two different sides of one and the same thing. Like everything else within that system, they were reflections of each other.
Osiris was Horus' father.
What that does *not* mean is that a dead Pharao would turn into his own father...
It simply meant that he became the father of the next Pharao- symbolically.
But *not neccessarily* physically...
Since all 'Netjeru' were effectively reflections of each other, and Aspects of one and the same thing, these two were effectively reflections and a different form of the Sun: Ra.
Hence, a Pharao would usually have the title "Sa-Ra" before his name. It means "Son of Ra", or "Son of the Sun": Osiris was said to be Ra's son, while Horus was the principle of renewal personified.
The idea of 'Dynasties' came into being by way of a Priest called Manetho, who was commissioned to write a History of Egypt for Ptolemy I.
He gave the Greeks what they wanted to hear...
In reality, there never were any Dynasties.

As I said- Horus was not crucified; but Osiris was- metaphorically speaking.
His Brother Set intended to murder him (Any similarities with Kain and Able are purely coincidental); so he secretly measured his body while he was asleep, and had a beautifully decorated chest made to measure.
He then invited Osiris to a banquet, during which he showed off the chest.
When everyone present admired it's workmanship, he jokingly offered the chest as a prize for anyone who would fit into it.
And since Osiris was described as exceptionally tall, he obviously was the only one fitting into it.
After all, it was made to measure...
A bit like "He whom the coffin fits can have it".
Once Osiris was inside, Set slammed the lid shut and sealed it. He then threw it into the Nile, and Osiris died- being separated from Fire, Water, Earth and Air.

His wife Isis tried to discover the location of the coffin, and eventually found it.
Then she made the mistake of leaving it out of sight for a moment, and Set discovered it.
In a fit of rage, he tore Osiris' body into fourteen parts, and strew them all over Egypt.
Isis set out to re-discover the parts; but she finally only found thirteen. The last part consisted of Osiris' genitals, which Set had thrown into the Nile; they were lost.
Isis eventually re-constituted Osiris' body by embalming it, replacing the missing genitals with a wooden model.
She then tried in vain to bring him back to life; eventually she turned herself into a Hawk, fluttered her wings over him, he came to life again, and she became pregnant with Horus.
According to the Egyptian texts, she is supposed to have constantly wailed and mourned, saying how much she missed "...Him whom I have never beheld" (In other words, their marriage had never been consummated). So- yes, it's a Virgin birth.
But it's not a physical concept- and was never meant to be seen as such.
(Incidentally- Set got really ticked off about his adversary turning up again like that; so he challenged him in court. The divine court eventually decided that the dead can not rule over the living; as a result it decreed that Osiris would be King- but only over the dead in the Netherworld...While Horus eventually became King in the world of the living.
As for Isis- her actual Egyptian name was "Ye-Set". It translates into "I-Seat": The seat of the self. The Egyptians said that the seat of true intelligence was the heart. During embalming, they actually threw the brain away...More symbolism.
By contrast, "Set" simpy means "Seat": Ego...)


What must be understood is that there is a fundamental difference between all this, and Christianity (all the similarities not withstanding).
The Egyptians took their understanding of the laws of nature (Netjer ?), and used it to explain the workings of the inner universe of man.
Thus you have a "weather-system"- with anger being the equivalent of thunder and lightning, for example.
At the same time, the idea of 'miracles' was not based on some naive idea of divine operations within the physical universe, but simply more symbolism designed to explain the workings of the internal universe...
It was a gigantic system of applied psychology, designed to gradually allow people to take charge of their inner universe and be what they were supposed to be:
Mortal gods.
The basic premise was actually quite simple:
The "Netjeru" inside of that inner universe are quite and simply the various component parts of which the human mind consists.
The individual can do one of two things:
One can either take charge of one's inner nature, and rule that universe like a god.
Or-
Just allow oneself to be run around by those component parts.

