I have read there are many, many similarities between the Jesus story (born of a virgin, healer/teacher who performed miracles, crucified but rose after third day etc) and other purported gods of or before his time. Then I came across this:
http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheolo...opicID=5.topic

which basically says (all that text in bright aqua) most of these similarities are bogus or, in the words of the critic, "total crap". Is this thread a good refutation of the original claim the Jesus story is merely a Christian clone of earlier god myths?

Nope.

First, Metacrock claims that Jesus' virgin birth was unique in that there was no divine semen or physical aspect of procreation to conceive Jesus. This is certainly the majority view today, but their is some evidence that a physical act was intended in Luke:

Sounds sexy to me.

Here, too, Metacrock implies that one virgin birth can be more unique than another virgin birth; it's as if Athena's story must have more credibility because no other gods sprang from Zeus' headache.

One thing that confuses me is Metacrock's (and David Adams Leeming, the source he cites) claim that Buddha's (Siddhartha's) virgin birth is different because his mother was married. Was Mary not married to Joseph?

Later he claims that Osiris is not resurrected - false. He quibbles about the method, but dying and coming back to life is dying and coming back to life.

Anyway, they're just fooling themselves either through ignorance or their emotional attachment to the gospel which has meant so much to them. I'm surprised TheKeithMeister, the thread's OP, didn't mention Tammuz or Persephone. There are several (mostly agricultural) deities Jesus' miracles resemble.

Here is a link about Mithra/Jesus connection. http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html
WD

Here is what I wrote over at Meta's website:

Meta => The prophetic gift is described as the Holy Spirit coming upon them througout the Bible. I believe in Acts 2 when the Spirit comes to give them the gift of tounges it says the Spirit came upon them. Does this mean God was having sex with all the prophets? There is nothing sexual in that statement. IT merely means that the Holy Spirit's power is felt at that moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds sexy to me.
Here, too, Metacrock implies that one virgin birth can be more unique than another virgin birth; it's as if Athena's story must have more credibility because no other gods sprang from Zeus' headache.


Meta => It's not the same concept.And what you are ignoring is that Orisis for example is not even connected to a Virgin, his mother was married and she was not a human. And Mirthras was born from a rock. Hercules mother isn't said to be a virign just mortal. I want you to produce one single example of any virigin giving birth in mythology. There are some,but not many. And none of those cults had any influence in Palestine. That's one thing they never account for. Why would a buch of Jews in Palestine copy a cults they felt were evil and idolotrous? IT just doenst' add up.

One thing that confuses me is Metacrock's (and David Adams Leeming, the source he cites) claim that Buddha's (Siddhartha's) virgin birth is different because his mother was married. Was Mary not married to Joseph?


Meta -=> Ever heard of a wedding night? ONe assumes a married woman isn ot a virgin. No Mary was not married to Joseph at the time she became pregnant. That's why Joeseph was going to put her away and the angle came to him and told him not to (see Luke)

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
...his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together...
- Matthew 1:18
To be taxed with Mary his [Joseph's] espoused wife, being great with child.
-Luke 2:5

MEta => Yea, after she was preggers they got married.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later he claims that Osiris is not resurrected - false. He quibbles about the method, but dying and coming back to life is dying and coming back to life.


MEta => He didn't come back to life. Resurrection means that you live again in your same old human life, Osiris became a "living" mummy, not a flesh and blood human like anyone else you see on the street. He was a sort of "undead" figure.


Anyway, they're just fooling themselves either through ignorance or their emotional attachment to the gospel which has meant so much to them.

MEta => And the atheiods on the other board call me arrogant! ha! You can't even give one example you dont' even read the text you are trying to critique but it's my ignorance! you are the ignorant one you putz!@ You call me ignroant when you swallow that pagan copy crap when there is not one serious schoar who buys it became they know how lame it is!

