Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-30-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think I see the problem here.

The academics are talking about actual virginity, the virgin intacta. They have all these facts on their side based on deep knowledge of history and language.

Please, what facts are those? Please, you are obligated to provide the facts that you claim academics have.

Toto · 03-30-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Here is a complement to my earliest post (uncommented upon!):

A virgin conception was not new in the Jewish world:

a) Paul himself may have suggested it, about the (promised by God) late (and only) pregnancy of Abraham's wife, resulting in the birth of Isaac, "the son born by the power of the Spirit" (Gal 4:29).

b) According to Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE), a popular Hellenistic Jew, scholar, theologian & philosopher:
"Tamar, when she became pregnant of divine seeds, and did not know who it was who had sown them ..." (On the Change of Names, XXIII)
"For when she [Hannah] had become pregnant, having received the divine seed ..." (On the unchangeableness of God, II)
"the angels of God went in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children unto them." (On the unchangeableness of God, I)

My whole article can be seen here

Cordially, Bernard

Acharya S also seems to want to add Philo to her smorgasbord of sources on mystical virginity. But scholars of Philo tend to disagree with this approach.

From The Virgin Birth: an Inquiry into the Biblical Doctrine

Quote:

Some have suggested that the writings of Philo offer a possible indication that the concept of a virgin conception was feasible within the Judaisms of his day. This is because in some of Philo’s writings, he appears to teach that Isaac, Jacob, and others were conceived by divine fiat apart from an earthly father.²⁰ However, to read Philo’s words in this manner is entirely to miss his point and the allegorical and mystical hermeneutic that he employs. His purpose in De Cherubim , for instance, is to show how wisdom and transcendent knowledge is something implanted into the soul of man by God Himself. Nowhere does he teach that the actual material body of anyone was the result of a virginal conception. After surveying the relevant section from De Cherubim, Machen gives this summary:

Did Philo really believe that Isaac and the other Old Testament characters in question were actually born without human father by the direct agency of God? ... To maintain such a view would be to misunderstand the whole nature of Philo’s allegorical exegesis. As soon as one attains the slightest insight into the allegorical method of using the Old Testament, one sees clearly that when Philo speaks of a virgin birth or a divi ne begetting in the passages which are now in view, he is thinking of a divine begetting of the soul of man, or a divine begetting of certain virtues in the soul of man, and not at all of a divine begetting of human beings of flesh and blood who actually lived upon the earth.

aa5874 · 03-30-2013, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Acharya S also seems to want to add Philo to her smorgasbord of sources on mystical virginity. But scholars of Philo tend to disagree with this approach.
..

Again, where are the facts that academics have for "virginal intacta". Isn't Acharya S an academic?

It is not even realistic to think that all academics agree about your "virginal intacta".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

......The academics are talking about actual virginity, the virgin intacta. They have all these facts on their side based on deep knowledge of history and language...

Toto · 03-30-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Isn't Acharya S an academic?

.

She is an "independent researcher." She does not have an academic appointment.

Your question about facts will be answered if you read this entire thread. I will not repeat it here.

Robert Tulip · 03-30-2013, 07:03 PM

Explaining the connection between Mary and Isis requires analysis of the psychology and history and culture and politics of the production of the New Testament, applying Baconian induction. Politics even today is essentially mythic, since political commitments represent what we value, as do symbolic beliefs. Placing value upon fertility and purity provides the psychological basis for a feminine myth in which these ideals are unified in symbolic form, as seen in the virgin mother through the ages.

Part of the politics of the emergence of Christianity was its role as a unifying replacement for pagan myth. Myths such as the Egyptian stories of Isis were seen as in competition with the myth of the Virgin Mary. The Mary story borrows from Isis, but in hidden ways. Public acknowledgement of this borrowing was not possible, because making the allegory plain would undermine the main premise of historicism which enabled the popularity of the Christ story. However, as part of the construction of the identity of Christ and Mary, there is a clear sense in which the stories are assimilating and giving new life to older mythical ideas, providing a new form for old religious demands for ritual and iconic acknowledgement of the feminine values of fertility and purity.

In John, the story of Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, retells the Egyptian story of the Merthae, Isis and Nephthys, the sisters of Osiris. Decoding the similarities requires comparison between the sources. This is a task that is beset by cultural taboos, shown in the failure of critics to engage with the proof already provided in this thread, especially the post by Freethinkaluva that I linked which shows ancient Egyptian references to the virginity of Isis.

When we compare the myths of Mary and Isis, we find that in old Egyptian sources Isis and Nephthys were referred to as Mertae, and Isis was called meri - beloved. These terms have plausible etymological similarity to Martha and Mary, as does Osiris to Lazarus. Gerald Massey provides a commentary on the Merthae idea in his book Ancient Egypt the Light of the World. Massey is commonly ignored by a range of fallacious stratagems. I trust that readers can engage with the content rather than deflecting with irrelevant accusations (of the sort that we have seen here with split off discussions).