Did your right hand ever decide to go for a bit of a walk at three in the morning, ending up at the fridge because it felt hungry ?
Would it be supposed to do that in the first place...?

Emotion. Instinct. Desires.
Are they supposed to be in charge...?
Hardly.
You are meant to be in charge, ruling over all these things inside your inner universe like the sungod Ra rules over the kingdom of the gods- by illuminating it.

While these things up to a point are personifications of the laws of nature, they are *not* and never were intended to be mistaken for physical reality.
Neither are they supposed to be some kind of role-model.
Osiris, Isis, Nephtys, Set and Horus were collectively known as "The children of strife"...
And one of the forms of Ra was symbolised as a Scarab-Beetle.
Not very flattering- the king of the gods, being portrayed as a little insect which pushes a ball of dung around, isn't it...?

Thus, the various strange features found in Egyptian myths were not, and were never meant to be, seen as "miracles" of any sort.
They were *always* only ever a means by which to explain something which is otherwise impossible to explain, simply because we happen to be confined to a physical body.
We have a very limited ability to perceive.
Our senses tell us about the world around us, and we tend to mis-interpret these things as "reality".
But what we perceive is only ever an indirect form of perception:
You look at the wall, at your desk, at your hands.
Do you see a wall ? A desk ? A hand ?
No.
What you see is light reflecting of those things, but never the actual objects themselves.

If it is true that we perceive the material world around us only indirectly, by way of a series of reflections- how much more difficult is it to perceive things which are *not even material, three-dimensional things* ?
Have you ever tried to draw an image of 'Nothing' ?
How do you go about that...?
(Oh- I almost forgot: An empty page does not qualify...)

The only way you can do that is by way of using a symbol.
Writing consists of symbols:
Thus if I simply write out the word "NOTHINGNESS", the word itselve become a way of drawing an image of it. The Egyptians were absolute masters in the use of symbols.
But that's what those things were:
Symbols. A way of showing the un-showable. A way of describing the in-describable.
No more than that.
Your avarage Egyptian was not allowed into the inner sanctuary of a temple; they only ever got to see the statues of the Netjeru during processions.
Egyptian art on the other hand was always two-dimensional.
The idea was to make sure that that figure with the head of a Jackal would not be mistaken for reality...

It's not co-incidental that Sigmund Freud came to many of his conclusions and theories after reading some of those very Egyptian myths:
He realised that they have something to do with the world within.
The Religion of the ancient Egyptians was not a Religion in the modern sense at all.
It was a way of gradually refining an entire nation by teaching people to think.
Not to think what a Pharao wanted them to think-
*but to take control over the process by which thoughts are formed.*
It was meant to turn an entire nation into mortal gods.
Those who stand out by surpassing all others in that regard became immortal men....

Christianity has turned this unto it's head.
The idea is that the laws of nature are the will of a god which exists separate from *HIS* creation, outside, far away, untouchable. (Ua was bi-sexual; neither *HE* nor *SHE*- but both...)
Were the Pert-Em-Heru states "I did not steal", the Bible says "Thou shalt not steal".
Were the Pert-Em-Heru states "I did not kill", the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill".

Remember that I said that a Pharao in death became the personification of Osiris ?
A dead Tut-Ankh-Amen was actually adressed as "Osiris Tut-Ankh-Amen".
The same applied to each and every Egyptian, regardless if he was a court-official or a farm-labourer.
After death, he would be supposed to travel through the Netherworld (which later was turned into the Christian 'Hell'), until he would reach the Hall of the two Truths.
Here, he would be required to adress each of the forty-two assessors seated in this place, his heart would be weighed against the feather of truth, and finally he would come into the presence of Osiris...