I'm surprised TheKeithMeister, the thread's OP, didn't mention Tammuz or Persephone. There are several (mostly agricultural) deities Jesus' miracles res[/B][/QUOTE]


Meta =->ahahahaha, o you want to talk about Tamuz hu? Dont' even realize that in some versions of the Tamuz story he is killed by his sister and doesn't come back to life. There is also no documentation of his suppossed resurrection until after the Chrstian era


In Babylonian Mythology was the consort of the goddess Ishtor. He was also the god who died and rose again continually. This was another crop cycle relationship based upon nature. (Herbert Spencer Robinson, Myths and Legonds of all Nations, New York: Bantum Books, 1950, 13-16). This is purely mythological. There is no historical figure that Tammuz is based upon. He did not die and rise as a flesh and blood human, but only as a mythical figure. He healed no real people, only the mythical goddess Ishtar. Since his dying and rising is crop related we can suspect that he is not even faintly based upon a real figure. This was a copy of nature for fertility purposes. He was consort to Ishtar who was goddess of 'love' in the crass sense, related to fertilty. He was not crucified but killed by a wild bore (Ibid.).

There is a vast difference in the sort of resurrection Jesus had and in the crop-crop cycle renewal that Tamuz and also Bachus underwent. It is not a return to fleshly life on earth but a cyclical thing that is linked to crop cyles. Now why would Jews in Palestine find that model appealing when there was no such influence in their lives, and it comes from a source they would find dispicable?

Ah, you posted on my board? O thank you. mercie (hope I spell that right, my spelling in French is no better than in English). And I don't totally disagree with you. I agree there can be some paralells, but not through conscious copying. If you look on my site you will see I cover this argument on archetypes.

Here's what I say about it:

VI.Some Similarities Do Exist Between all Religions as a Result of Human Nature and Archetypical Patterning.

 
A. Cultural Influences.
 
But most scholars such as anthropologists and historians of religion today no longer think in terms of out right copying. Rather scholars tend more often to think in terms of influence and cultural drift. "Today, however, most scholars are considerably more caustious about the parallels between early Christianity and the mysteries and hesitate before jumping to conclusions about dependence. To be sure, one religious tradition my appropriate themes from another and so it must have been with early Christianity and the mystery religions. Yet Judaism, Christianity, and the mysteries were equally parts of the religious milieu of the Greco-Roman world, and this explains many of their similarities. As Greco-Roman religions they sometimes faced many of the same challenges, proposed similar ways of salvation and shared simliar visions of the way to light and life"
[Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Source book. San Francisco: Harper, 1987, 226]
 
(This is Marvin Meyer, the same source recommended by Kane on his website)
 
The notion of outright copying is silly. This depends upon a conspiracy which would produce a wooden figure rather than the vibrant breathing unique personality we find in the Jesus of the canonical Gospels. Moreover, Jewish and Hellenistic thought both grew up together in the Eastern end of the Mediterranean. Both owed a little to Egypt and a great deal to the civilization of the Trigris-Euphrates valley. Both alike deriving something from Aegean culture." [D.E.H. Whitely, Jesus College Oxford, Theology of ST. Paul, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 5]. This makes the cultural influence theory all the more likely, but rules out any sort of direct barrowing. These people thought alike in many ways, but why would a Jewish sect go to pagan cults to barrow their mythology consciously?
 
B. Archetypical Patterning
 
1) Mythical elements derive from psychological archetypes
"Through out the inhabited world, in all times and under every circumstance the myths of man have flourished and they have been and they have been the inspiration for whatever else has appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind....Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of permeative and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the very basic magic ring of myth. The wonder is that the characteristic efficacy to touch and inspire deep creative centers dwells in the smallest nursery fairy tale--as the taste of the ocean is contained in a droplet, or the whole mystery of life within the egg of a flea. For the Symbols of mythology are not manufactured; they cannot be ordered, invented, or permanently suppressed. They are spontaneous productions of the psyche, and each bares within it, undamaged, the germ power of its source."
(Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton University Press, 1949, pp. 3-4)
 [One would assume than that they cannot, with any great success be artificially copied, and produce anything with the power of the character of Jesus in the four Gospels.]
 
 
2) Definition of Archetypes
 
The psychologist Carl Jung defines archetypes as "forms or images of a collective nature which occur practically all over the earth as constitutes of myths and at the same time autochthonous, individual products of unconscious origin" (C. G. Jung Psychology and Religion [collected works vol II New York, London: 1958 par. 88]). Campbell tells us "The archetypes to be discovered and assimilated are perciely those that have inspired, throughout the annals of human culture, the basic images, mythology, and vision." (Ibid. 18).
So these images, symbols, and notions about religious figures are in large part products of the human psyche the world over, each viewed through the lens of some particular culture, and with cross fertilization and cultural influences. Now one might object that this makes it all the more likely that the Jesus story is also being viewed through the lens of culture and is merely the product of these archetypes. That is what Campbell himself said, but he also said that that didn't make it unimportant, that doesn't mean that there is no supernatural reality behind it. He was not a Christian, and didn't like Christianity, but he did recognize that there is more to it than just "copying" and more to religion than just "a mere myth."
 
3) Source of the archetypes
 
Jung didn't really stipulate what the final source of archetypes was, it was psychological, and indicative of some higher reality in a Platonic sense perhaps. Marcea Elliade was the other great Mythological scholar; founder of the field of History of Religions at University of Chicago. He was also an official Guru in the Hindu religion (although he was Rumanian) and was a believer in mystical consciousness and Higher reality (see Dudley Gilford III, Religion on Trail.) Champbell also hints at a higher source for the archetypes. How else could these psychological figures and symbols be embed in the human psyche if not some correspondence to a higher reality? With a strict materialist interpretation it makes no sense to even suppose that they exist. yet they are found all over the world, the same basic heroes doing the same basic things, the same elements (See Champbell The Hero With a Thousand Faces) Therefore, they are the product of the link between the human psyche and a higher reality. Not to suggest that some higher reality is telling us about real people doing real things, but that these heroes are symbols for everyone, for the individual and his/her journey through life.
 
C. The Archetypical Demonstrates Jesus Deity All the More.
 
As C.S.Lewis is reputed to have said, with all the dying and rising gods of pagan mythology one might get the idea that it actually happened in some historical enstance. IF someone really embodied the details of these myths it would go a long way toward proving that God designed it that way, especially since that historical figure is recorded living long after most of these myths were told. The myths exist as far away as the other side of the world, and yet here is a man who actually lives them and embodies them.
 
 
Eliade quotes Fr. Beirnaert:
 
 
[the Christian sacraments direct the believer's mind to the power of God in history] ...This new meaning must not lead us to deny the permanence of the ancient meaning [of the archetypes found in the sacraments]. By its renewal of the great figures and symbolization's of natural religion, Christianity has also renewed their vitality and their powers in the depths of the psyche. The mythical and archetypical dimension remains none the less real for being henceforth subordinate to another. The Christian may well be a man who has ceased to look for his spiritual salvation in myths and in experience of the immanent archetypes alone; he has not for all that abandoned all that the myths and symbolism's mean and to the psychic man, to the microcosm [...] the adoption by Christ and the Church, of the great images of the Sun, the moon, wood, waster, the sea, and so forth, amounts to an evangelization of the effective powers that they denote. The incarnation must not be reduced to the taking on of the flesh alone. God has intervened even in the collective unconscious that it may be saved and fulfilled. The Christ descended into hell. How then can this salvation reach into our unconsciousness without speaking its language and making use of it's Categories?
[Beirnaert, pp. 284-285 quoted in Marcea Eliade, Images and Symbols, Studies in Religious Symbolism,trans. Philip Mairet Kansas City: Sheed Adnrews and McMeel inc. 1952, English trans. Harvil press 1961, pp.160-161.]
 
In other words, God could still do both, literally fulfill the images of the archetypes in the historical reality of Jesus Christ, and still arrenge them so that they speak of the same transcendent reality through their archetypical symbolism. So Jesus is both the literal historical incarnation, the Son of God, and the archetypical mythical savior figure. But no conscious borrowing is required. All that is needed for this is the human psyche.
 
 
D. The Skeptic will argue that the archetypes colored the historical facts
 
Many of the smaller details of Jesus' life cannot be proven, but the major outline can be. That he lived, was a healer, was a great teacher, was crucified and his followers claimed from an early time that he rose from the dead, that he was the product of Vigin birth ect. these things can be demonstrated as historical. As shown, mos skeptics cannot make good on these cliams either, but to whatever extent they do, these similarities only add to the idication that God was working through Jesus Christ.

Do you know or feel that God wasn't having sex with the prophets? Is God described as overshadowing the prophets?

So, because the story isn't copied of whole cloth it must no be copied at all? Do you think it would be true to say that because the story of Ashtarte and Isis aren't exactly the same that means neither borrows from the other?

This is just false. There were several competing religions in Palestine (a name the area got from the Greeks - who weren't Jewish - referring to the Philistines - who weren't Jewish) throughout history. Jesus runs across a couple of them in his story.

I submit that Christianity didn't become Christianity until Paul had 'Gentilized' it. There is some evidence that the stories were originally that of a man, perhaps a prophet, perhaps the messiah (which has nothing to do with divine birth), who stood against Rome and fell. The pious Jews didn't necessarily buy all of the tenets of the story we have today.

Not to mention that the OT is filled with myth borrowed from cultures the Judaic Hebrews came in contact with: the flood, talking donkeys, etc. If pious Jews transferred them into their holy books, it is only because a) the stories had been assimilated culturally with the offensive parts brought into line, and b) their oral tradition had become too strong to eradicate.

Sorry, the verses still say wife, and before Jesus' birth; I stand by my statement.

A living mummy is a living person. The process of mummification was to prepare people for their life in the afterlife. If it helps, you can think of the depictions of Osiris' mummification as the equivalent of stigmata.

I suggest you go back and read your serious scholars...

Again I tell you that the Jews didn't find it appealing or there would be none today - they would have converted. Only a tiny minority supported Jesus and his rebellion, but by the time the NT was assembled, Christianity was a wholly 'Gentile' set of beliefs.

As an aside: why the name calling? Most 'Christians' I debate treat me with the same respect I treat them. Does calling me a pejorative Yiddish name strengthen your argument?

And here's another good one: the story of Romulus and Remus. Some wicked king did not want a certain Rhea Silvia to have children, and made her a Vestal Virgin, out of fear as to who those children might become. But one day, she took a nap on a riverbank with her breasts accidentally revealed, and the great god Mars got an eyeful of that. One thing led to another, and she got pregnant. When she gave birth to them, she kept those kids from that king by putting them in a basket which then floated down the Tiber River. This basket was discovered by a wolf, who raised the kids. When they grew up, Remus got killed in an argument, but Romulus then proceeded to found Rome and was lifted up into Heaven and made a god instead of dying the normal way.

I wonder if the Pope has ever thought of the remarkable similarities in the biographies of his church's founder (JC) and of his church's HDQ-city's founder (Romulus).

Finally, on the subject of resurrection, this article (http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2000/05/22/oral_history/index.html
) mentions a remarkable method:

"... the famous myth of Osiris and Iris: Osiris was killed by his brother and cut into pieces. His sister Iris put the pieces together but, by chance, the penis was missing. An artificial penis was made out of clay, and Iris "blew" life back into Osiris by sucking it. There are explicit images of this myth."

In effect, Isis revived Osiris with a blow job.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by smugg:
[b]quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Metacrock:
Meta => The prophetic gift is described as the Holy Spirit coming upon them througout the Bible. I believe in Acts 2 when the Spirit comes to give them the gift of tounges it says the Spirit came upon them. Does this mean God was having sex with all the prophets? There is nothing sexual in that statement. IT merely means that the Holy Spirit's power is felt at that moment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you know or feel that God wasn't having sex with the prophets? Is God described as overshadowing the prophets?


Meta => Is there a reason to think that that is even worthy of considering as a valid point? What possible reason would there be to assume that he was? The Greek terms translated "coming upon" is not indicative of Sexual intercourse. It is not a euphamism for sex.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta => It's [Athena's birth] not the same concept.And what you are ignoring is that Orisis for example is not even connected to a Virgin, his mother was married and she was not a human. And Mirthras was born from a rock. Hercules mother isn't said to be a virign just mortal. I want you to produce one single example of any virigin giving birth in mythology. There are some,but not many.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, because the story isn't copied of whole cloth it must no be copied at all? Do you think it would be true to say that because the story of Ashtarte and Isis aren't exactly the same that means neither borrows from the other?

Meta => Well it's just that you are assuming barrowing on really flimsy evidence. I already said I'm not against the concept of some barrowing, but it just depends on how much and how far it went. To imply,as many do that that somehow invalidates the histoircal events of the NT there is no supporting evidence that confirms such a view.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
And none of those cults had any influence in Palestine. That's one thing they never account for. Why would a buch of Jews in Palestine copy a cults they felt were evil and idolotrous? IT just doenst' add up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just false. There were several competing religions in Palestine (a name the area got from the Greeks - who weren't Jewish - referring to the Philistines - who weren't Jewish) throughout history. Jesus runs across a couple of them in his story.


Meta => Yes, but you need to show that those were the same ones with those stories and that the stories existed beofore Chrsitianity. Most of the stories which Christ myther's say are paralell have no examples in pre Chrsitian times.


I submit that Christianity didn't become Christianity until Paul had 'Gentilized' it. There is some evidence that the stories were originally that of a man, perhaps a prophet, perhaps the messiah (which has nothing to do with divine birth), who stood against Rome and fell. The pious Jews didn't necessarily buy all of the tenets of the story we have today.


Meta => But that is speiculation and it cannot be supported, in fact it flys in the face of the primary text. You have yet to offer a reson why we should doubt the text. And as I said, the passion narrative can be traced to just 18 years after the events. Now don't you think that 18 years after with tons of eye witnesses still alive they start hearing this guy was crucified and riased form the dead in front of the whole city some one would say "I dont' remember that?" and the empty tomg is also part of that narrative. wouldn't the people who were there tend to say "what empty tomb? What guards? I dont' remmber that!"??


Not to mention that the OT is filled with myth borrowed from cultures the Judaic Hebrews came in contact with: the flood, talking donkeys, etc. If pious Jews transferred them into their holy books, it is only because a) the stories had been assimilated culturally with the offensive parts brought into line, and b) their oral tradition had become too strong to eradicate.


Meta => By talking Donkey's you mean the Golden Ass?That was not written before any books of the OT. Show me the paralells.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta -=> Ever heard of a wedding night? ONe assumes a married woman isn ot a virgin. No Mary was not married to Joseph at the time she became pregnant. That's why Joeseph was going to put her away and the angle came to him and told him not to (see Luke)
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
...his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together...
- Matthew 1:18

Meta -> Espoused does not mean married. It means engaged. And so what. The issue is she was pregant already.

To be taxed with Mary his [Joseph's] espoused wife, being great with child.
-Luke 2:5

Meta => Espoused means engaged. She was already pregnant that's what it says.


MEta => Yea, after she was preggers they got married.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the verses still say wife, and before Jesus' birth; I stand by my statement.

Meta => No it says "espoused wife" that means promised to be his wife not already was.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEta => He [Osiris] didn't come back to life. Resurrection means that you live again in your same old human life, Osiris became a "living" mummy, not a flesh and blood human like anyone else you see on the street. He was a sort of "undead" figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A living mummy is a living person. The process of mummification was to prepare people for their life in the afterlife. If it helps, you can think of the depictions of Osiris' mummification as the equivalent of stigmata.


Meta => NO I disagree. IT is not the same kind of life. Most people don't lived wrapped up in bandages. It doesn't matter that the point was to preserve the body that in no way means that Osiris returned to real life.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEta => And the atheiods on the other board call me arrogant! ha! You can't even give one example you dont' even read the text you are trying to critique but it's my ignorance! you are the ignorant one you putz!@ You call me ignroant when you swallow that pagan copy crap when there is not one serious schoar who buys it became they know how lame it is!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest you go back and read your serious scholars...

Meta => Quote them. I suggest you read them. But I do apologize for calling you that. i wont make a bunch of excuses. but I had been called that on the other board and was very angry at that moment. I still should not have taken it out on you. But you should learn not to call peopel ignorant just becasue they disagree with you. I have spent many years studying this stuff. I was a mythology buff since childhood. I was having my mother read to me about the Greek gods before I could read. I am now 43 I've had a lot of years to study mythology. I 'm sure you know a lot to. Let's agree to differ and not squabble.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta =->ahahahaha, o you want to talk about Tamuz hu? Dont' even realize that in some versions of the Tamuz story he is killed by his sister and doesn't come back to life. There is also no documentation of his suppossed resurrection until after the Chrstian era

In Babylonian Mythology was the consort of the goddess Ishtor. He was also the god who died and rose again continually. This was another crop cycle relationship based upon nature. (Herbert Spencer Robinson, Myths and Legonds of all Nations, New York: Bantum Books, 1950, 13-16). This is purely mythological. There is no historical figure that Tammuz is based upon. He did not die and rise as a flesh and blood human, but only as a mythical figure. He healed no real people, only the mythical goddess Ishtar. Since his dying and rising is crop related we can suspect that he is not even faintly based upon a real figure. This was a copy of nature for fertility purposes. He was consort to Ishtar who was goddess of 'love' in the crass sense, related to fertilty. He was not crucified but killed by a wild bore (Ibid.).
There is a vast difference in the sort of resurrection Jesus had and in the crop-crop cycle renewal that Tamuz and also Bachus underwent. It is not a return to fleshly life on earth but a cyclical thing that is linked to crop cyles. Now why would Jews in Palestine find that model appealing when there was no such influence in their lives, and it comes from a source they would find dispicable?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I tell you that the Jews didn't find it appealing or there would be none today - they would have converted. Only a tiny minority supported Jesus and his rebellion, but by the time the NT was assembled, Christianity was a wholly 'Gentile' set of beliefs.

MEta => Sorry that is just not true. There was a vital and thriving Jewish Chrsitian community throughout the first century. After the destruction of 70 they fled to Pela in norhtern trans jordon and stayed there until the 4th century. ST. Jerome even studied with them. This is documetned by an Israeli archaeologist, Gaalyaha Cornfled. In Archaeology of The Bible. And the Pauline circle being Gnetile is no proof that they had anything to do with the formation of the Gospels. IT was not the Pauline chruch that wrote the Gospels, other than Luke, Matthew, Mark, John were Jeiwsh. especially Matthew.


As an aside: why the name calling?


Meta => I apologize again. I was called names on another board simpley because people can't deal with my arguments and I was angry. You did say I was ignorant and I can't stand that. I am not ignorant. I am extremely knowlegeable. I am not sutpid. I am very smart. I know I tend to arrogant, but I know also I am no dummie. I am getting very sick of atheists calling me that, and I can usually see through all of their arguments and could give them rehemes of knoledge if they would lsiten. I have a Masters degree in theologya and am one test away form a Ph.D. in history of ideas. So I am not ignorant. I take that personally. But I shouldn't have overreacted. I can't spell I admit that. I have dyslexia.


Most 'Christians' I debate treat me with the same respect I treat them. Does calling me a pejorative Yiddish name strengthen your argument?


Meta => No that was stupid. Being smart doens't preclude stupid actions. Ok let's start over shall we? I apologize and I hope you can forgive and just agree to differ.

Meta => Moses in the baskett dates to about 1200 bc or ealrier. Can you show documentation that Romulus and Remus story was older? I don't think so, when was Rome founded? I think that predates Rome.

Finally, on the subject of resurrection, this article (http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2000/05/22/oral_history/index.html
) mentions a remarkable method:

"... the famous myth of Osiris and Iris: Osiris was killed by his brother and cut into pieces. His sister Iris put the pieces together but, by chance, the penis was missing. An artificial penis was made out of clay, and Iris "blew" life back into Osiris by sucking it. There are explicit images of this myth."

In effect, Isis revived Osiris with a blow job.


The Cult of Isis and Osiris


The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.


From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.


The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]
This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.


As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.