Toto has made the excellent point, which I paraphrase, that a Jungian archetypal analysis of Mary and Isis presents quite a different approach from those who wish to follow the line of Thomas ‘If I cannot see with my own eyes and feel with my own hands I will not believe.’ This means we have to consider the symbolic purpose served by a myth to understand it. Here we see, through the information uncovered by Gerald Massey, the deep archetypal continuity between the symbolic purpose served by the Isis myth and the role of Mary in Christianity.

I have quoted from Massey here at some length, as I consider this neglected material is fascinating in showing the Egyptian antecedents of Christianity through the symbolism of Mary. It all illustrates that the Gospels as we have them are public documents which concealed a vast wealth of secret wisdom, now largely lost but still present and available in symbol and fragment and code.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Gerald Massey"

Jesus “cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth!” and “he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with grave-bands”. In the original the mummy-Osiris comes forth as Amsu, with one arm only released from the bandages. In the “discourse of Horus” to his Father at his coming forth from the sanctuary in Sekhem to see Ra, Horus says, “I have given thee thy soul, I have given thee thy strength, I have given thee thy victory, I have given thee thy two eyes (mertae), I have given thee Isis and Nephthys”, who are the two divine sisters, the Mary and Martha of Beth-Annu (Records, vol. 10, p. 163).

The house of Osiris in Annu was called Hat-Saru, the house of the Prince — that is, the abode of Horus when he came to raise Osiris from the tomb. It was the sanctuary of Osiris who was attended by the two Mertae or Merti, the pair of divine sisters better known by the names of Isis and Nephthys. The household proper consists of Osiris and those two sisters who watch over him. Mer denotes the eye, ti is two, and these are the two eyes or two watchers over Osiris in the abode that is the place of his burial and rebirth. The two sisters as watchers are the two Mer, one of whom becomes Mary, the other Martha, as the two merti in Bethany=Beth-Annu.

The triumph of Osiris was effected over his adversaries by Horus in the house of the Prince in Annu or Heliopolis, and his supreme triumph was in his resurrection when he was recalled to life and raised up from the sepulchre by Horus (Rit., ch. 1). The raising up of Osiris the father by Horus the son is doctrinally based upon the father living over again in the son. Under the beetle-type Kheper as father transformed into the son. It was the same with Atum-Iu, in whom the father became the son and then the son transformed into the father. The mystery was deepened in the Osirian drama by super adding a more spiritual form of the fatherhood in Ra the Holy Spirit. The deceased Osiris is in possession of the funeral meals in Annu. He sits beneath the trees of Annu in the train of Hathor-Meri (Rit., ch. 68, 10).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Gerald Massey"

Lazarus=Asar; Jesus=Horus; Mary=Isis; Martha=Nephthys — are also represented sometimes in the Ritual without Sut (ch. 128). When it is said that Horus exalteth his father Osiris in every place he associates Isis the Great with her sister Nephthys. Sut is not included in the group at Annu. On the other hand, Sut, in the person of the betrayer, is present at the mortuary meal in the canonical Gospels. At present we only need to identify Lazarus with Osiris, Jesus with Horus, and the two sisters of Lazarus with the two sisters of Osiris.

Osiris lying as a breathless mummy in the cave, when Horus comes to raise him from the dead, is watched over and protected by the two Mertae-sisters, one at the head and one at the feet as keepers of the body, and watchers in the burial-place. The two mertae are mentioned in chapter 58. In this the Osiris cries, “Let the door be opened to me” as the Osiris buried in Amenta. “Who is with thee?” is asked. The reply is, “It is the mertae”, the two watchers over Osiris in the sepulchre. The deceased then asks that he may have milk, cakes and meat given to him at the house which is in Annu, the Kamite prototype of Bethany.

On the way to the sepulchre in Annu Horus meets the two sister-goddesses, saying to them “Hail, ye pair of goddesses Mertae, sister pair, Mertae! I inform you of my words of power. I am Horus, the son of Isis, and I am come to see my father Osiris”, and to raise him up from the sepulchre.

Jesus on his way to the cave of Lazarus likewise informs Martha of his words of power, saying “thy brother shall rise again”. “I am the resurrection and the life”. “He that believeth on me shall never die” (John XI. 25, 26). “Now as they went on their way a certain woman named Martha received him (Jesus) into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at the Lord’s feet (like Isis) and heard his word”. And because Mary took her place at the feet of Jesus it is said that she had “chosen the good part” (Luke X. 38, 42).

The two sisters in Bethany are the Aramaic or Hebrew replica of Isis and Nephthys, who are the attendants upon Osiris; the two divine sisters of Osiris in Annu. Mary and Martha are the two sisters of Lazarus in Bethany.

Horus loved the two dear sisters Isis and Nephthys, and is especially denominated the son who loves his father, i.e., Asar, whom he raises from the tomb according to the dramatic representation. Jesus is said to have “loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus” (John XI). Isis not only stands or sits at the feet of Osiris, she is the Seat personified. She carries the sign of the seat upon her head. Her name of Hes signifies the seat. And Mary, who takes the place of Isis, is described as sitting at the feet of Jesus, whilst Martha is busy working about the house and left serving alone.