Hang on a moment.
He dies. He *becomes* Osiris...And then he comes into the *presence* of Osiris...?
That would mean he comes *into his own presence*...
He has to face *himself*.
There is no one else there, and no one can ever lie to himself...
That gives a statement like "I did not steal" or "I did not kill" a completely different meaning.
(BTW- If the heart does *not* balance the feather of truth, it's devoured by Am-mut:
The "Mother of grasping". Someone that unfortunate will have the doubtful honor of going through another life-cycle: Am-Mut's counterpart was called "Ta-Uret". She was the Netjer-t of childbirth...)

Symbolism, and more symbolism.
Symbolism is a neccessity. Without it, even communication would become near impossible.
The problem starts when the true meaning of a symbol is lost, and instead people begin to worship the symbol itself.
Christianity contains more than just a fleeting resemblance to the ancient Egyptian concepts.
But it reverses inside and outside, as did Judaism before it.
The problems arising out of this were amplified when the Roman Empire assimilated Christianity as it's state religion, mingling this with the remnants of an extremely corrupt religious system whose main aim was to control the masses.
Christianity became the perfect carrier of a spiritual virus.
The results were catastrophic.

Now we could ask how this could have happened in the first place.
But that's another question which does not belong here...

And that's enough of me waffling.

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Nov 20 2008, 11:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 21 2008, 01:10 AM
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



That was a very good waffle.

thx, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Nov 21 2008, 10:21 PM
Post #51





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 21 2008, 05:10 AM) *
That was a very good waffle.

thx, lunk



Thanks!
This is the relevant bit of the 'Book of the dead', dealing with the things people were meant to avoid:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10759313

Makes some pretty interesting reading...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Feb 3 2009, 04:02 AM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I'm sticking some things here from a couple of sources regarding Zeitgeist claims in the 1st part of the original movie -

Well sourced:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

On the alleged "virgin birth" of Horus:

QUOTE
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)

In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed."


QUOTE
From the transcript of www.ZeitgeistMovie.com in red.

This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.

Horus is not (simply) the sun god, although that became one of his forms. Horus in ancient Egypt was the falcon god whose name means the high, far-off, or distant one. Re (or Ra) was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day (or noon) sun. Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.

He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky.

He is not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun (the sun rises in the east), in such Greek forms as Harakhti = "Horus of the horizon"; and Harmachis (-khis) = "Horus in the horizon." Later he was associated with the sun-god Re and known as Re-Harakhti. Atum was the god of the setting sun.

From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.

It is hieroglyphs, not hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphic is an adjective (e.g. hieroglyphic writings). The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt. [my note - I beg to differ here, there is good reason to believe messiah or moshiach derive from 'messeh', the holy Egyptian crocodile who's fat was used to annoint pharoahs] - Set (or Seth) was Horus' brother, or in other versions, his uncle. In one tradition of the Egyptian myth, Seth was Horus' rival (and usurper of Egypt's throne), in others, his balance (a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship). As mentioned above: since the beginning of the 20th century in Egyptological research, much debate has ensued over whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily historical/geo-political, or cosmic/symbolic. When the full Osiris complex became visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.

And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Horus was never sent to the underworld. That was Osiris who was killed and became lord of the underworld (i.e. the dead), while Horus was king of the living. In one version of the myth, Horus battles with Seth over an 80 year period, the earth-god Geb in a judgment awards the whole inheritance of Egypt to Horus, and Horus then becomes ruler of Egypt. From then on, the dead Egyptian king becomes an "Osiris", and his successor the living king is a "Horus." That is the primary meaning of the Horus-Seth battle myth. In the Egyptian Coffin Texts (Spell 148, quoted above), Horus appears as a falcon who soars up into the sky beyond the flight of the original bird-soul, beyond the stars and all the divinities of olden time whose souls inhabit the constellations. In so doing he brings back light and the assurance of a new day, thus subduing Seth, who personifies the terrors of darkness and death.

Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th

Wrong. The Persian/Roman god Mithras came to be seen as born on that date, as did Jesus later in the early Church. The December 25th date is not found in the Gospels or the New Testament. It was a later adoption by the Catholic Church: "In the first half of the fourth century AD the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas...At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 AD (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae ('the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea') as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336 AD, so Christmas dates back at least that far." (See "Santa or Satan: Reply to a Funny Fundy")

The date of the birth of Horus according to some online sources is during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to our November month). The Egyptian calendar had three seasons, each four months and 30 days/month. The season of Akhet is months (in Greek) Thot, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak; the season of Peret (or Winter) is months (in Greek) Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmouthi; the season of Chemou (or Summer) is months (in Greek) Pakhon, Payni, Epiph, Mesorê. See online sources: Egyptian Festival Calender ; Egyptian calendar months and seasons ; Grand Festivals ; Festival Rituals. We also know where Horus was supposedly born (at Khemmis or Chemmis in the Nile Delta of northern Upper Egypt).

of the virgin Isis-Meri.

Wrong again. Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).

And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).

A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.

His birth was accompanied by a star in the east

No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.

which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior

There are no "three kings" in the birth of Horus, and there are no "three kings" in the Bible either. Read Matthew 2 for yourself:

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2 KJV)

They are not called "kings" but "wise men" -- and they are not three in number, we don't know how many there were. Three gifts are later mentioned (gold, frankincense, myrrh) in verse 11, and these were equated with the wise men. Perhaps we are thinking of the Christmas carol "We three kings of Orient are...." ? Nice tune and lyrics, but it's always best to cross-check with the biblical text.

At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher

There is a form known as "Horus the Child" but he wasn't a prodigal teacher. He was kept hidden away by his mother, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt. The young god was hidden in the papyrus marshes, hence his epithet Har-hery-wadj or "Horus who is upon his papyrus plants."

and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry

No evidence of any baptism for Horus, and no evidence of any "ministry" of Horus. Anubis (or Anup or Anpu) means Royal Child, and is usually depicted as jackal-headed or a wild dog-headed man, or a reclining black jackal. Anubis was the great protector god, guiding the soul through the underworld. He was also the Lord of embalming, and through this is connected with incense and perfumery. No baptism here. (See The Jackal Headed God or Egyptian Animal Gods).

Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with

Horus had NO 12 disciples he traveled with: remember he became ruler of Egypt after a long battle with Seth. Perhaps you could call all the subjects in Egypt his "disciples" (which means followers).

There were technically the "Followers of Horus [son of Isis]" called the Shemsu Heru, mentioned in the Liturgy of Funeral Offerings and purification ceremony. These were a group of beings who were closely connected with Osiris, and having "followed" him in this world they passed after him into the Other World (of the dead), where they became his ministrants and messengers. There were also followers (a different group) of Horus the Elder called the Mesentiu who are "workers in metal" or blacksmiths (see The Liturgy of Funeral Offerings, the fourth ceremony, commentary by Budge).

performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water

There are some healing "miracles" or magic associated with Horus, but this is with Horus the Child, not Horus the Elder or his adult forms. In the Late Dynastic cippi objects, Harpokrates (Horus-the-child) acts as an amuletic force warding off dangerous creatures such as crocodiles, serpents, and other noxious animals, etc. "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles" was a common manifestation of the importance of Horus in healing ritual. The healing of Horus from scorpian stings by Isis provided the reason for the production of the cippi of Horus and his role in healing. The power of this healing seems to come from his mother, Isis, who was indeed the "goddess of immense magical power" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 79ff).

Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others

Wrong, no evidence for these names. The "forms" of the Horus-god are precisely what I listed above, under these categories: Horus the Child (healing / magical titles such as "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles"); Horus as son of Isis and Osiris ("pillar of his mother"; "savior of his father"); and Horus as a sun-god ("lord of the sky"; god "of the east"; Horus of / in "the horizon"; and later associated with Re).

After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.

