robto

Hey, Dave! Most of us here, when confronted by something that starts out claiming that "Horus was the son of Osiris, born to the virgin Isis on December 25th..." begin to . Come on, where do they get this stuff? On the web page for the movie they respond that skeptics 'blindly ask "Where are the 'Primary Sources'?"' No, really, it actually says that! Guilty as charged, I guess: we're blindly asking for some actual evidence that something someone says is true. If you know where this information about Horus can be found in inscriptions or documents from ancient Egypt, please let us know.

Is this guy an idiot? Doesn't he know that "primary sources" need not refer to the "original", in the sense of the first copy ever produced? There are primary sources for Egyptian religion - the Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Texts, for example - just as there are primary sources for Christianity - the New Testament, the Nag Hammadi library, etc. Asking for primary sources isn't a double standard - it's just a standard.

Dave31

What's funny about this argument is that theists demand primary source evidence and proof for pagan religions while never really questioning their own religion with the same standards.

Peter Joseph and many others understand what primary sources are. Your use of this argument here may simply be a fallacy. As PJ says more than just what you quoted here. He listed his sources and his sources discuss primary sources - because they do exist.

As I already mentioned, Acharya's new book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" will be out soon and will address the Egyptian origins of Christianity.

A lot of this has already been discussed:

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

Blog: Zeitgeist Refuted? NOT!
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/...futed-not.html

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

Other free online videos of Acharyas
http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

Toto

As I noted in another thread, after Acharya got together with Robert Price, her work improved notably in terms of adding the proper qualifications and nuances to statements. I expect that the next book on Horus and Jesus will be worth looking at.

I just don't understand clinging to statements that are so easily debunked, such as that Isus was a virgin, which are not even necessary to the argument.

Roger Pearse

Before we go any further, I think that we might usefully make sure that we are all using the same words to mean the same things. Allow me to invent a historical situation which must be uncontroversial to everyone, so useful for clarifying terms.

Imagine that we are visiting a strange planet for the first time. We land, and we discover (a) a large monument covered with pictures and text, clearly very old (b) a book, written in some alien language, clearly millennia younger than the monument and (c) a rubbish dump, full of broken alien household items. Let us imagine that we have some machine that allows us to read any words on any of these items, and that we know nothing about these aliens, their history, or whatever.

We want to know about the aliens. So we read the book and discover that it is a history, which has clearly been copied many times. We find mention of an ancient alien king, described as a cruel oppressor. We also see a portrait of this king on the monument, and a claim that he was divine, wonderful, merciful, etc etc.

Back to earth we go, and an academic, Professor Z, goes through all this and writes a history of the alien rulers, drawing on the materials found. He concludes that the alien king was a dipstick, and explains that the monument was clearly just PR.

A news report on CNN now gives an abbreviated account of all this, drawing mainly on the best-selling book by the academic. And someone who saw the program tells us down the pub what it was about.

Scenario is done!

* *

OK, now let's look at what we -- ordinary herberts as we are -- have as sources of information about all this.

1. We have materials from the alien planet. These we would call 'primary sources'. This does NOT mean that (e.g.) the alien history is more accurate than Prof. Z's book. But it makes clear that the alien history is part of the fundamental data on which all else is based.

2. We have Prof Z.'s book. This is what we would often call a 'secondary source' -- a work written by someone with more info than you or I, from primary sources (or one hopes so!), by someone who wasn't there.

3. We have the CNN news report. This isn't even a secondary source.

4. We have the chap down the pub. This is 'hearsay', since the chap hasn't seen the primary data, nor read Prof. Z's book, but only some anonymous journalist's idea of what Z said.

The point of all this is when some popular writer comes along and says that the alien king was really Jesus. Naturally we all want to know what piece of primary data actually indicates this. Because, after all, if there is nothing on the alien planet to this effect, then the story is merely invention.

I hope that helps, and that the connection to discussion of ancient history is obvious enough.

Note that there is no magic in the words 'primary source' or 'secondary source'. We're not using these as terms of approval or disapproval, but as terms of description.

Just to add a personal note; one of the best ways to dispose of modern hearsay nonsense about ancient times is to ask to see the primary data relating to the subject. This is why people do it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dave31

Toto, you have the ZG Companion guide to part 1, right? Have you read that section titled, "The Virgin Isis-Mery"? What were your thoughts on that?

There will be about 30 more pages just on that subject alone in the book.

p.s. I'd rather discuss this in the companion guide thread though. Is it okay that I post this there .... http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=232189

skunker

is this the chris crocker you were talking about? Lol.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LWSjUe0FyxQ

Sitamun

What I think many may be missing is this: Isis wasn't a proclaimed "virgin" however the circumstances in the myth itself tends to lean towards a "virgin birth". Osiris had lost his wee little willy. So Isis fashioned one out of something, however as we all know, you need the wee little willy for the whole process to work right. That's how I've always seen it. I honestly never read about Isis herself being a virgin. (From Egyptian myths that is)

Newton's Cat

There's a story, isn't there, about Isis reattaching Osiris' willy in order to get pregnant?

The resurrection?

Sitamun

Isis found all of the parts of Osiris that were scattered save for one, his willy which Set had thrown into the Nile and was then gobbled up by the fishies!

Interestingly, I'm not sure if there is hard evidence of this or just something I've read in historical fiction books, but the Pharaoh's were not allowed to eat fish, since fish ate the willy of Osiris, it would be like eating a part of the god. (this rule was just for pharaoh thou)

andrewcriddle

This may be relevant (Plutarch Isis and Osiris) Andrew Criddle