A further allusion to the Lady of the Seat may be found when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, and went forth to meet him, whilst “Mary still sat in the house” (John XI. 20, 21), thus fulfilling the character of Isis, the seat, or the sitter. There is more than meets the eye in the sign of the seat which is borne by Isis. To sit is also to brood as a bird. Isis as sitter is the brood-hen, the incubator in Annu. Under this type of the sitting-hen she sits at the feet of Osiris to bring him to rebirth. Mary also sat in the house, and kept her seat at the feet of Jesus.

Nephthys, the other divine sister in Annu, carries the sign of a house on her head. She is called mistress of the house. She is the benevolent, saving sister. This in the “history” is rendered by Martha being the housekeeper and by Mary sitting in the house while her sister goes forth to meet the Lord (John XI. 21). In Aramaic, Martha denotes the mistress of the house, and Nephthys, one of the two mertae, is the mistress of the house, who carries the house as a symbol in her head-dress. The name of Nephthys in Greek represents nebt-hat, the mistress of the house in Egyptian.

The two sisters are the merti or mertae, who were the keepers of the double house in attendance upon Horus, or Jesus. They receive the Sun-God at his entrance to the mountain in the West, and stand together by him when he issues forth at dawn from Beth-Annu, or Bethany, in the East. The name of the secret shrine in which the mummy-Osiris was upraised by “the two arms of Horus, Prince of Sekhem”, is “the witness of that which is raised”, or the witness to the Resurrection (ch. 17). Those who are present in this scene are “Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, and Horus the reconstituter of his Father”, and these, as we maintain, are the prototypes or original characters of Lazarus, Mary, Martha and Jesus in the scene of the Resurrection in Bethany.

The role of the Maries at Easter is similarly prefigured in Egyptian myth, as Massey explains:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Gerald Massey"

In the Osirian legend there are three women, or goddesses, who especially attend upon Osiris to prepare him for his burial. These are the great mother, Neith, and the two divine sisters, Isis and Nephthys. It was related in the ancient version that Neith arrayed the mummy in his grave-clothes for the funerary chamber called “the good house”, the house in which the dead were embalmed and swathed in pure white linen.

This is described in the Book of the Dead (ch. 172) when it is said to the Osiris N, “Thou receivest a bandage of the finest linen from the hands of the attendant of Ra”. The raiment put on Osiris by Neith was said to be woven by the two watchers in the tomb. In the preparation of Osiris for his burial, the ointment or unguents were compounded and applied by Neith. It was these that were to preserve the mummy from decay and dissolution.

These three may be compared with the three Marys in the Gospels, thus: Neith, the great mother=Mary Magdalene, the great mother; Isis=Mary; Nephthys=Martha. the two sisters-Mertae. Now, as the two Marys are originally goddesses we have the same group of goddesses and “the women” (in Luke XXIV. 10) as in the Ritual (79, 11) and both agree in proclaiming the resurrection and hailing the risen Lord with jubilation.

This chapter contains all the data necessary to construct the story of the “historic resurrection in which the Christ arises as a god amongst men, and is proclaimed by the women.

The allusions in the Ritual are very brief. The style of the writing is economical as that of the lapidary. The Egyptians neither used nor tolerated many words; verbosity was prohibited by one of their commandments. But these allusions refer to a drama that was represented in the mysteries, the characters and scenes of which were all as well known as are those in the Christian Gospels when the play is performed at Ammergau. And this statement, made at the moment of his resurrection —“ I rise as a god amongst men. The goddesses and the women proclaim me when they see me” — contained a germ that was pregnant with a whole chapter of the future Gospel “history”.

spin · 03-30-2013, 07:34 PM

Not Gerald Fucking Massey again. Just because someone writes a book in the late 1800s doesn't mean that it can be presented as serious research in the early 2000s. Recycling old tired non-scholars who have not garnered any credibility amongst scholars in the field and whose efforts are so far out of date with regard to discoveries in the field make the citing of them of little value, especially when they often contain assertions based purely on similarities of appearance of names. (How often do we have to go through this type of process, when someone is enamored by the similarities of names?) One may as well cite from Boris Karloff Mummy movies and have as much credibility. :banghead:

Robert Tulip · 03-30-2013, 07:51 PM

Thank you spin. Your post presents a case study of what I described just now as fallacious stratagems. You encourage readers of this thread to ignore the facts and instead focus on shallow false comments about Massey. Why I cannot imagine. While a comment stays at the superficial level of "don't read it" it makes no substantive contribution to the discussion. We have already had deflections about cranks and creationists. In discussing Massey I request that we stick to his work that I have cited on Isis and Mary.

The use of a headbanging smilie implies that this material has been exhaustively analysed. That is false. It bears comparison to the patronising condescension of Christians towards those who question the historical accuracy of the gospels. My input here hardly constitutes a brick wall. I am trying to encourage discussion of facts. But I think there are a few psychological brick walls among those who deny the abundant Egyptian antecedents incorporated into Christian myth.

spin · 03-30-2013, 08:58 PM

Quote: