Is the story about the raising of Lazarus by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of John a remake of the mythical resurrection of Osiris by Horus in the ancient Egyptian texts?
Below is an image of the parts from my book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection showing a comparison between the Egyptian Texts and the Gospel of John. CIE further evinces that John was written for an Egyptian audience and contains many Egyptian themes, having its provenance also in Egypt, likely at Alexandria, using ancient texts such as these and others from the library there.
For more information, see the search term "Lazarus" in the Google Book Search for Christ in Egypt.
Comments (13)
-
|2010-12-17 23:42:51 Robert Tobin - MrYes, Acharya, you are correct. I have your book "Christ in Egypt" and everthing in it is logical. Where else would the Gospel Fables come from, especially as so many Hebrewsand Christians writing scriptures lived in Alexandria and had access to the Great Library, and also knew Egyptian Astrotheology.
-
|2010-12-22 13:37:54 Robert Tulip - Osiris and Western ThoughtHi Acharya, thanks for resurrecting this important topic.
As you know, it is also discussed by Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ. I have the impression that Harpur has a more positive spin, that understanding Egyptian origins enables a more empirical Christology.
My suspicion here is that the rejection of Osiris is part of a Western pathology of prejudice against Asia. Noting that the Norse Gods were called the Aesir, a word also very similar to Osiris and Asia, I wonder if urban Christianity, in its efforts to impose uniformity on diverse rural populations, used Osiris as a talisman of the mystical and mythic and eastern, while claiming that Christianity was rational and logical and western. But, Saint John embeds Osiris at the heart of his gospel, in the same point relative to his text as Jesus comes relative to the Bible as a whole. The mythic battle between east and west saw Osiris as the secret leader of the east.
Osiris was denigrated by the west in its official script while homage was still paid by the renaming of Osiris as Lazarus, of Isis as Mary, of Nephthys as Martha, and of Horus as Jesus. Denial of this renaming is a central problem in the hypocrisy of Abrahamic faiths, which face a contradiction between their claims to truth and their rejection of the wider religious heritage of the world that supports the origins of their own faith.
-
|2010-12-24 20:41:47 TellurianI am wondering if I am mistaken regarding the timeline. The biblical story has the biblical Jesus raising Lazarus, the disciple he loved, but wouldn't the Osiris story have Isis resuscitating the reconstructed Osiris, with whom she then became pregnant from the magic penis she provided for him, and then she gave birth to Horus? Do I have the story wrong? I am wondering how could Horus raise Osiris when Horus had not yet been born? I thought Isis was the one who resurrected Osiris.
-
|2010-12-24 15:38:06 Acharya SThank you. As you can see from the examples from ancient Egyptian texts that I have provided, there is much more to Egyptian religion and mythology than the simplified encyclopedia entries most people turn to.
While Isis is portrayed in myths and during ritual celebrations as resurrecting Osiris on an annual basis, so too was Horus repeatedly depicted in the ancient texts as resurrecting his father, who symbolized the deceased person at whose funeral these texts would have been read.
Osiris is the nightly sun which is "resurrected" each day as Horus; thus, Horus is both the resurrector and the resurrection of his father.
Unlike biography, mythology is not set in stone, and it is often cyclical and variable, dependent on natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, planets, stars and constellations, as well as earthly events and elements.
In this same regard, Isis does not only use Osiris's phallus to produce Horus, she is also depicted as conceiving the god "immaculately" and without a male partner and is thus also a virgin mother.
ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER
-
|2010-12-25 22:52:51 TellurianIt seems quite odd in your link that the mother of a king would be called "The Great Virgin". It causes me to wonder if there was some mistranslation from the original Egyptian writings into Greek. Perhaps the word translated as "virgin" actually meant "lover" or something that would make more sense for a mother. It seems strange that the Egyptians would believe a mother to be a virgin, but then there are millions today who consider the mother of the biblical Jesus to be a virgin, so maybe the ancient Egyptians were just as gullible as many Christians are today. I guess those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it.
-
|2011-01-18 12:03:57 AnonymousTellurian: "It seems strange that the Egyptians would believe a mother to be a virgin"
No, it actually isn't strange at all when one has a greater understanding of the Egyptian religion. A female has the ability to re-gain her virginity via sacred union with god regardless of being married or having many children.
And:
Quote:"... as explained in my book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ:
The Greek name “Lazarus” or “Lazaros” equals “Eleazar” in Hebrew and, per Strong’s [Concordance] (G2976), means “whom God helps.”
It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus resurrects happens to be named “whom God helps,” and secondly that “Eleazar”—or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew,
El-Azar—closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for God, “El,” with the Egyptian name for Osiris, “Ausar.” Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called “the Carpentras” that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic god “El” or “Elohim,” calling him “Osiris-Eloh.”2
Regarding “El Osiris,” Albert Ross Parsons remarks:
"…El Osiris in another form is L’Azarus, an account of whose death and resurrection occur in the gospel of John, where the Lord Jesus
personates the central sun which restored to life El Osiris..."
- Christ in Egypt, page 304
-
|2011-01-18 18:02:48 Acharya SOne also needs to know the history of the parthenogenetic creatrix or virgin mother of the world, as highlighted in my review and excerpts from the book by Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso:
Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity
Neith, Virgin Mother of the World
The virgin mother is an old concept - evidently one of the oldest we know about - and practically every goddess around the Mediterranean was linked into it in some way or another.