Typhon is also known as Seth, his rival brother (or uncle). Horus was NOT crucified, was NOT buried for 3 days, and thus, was NOT resurrected. Your sources are wrong. In some versions of his battle with Seth, Horus had one or both of his eyes injured, but he was not killed. It was his father Osiris who was killed, dismembered, reconstituted, and revived by Isis, his magical mother.

These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure

No, they do not. They are unique to Jesus Christ (crucifixion, burial, bodily resurrection). I have demolished these claims in my long, detailed, documented article "Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan 'Crucified Saviors' Examined."


The above piece goes on to demolish other claims dealing with other deities.

On Zeitgeit's sources:

QUOTE
The "sources" used for Zeitgeist are outdated, unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, speculative, and/or conspiracy-laden tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, historical Jesus studies, Egyptology, or related fields, and/or rely on other non-scholarly, outdated, pseudo-historical books, and are therefore filled with errors:

* Acharya S, Suns of God and The Christ Conspiracy;
* Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ (orig c. 1900) and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World (orig 1907)
* Thomas Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (orig 1882)
* James Frazer, The Golden Bough (1st ed 1890; 2nd ed 1900; 3rd ed in 12 volumes, 1906-1915)
* Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries
Another two that were left out but argue along the same lines are Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (orig 1875) and Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (2004). John Jackson's Christianity Before Christ (1985) was also used, but he simply copies and quotes Massey, Kuhn, Churchward, Graves, and other pseudo-scholarship.

...Gasque sent an email to "twenty leading Egyptologists -- in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria" in order to examine the following claims:

That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian “Iusa,” which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves"
That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ....He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."
That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.' "
That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and....this word, when the vowels are filled in, is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."
That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE."
What Gasque found in response is the following, also put in bullet points:

*Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men (Kuhn, Higgins, or Massey) is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt.
*Only one of the ten experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey.
*The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ.
*Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, pointed out that while "sa" means "son" in ancient Egyptian and "iu" means "to come," but Kuhn / Harpur have the syntax all wrong.
In any event, the name "Iusa" simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name "Jesus" is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name (“Jeshu’a”), borne not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.
*There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born.
*There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was "a fisher of men" or that his followers (the King’s officials were called "Followers of Horus") were ever twelve in number.
KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or Hebrew "Mashiah."
*There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC, so Harpur’s reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half.

...Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources; the notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey, or some other long-out-of-date work.
W. Ward Gasque holds a Ph.D. from Manchester University (UK). A graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Leadership (1993), he is President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies...



The below is unsourced, but I thought it was a good summary of the main points addressed elsewhere on the web -

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&...=1&.intl=us

QUOTE
According to the transcript of the film, the story of Horus is as follows: ‘Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected
.
According to the Egyptian legend Horus’ father was Osiris and his mother was Isis (but there is nothing to connect this name with Mary / Meri). Osiris was killed by his brother Set who wanted his throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died and she later gave birth to Horus. Horus then killed Set. ... Horus was supposedly born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), and not on December 25th, a fact which does make any difference to the claim that both Horus and Jesus were born at the same time since the Bible never says that Jesus was born on December 25th! Ironically the makers of the film do have a point when they connect Christmas with ancient sun worship rituals, but only in relation to Catholicism, but not to New Testament Christianity. The dating of the birth of Jesus at December 25th came in as a result of the Roman Catholic church trying to entice Roman pagans to convert to Christianity without forsaking their midwinter festival which revolved around the ‘rebirth’ of the sun as the days began to lengthen. The earliest reference to the Christian celebration of Christmas is found in the Calendar of Filocalus, a manuscript compiled in Rome in AD 354.

...The film states that a star in the East announced his birth and that three kings came to bring gifts to the “saviour.” However, when stories detailing the birth of Horus are examined, there is no star or three kings who come to visit him. Trying to link this to Christianity fails in any event as the account of Christ’s birth in Matthew has magi (wise men, not kings) coming to Jesus with their actual number not being stated. The movie states that Horus was “baptised” by Anup and started a “ministry.” The only accounts remotely related to Horus and water are the stories told of Osiris (his father who is sometimes combined in ancient accounts with Horus to form one individual) whose body was cut up into 14 pieces by his enemy, Set, and scattered throughout the earth. Isis supposedly found each part of the body and after having Osiris float in the Nile, he came back to life or became the lord of the underworld, depending on which account is read. In any event, stating that Horus was “baptised” is simply playing fast and loose with Christian terminology. In addition, Horus had no “ministry.” There is nothing in the myths about Horus becoming a teacher at age 12...

...Neither are there any statements to the effect that Horus had 12 “disciples.” According to the accounts, he had four semi-gods that were followers and some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. No accounts of Horus being betrayed are found in his portrayals and he certainly did not die by crucifixion in any account. There is an incident described in one story of Horus being torn to pieces, with Iris requesting that the crocodile god fish him out of the water he was placed into, but the movie does not mention this as it does not fit in with their agenda. The movie puts the account of Horus as originating in 3,000 B.C., which predates the invention and practice of crucifixion, so there is another historical problem that must be overcome. The claims of Horus being buried for three days and resurrected are not to be found in any ancient Egyptian texts either...


Video about Zeitgeist's sources
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXPjt_qCxQ&...feature=related

Another video at this site
http://jp.youtube.com/user/ZeitgeistDebunked
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Willow
post Mar 23 2009, 04:12 PM
Post #53





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 86
Joined: 7-February 09
Member No.: 4,112



IMHO, it's a pity 'Zeitgeist's' interpretations of religion (understandably) put so many people off, as I think a reasonably valid, if not altogether accurately reseached, point was trying to be made. In fact, a line at the very end of the third presentation really resonated with me (unfortunately, he then raced off down another route I didn't find as appealing and the moment was lost). I can't remember the exact words used, but my interpretation of it was as follows:

Isn't it about time we stopped arguing over the 'maps' (religions / philosophies etc.) we were using and started to actually use them (which ever ones - they all essentially point to the same truths... see below)... to actually find and live by the truths to which they point?

‘The Golden Rule’.
Jesus - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Confucius - What you do not want done to you, do not do to others.
Mohammed - None of you is a believer until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.
Buddha - Do not hurt others with that which hurts yourself.
Hinduism - This is the sum of all duty: do nothing to others which if it were done to you would cause you pain.
Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to others.
Paganism - If it harm none, do what you will.


‘Do unto others as you would do unto yourself’ is not an instruction. It is a statement of fact. What we do, say and think adds to the collective consciousness that is Us.

Knowledge without understanding is like a map. Its only function is to help us find the location. Just sitting with a map in front of you will not allow you to experience the locality. It is only when we understand the knowledge that we can use it to get to, and experience, the locality of which it tells.

Perhaps all of the great spiritual leaders – the ‘Masters’ – are beings who have already dis-covered deeper, more beneficial levels of reality understanding and have elected to return to this plane of reality in order to facilitate greater understanding here?

Many formal religions also suffer from the fact that those in control have chosen to latch onto the messenger rather than the message. Shame really, as a large proportion of these messengers seem to have been trying to tell us that all the answers lie inside ourselves – that we already have access to ‘God’ whenever we wish it. (‘The Kingdom of God lies within’ sound familiar to anyone?) They came to try and set us free – and more often than not we kill them for their trouble, then deify them into being the very thing they were trying to get us away from: someone ‘else’ who will sort it all out for us.

Ultimately, though they may be a good starting place for many, formal religions are unproductive as they tend to cling to dogma and ‘tradition’, leading to stagnation rather than growth.

