outhouse

Here is more of her poor poor work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

The Christ Conspiracy claim that Horus was born of a virgin though an ‘immaculate conception.’ Egyptian texts demonstrate that Horus’ mother was the goddess Isis, and not a human virgin. Horus was conceived when Isis resurrected the dismembered god Osiris and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity, and certainly parthenogenesis.[26] Furthermore, this is a misuse of a term, as the Immaculate Conception is a Catholic doctrine that speaks to Mary's sinless nature from the moment of her conception and is not a reference to her virginity at Jesus' conception.




This is just one of many poor mistakes

Robert Tulip

Fools rush in. This wikipedia statement is false. The only CC reference is here, and it does not say what the malicious wikipedia entry purports. Indeed this has been the subject of extensive debate regarding Richard Carrier's pornographic reading. The status of Isis as 'perpetual virgin' is subject of a long chapter in Christ In Egypt, which clueless critics should read before they spout trash.

Dave31

Nah, you just don't know what you're talking about, Wiki is not the most trustworthy place when it comes to religious topics since so many Christians are editing articles they don't like.

Rebuttal to historian Dr. Chris Forbes on the subject of Horus

Here's a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus. And, at 5:30 you'll see a stone carving of Isis as she hovers over Osiris in the form of a bird to receive the divine seed (notice there's no 'member') of Osiris. Mojsov then says, "It's a miraculous birth of the savior child."



It's always laughable to watch Christians or ignorant atheists attempt to claim Isis and Osiris had sex after Osiris had been cut into 14 pieces and was put back together, as if he could really 'get it up.' These are myths that are having symbolic/spiritual sex not real sex.

Sourcebook

* The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old

Tom Harper, Ward Gasque & Christ in Egypt

Christ in Egypt is nearly 600 pages and contains almost 2,400 footnote/citations to primary sources and expert commentary on them from a wide variety of backgrounds & expertise, including Egyptologists and many Christian scholars, from over 900 bibliographical references to scholarly journals, books, articles etc and 60+ images and a map.

outhouse

Hows about some sources from historians???

bloggers dont cut it, appealing to ignorance is her target.

George S

...

outhouse

Pure ignorance, like the work you back.

If you have a case that could change the wiki article your free to do so without crying apologetics and bias. But you don't, so you cry and call foul instead of proposing proper work to overturn what's there.

I know people that have worked on the HJ section and they are unbiased and non apologetic.





Its not laughable to watch obscure bloggers go against real historians and professors, its just sad.


Try learning from real professors.

This is a teacher and a scholar, what your learning from is not

This will get you started in a much better direction.

http://www.virtualprofessors.com/int...lst-152-martin

Robert Tulip

My main issue with the wiki is that it is completely wrong about the virginity of Isis, as Dave has pointed out above. The statement "Isis resurrected the dismembered god Osiris and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity" completely fails to recognise the Egyptian status of Isis as perpetual virgin.

The official Catholic dogma is not the only use of immaculate conception, which is also popularly understood to refer to the insemination of Mary by God. Quibbles about whether Christians actually believe that the conception of Christ was immaculate are a side issue.

outhouse

Exactly, she is preying on ignorance making an association with "Immaculate Conception" and Horus to use it as evidence as a parallel to the Jesus legends just hoping readers wont know or understand the mythology that clearly states that Isis was not a virgin. But she fails to mention that, and more.

Its my personal opinion its just dishonest work.


she uses this tactic often using ancient and obscure translations and others work cherry picked to promote her guesses. Again its poor work with a outcome not even plausible.


No real scholar doubts some of the parallels that Mary shares with Isis, after all mythology evolves and are passed down, and we know there were influences in Hellenistic cultures from Isis. But influence and foundation are two separate ways to approach it, and only one is backed with credible honest scholarships showing influence.

outhouse

That's not the point.

The point is the Isis mythology states she is not a virgin, and someone left that out on purpose in a comparison.

Robert Tulip

Happy Equinox to all.

I fear I will be alone on this enlightened forum in noting a rather exquisite irony here, perhaps even a double standard, from the great and wise estimable spin. Just before threatening me with a ‘terms of use’ violation for the mere mention of the actual name of his avatar, Rocky’s nemesis, he who shall not be named, the brilliant linguist referred, if I am not mistaken, to another user here, Dave31, as “freethinkadouche”.

Here we see the Napoleon political spin dictum, never retreat, retract or admit a mistake. Such a double standard is surprising to say the least from a Bible Scholar, but I would counsel my good friend Dave not to return the insult, so perhaps we can focus on matters of substance, such as the astrotheological allegory of Christ Mythicism. Just remember the lesson about name-calling, don’t say Jehovah or you will get stoned.

Perhaps it is the visceral repugnance that spin seems to experience at the mere mention of Acharya, but his argument here about the allegory of ‘it’ has all the logic of comparing a witch suspect to a duck. He would be well advised to actually read the text in question, the CC chapter on Astrology in the Bible, before going on any further.

The astrotheological argument of The Christ Conspiracy is that the characters of the bible are allegorical representatives of naturally observed entities, especially the sun, moon and stars. Jehovah himself and Jesus Christ are allegory for the sun. So when the Bible refers to these characters as ‘he’, it is symbolically referring to a thing.

Acharya’s discussion of Ezekiel and Paul is simply an illustrative introduction to this deep symbolism in the Bible. These examples explain the allegory explicitly, like the way Jesus does in the parable of the sower.

We are invited to see that this allegorical method is actually used more widely. So with Ezekiel we can see that the four living creatures are allegory for the stars Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut, readily visible at the four corners of the ecliptic in the night sky. Ezekiel does not explain this allegory, because that would constitute a terms of use violation against the Deuteronomic code of alienated transcendence.

The absence of a Hebrew pronoun for it is utterly irrelevant to how Acharya actually uses the ‘she’ prostitute/Israel allegory of Ezekiel, as an introduction to the deep natural symbolism that suffuses the Bible.