-
|2011-02-11 16:15:16 quarkgluonsoup - really??Looking at those "parallels" I have to ask myself, "really??? are you serious???"
That two "sisters" once ran is a "parallel"??? Seriously?? This would be a joke even if the claim didn't discredit itself: those were "sisters" in a non-family sense as Jesus had no blood sisters.
Osiris and Lazarus are parallels?? Really?? It is amazing that this "Lazaurs" was Osiris, the chief god in the Egyptian pantheon. To say the least, the translation of his name into "Lazarus" is unique as I have never seen anyone claim this anywhere else, even though as the chief god he is the most commonly cited Egyptian deity. The chief Egyptian deity is the same as the poor Judean?? Really???
Oh and it looks like Osiris in the first "parallel" is the same as Jesus, and here the same as Lazarus. Amusing.
Isis once cried, and Jesus once cried, so this is a case of borrowing?? Really?? Didn't the quote above say Osiris was Jesus, and the one below that Horus was Jesus? Oh and weren't you saying before that Jesus was copied from Mithras (who had nothing in common with these Egyptian gods)
I just love this. You have to go pretty much everywhere to find parallels as weak as "they both once cried". You show how ridiculous these theories are.
-
|2011-02-14 12:19:45 Acharya SThe parallels are obvious, despite all the hysteria. In fact, they are quite striking to anyone who isn't insensate.
As concerns the word "Lazarus" being related to "Osiris," there are many good, scientific reasons to make that connection, but one would only know those facts if s/he actually studied the subject. Your remarks indicate you didn't even read this post or any of the material in the link below the image.
And, yes, of course I maintain that Jesus is also a remake of Mithra - many gods and goddesses were utilized in the creation of the Christ figure. Anyone who has actually studied the mythicist case I've made in my books and articles would know that fact. Unfortunately, many of my critics have not studied the case in any depth whatsoever and are not experts on my work or the subject matter at all.
What is "ridiculous" is the idea that a Jewish man 2,000 years ago was the "son of God," born of a virgin, cured the blind, raised the dead, walked on water, was transfigured on a mount, himself resurrected from the dead and flew off into heaven.
-
|2011-02-14 07:19:51 aselfishpoet - bollocksthe significant feature of the lazarus story is the time he spent in the tomb, which is four days. he outdid the messiah on that one! but seriously, the four days that lazarus was 'dead' represent the four 'dead' days of the mosaic calendar. the annual cycle worked on a system of 360 days, with four 'dead days' counted off before the month of abib began. the calendar was constructed like this to ensure that the seven day week remained consistent, 7 x 52 = 364, and also to ensure that the feast days fell on the same day of the month every year. if they didn't the long weekend of passover would be all over the place and the weekly sabbaths would clash with the annual sabbaths. it is on this day the call is made to 'come forth', and then the instruction given to 'loose him and let him go', which all together translates as: 'this is the first day of the annual feast day cycle of 360 days according to the mosaic calendar, and you will see it if you take the graveclothes - as a symbol of death - from your eyes'. this part of the story serves as a marker for the correct timing of events as they unfolded over the next few weeks. sorry, no star signs here ;-)
-
|2011-02-14 16:58:26 Acharya SAgain, regardless of the hysteria and bizarre strawmen and fingerpointing elsewhere, the parallels are striking and important.
-
|2011-02-16 08:49:43 aselfishpoet - bizarre?hysteria? indeed!
straw man? maybe a scarecrow!
granted; the parallels are striking, and important. my case is that beside the obvious literary parallels there is a unique subtext underlying the christ myth - and by myth i imply no negative connotation; i hold that the myth is a valid literary form – and that subtext is the package we know as judaism. one of the features of that subtext is the mosaic calendar. we see its hellenized form still in use by the jews today. it is not lunar, solar, sidereal or metonic; it is purely a numerical construct, and, no doubt, based on a borrowed 360 day/12 month pre-existing form. the trick is to work out the adjustment cycle. once the calendar is locked in all those esoteric and weird things in apocalypse loose their nonsense value and become exactly what they were intended to be: metaphors. and the saturnalia and that fertility thing with the rabbit and the eggs go back to where they belong as well. tsk - bloody romans!
anyway, no offense intended; just testing the waters
there’s one astronomical feature i discovered weaved into the biblical text that you may appreciate; the virgin eve and her first two sons. the text states quite specifically that the first reproductive event involving a female virgin resulted in two births, hence, twins. the time it takes for the sun to enter the virgin and exit the twins is around forty weeks; the human gestation period.
the sphinx shows us that the ascribed identities of the constellations and their circular course were common knowledge in egyptian antiquity. the greeks picked up on that system, as did the hebrews through moshe = to draw out. sphinx = mythical beast having a woman’s head, a lion’s body, wings and the power to kill any who failed to solve its riddle. sphinx, from gk. sphingein = draw tight, as in close a circle, from which we get sphincter = a ring of muscle surrounding an opening. their year opened with the virgin, the head, and closed with the lion, the tail, and the wings... well, that’s obvious
the pool of symbols is universal, how we arrange them is up to us :-)
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