Another problem with organised religion is that it often seems something of a ‘bolt-on’ extra, a spiritual lifejacket, as it were. As long as you go along to church / synagogue / temple every week, and remember to say your prayers, then it doesn’t matter what you think, say or even do during the greater part of your day-to-day existence.
This separatism means that all too often, the essential teachings of the faith (whichever it may be) are not being truly lived.
Many people call me an idealist – and they don’t mean it as a compliment!
“Yeah, yeah,” they say. “That’s great in principle, but the world’s just not like that.”
Ye-e-s. And why exactly?!
We need to live our spiritual truths, not keep them as some distant possibilities that might be real-ised one day. This is one day.

This post has been edited by Willow: Mar 23 2009, 04:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Apr 8 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #54





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



Actually Zeitgeists interpretation of Christianity is pretty much dead on and well researched from valid sources not the bunkum listed there by Sanders.

It is rather common knowledge that Isis was just the personification of Virgo like most of the other virgin deities.
Isis was a virgin because that is what the MYTH personified VIRGO the VIRGIN.
Isis was also given many different names Isis-Meri just being one of 100s.

"Meri- Isis as the goddess of the sea" is the correct name as it was written.

http://www.egyptancient.net/isidenames.htm

Isis was just as much a virgin as any of the many other virgin deities throughout history.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 8 2009, 11:42 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 8 2009, 01:50 PM) *
Actually Zeitgeists interpretation of Christianity is pretty much dead on and well researched from valid sources not the bunkum listed there by Sanders.


Sanders goes into much more detail and depth about this topic,
than Zeitgeist did.


imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Apr 11 2009, 09:16 PM
Post #56





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 7 2009, 01:42 AM) *
Sanders goes into much more detail and depth about this topic,
than Zeitgeist did.


imo, lunk


Shame it was all wrong
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 13 2009, 08:55 AM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 11 2009, 06:16 PM) *
Shame it was all wrong


All wrong?

That's not right.

There must be something correct somewhere.

Both are referring to interpretation of myth,
which is more a matter of opinion, in meaning,
than to a right or wrong dichotomy.

I think that it is more important to ask,
where does this lead?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Willow
post Apr 13 2009, 10:49 AM
Post #58





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 86
Joined: 7-February 09
Member No.: 4,112



I agree, Lunk... on both points.

I've seen so many well sourced, well reasoned, well researched arguments that totally contradict each other that I've given up accepting (or for that matter denying) anyone's interpretation of anything.

IMHO, it's all just 'signposts'... and signposts to what is indeed the question.

(And that said, Sanders stuff is just as valid as anyone else's... IMHO, he's doing a great job and I for one, appreciate the variety of perspectives.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Apr 13 2009, 11:42 AM
Post #59





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



One observation that gets quoted often here in these postings is "If you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities", or words to that effect.

A common thread in human history is religion. Religions codify absurdities. They are drilled into unsuspecting children at a very early age. It is conditioning for an adulthood in which governments will continue to spray absurdities, like, for example, Iraq being a threat to the United States, at a passive and naive public, who think that being a citizen of a "free country" only requires them to send money to the government annually and go through the motions of registering a "vote" for one of two hand-picked candidates that they barely know anything meaningful about, into a voting machine without audit capability or written record.

Nothing new here. Thus it has ever been. That, to me is the meaning of Part 1 of Zeitgeist. It isn't particularly a slam at Christianity any more than the other myths exemplified in it. Christianity just happens to be the most prevalent collection of absurdities at the moment and relatively recent (if you don't count Mormonism, Scientology, etc.).
Reason for edit: Added "only"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 14 2009, 05:11 PM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The thing about most religions, is that they give an individual, community.
That can be idealized as having greater authority than the government.

Idealistic communities, get in the way of a one world, centralized, governance,
over the complete dominion over the individual.
...sort of like family,
both of which,
are being destroyed,
as there can be only one central authority,
in the future, for all, and everybody,
in this long planned crazy agenda.

Tricking the will of the people,
to change at,
the whim of the state.

(edit), just to make it sound better

This post has been edited by lunk: Apr 14 2009, 05:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2014 - 08:15 AM