Freethought Nation

I'm here.

I'll respond to some of your questions and comments in the next post, but I do have a quick question for freethinkaluva - why did you claim in your critique that the majority of my website was centered around criticism of Acharya's works? You claim to have given my website a "careful examination", so I'm wondering how you could possibly have come to such a strange conclusion.

Second, a few people here seem to think that my challenge (which I have on this page: ) has been met with evidence given by Acharya. If so, then I'd love to see the evidence. Keep in mind that all I'm asking for is for someone to back up at least half of any one of the lists on the page (though it has to be the full list if you want the whole $1000). I ask that it be e-mailed to me, and I will post it to my site whether I feel it meets the challenge or not (so if I cheat you, it will be quite obvious). This is the same offer I've made to many, many people over the last couple of years. I've had about a dozen people tell me that they would find the evidence and win the challenge. Not one person has done so. So who here will be the first?

Nope, it's because she never e-mailed me any evidence.



If he e-mails me the evidence to back up at least half of the claims on any one list, then yes.

Yep, and if such words were the only evidence for Jesus' virgin birth, I would consider it quite weak. However, we also have a story in the Gospels which make it clear that Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. We have her surprise and finding out she's going to give birth, since she had never had sex, and then we have her and her husband refraining from sex until after Jesus is born. Even without almah, bethulah and parthenos, there's no doubt that a virgin birth is being described in these stories.



Except that the story is clear that Mary never had sex with Jehovah, or Joseph. Is there a story for Horus which makes it clear that Isis and Osiris, though married, were abstinent?



Except that there is reason to suppose that Mary and Joseph were abstinent after marriage - the story specifically says so in Matthew 1:25 ("But [Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."). No one's going to read the Gospel of Matthew and come out with the impression that the author isn't talking about a virgin birth for Jesus. But I have yet to read any version of the story of Horus which gives me the impression that his mother was a virgin when she gave birth to him.



Except that the word used there is "Hwn.t", which can also mean "maiden", etc. If that's the only evidence we have for Isis being a virgin upon Horus' birth, that would be just as weak as if the use of the word "Almah" was the only evidence that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. "Hwn.t" and "Almah" may imply virgin to some degree, but if they're being used to describe a married woman with a child, you would generally assume that they aren't describing a virgin. Unless, of course, the story itself makes her virginity implicit, the way the Gospel of Matthew does.



No, I agree that there are multiple versions of the story. There are even versions in which Horus' mother is someone other than Isis. But I have yet to see any version of the story in which Horus is clearly born of a virgin. If you have it, I'd love to see it, but I've been asking people for it for a while now, and no one else has been able to find it.



There is an important point to make about these "alternate versions", of course. I agree that they don't directly negate other versions. If you could find me a version of the Horus story in which he is virgin-born, I wouldn't say "but there are other versions in which he wasn't!"
However, consider the list, which you may have seen, about parallels between Abe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Both shot in the back of the head on the Friday before a major holiday, while sitting next to their wives, in the presence of another couple of whom the man was also wounded, succeeded by a former Senator named "Johnson", etc, etc. The parallels are really pretty striking, but ultimately just coincidence, wouldn't you agree? If you compare one story, real or fictional, to another story, you're going to find some parallels between them. It's pretty much inevitable.
But imagine if, instead of comparing one story to another story, you were comparing one story to HUNDREDS of other stories, of which many have alternate versions with different details (like if instead of just comparing JFK to Lincoln, you compared JFK to everyone who ever ruled a country). The number of parallels you're naturally going to find increase greatly. So if you're comparing the Jesus story to every ancient deity which preceded Him, of whom we have multiple versions for many of them, you're obviously going to find parallels. That's true whether the Jesus story is fictional or historical.



You make the point in the video that there is an assumption of almah, bethulah and parthenos (henceforth, I'll call them "a,b and p" for simplicity's sake) meaning "virgin", but the assumption can be wrong in some cases, of which you give examples. Same goes for "hwn.t", wouldn't you agree? Let me ask you this, then - if a woman described as "a,b or p" had a child, and there was no reason (other than the use of "a,b or p") to suppose that she was a virgin, wouldn't you assume that she was NOT a virgin? Like if the Gospels didn't clarify that Mary hadn't known a man, and refrained from sex until after Jesus' birth, I think you would agree that simply calling Mary "a,b or p" wouldn't be enough to convince a rational person that she was a virgin, right? But doesn't the same hold true for Isis? The text calls her "hwn.t". But she has a child. There's no indication, other than the word "hwn.t", that she was a virgin at this point. Wouldn't you agree, then, that the overall situation here suggests that Isis was not a virgin at this point?

Indeed, as I even went on to point out in my previous post when I stated that Mary explicitly stated she had not known a man.

And likewise, in regards to your statements here, just as such words are not the only thing to support Mary's virginity, they are simply corroborative with the other evidences such as her explicit statement of not knowing a man,
hwn.t is not the only evidence in support of Nut & Isis's virgin motherhood. It is in corroboration with the other details concerning them and the conception of their firstborn sons, which I went over in my vids.



This is incorrect. You are only correct on the story explicitly stating she did not know Joseph until after Jesus was born. There is no such explicit statement that she did not have intercourse with Jehovah.



Sure, as already cited to you, Isis's own explicit statement that she is the great virgin, compounded with other details concerning her such as the Carnellian ringstone I cited in the vid, which calls her the Immaculate lady, and the Songs of Isis & Nephthys which demand that the girl chosen to portray Isis must be a pure virgin.
All of this in corroboration with the fact, which I pointed out in my videos, that every single visual depiction of the conception of Horus I have ever come across, as well as the passage in the Pyramid Texts describing his conception, all have Isis's Ba(soul), Sothis, in the form of a bird, as the one getting impregnated, while Isis's body stands off to the side watching. Her body is never depicted as engaging in sex with Osiris.
And that fact that her Ba gets impregnated in the form of a bird further corroborates with the passages from the Pyramid Texts in which Isis describes her offspring as being hatched from an egg.

So the very fact that she describes herself as a virgin corroborated by all the other aforementioned facts are more than sufficient to indicate a version in which there was abstinence.




We are agreed, as stated above. And at Abydos Isis specifically says she's a virgin, even after already having given birth to Horus.



Sure they can, and have, such as various Mormons for instance, and as I stated in my vids and the prior post, several medieval variants arose describing Mary as being impregnated by copulation with Jehovah or even Gabriel.

No one's going to read the gospels of Matthew & Luke and come out with the impression that Joseph had sex with Mary before Jesus was born. As for whether or not she copulated with Jehovah is never addressed. Now, I for one do not believe the author intended this, since that much is obvious, just as it is obvious that the author[s] of the aforementioned Abydos inscriptions intended Isis to be viewed as a virgin, since she explicitly stated as much plus it is corroborative with the other facts about her and the conception of Horus as previously stated.

But getting off of this red herring and back on point, the point is, just pointing out a marriage, as you tried to do, is clearly insufficient in and of itself to negate a virgin's status as a virgin, especially when in conflict with other known facts.
In Mary's case, this conflicting fact would be her explicit statement of never having known a man, hence just pointing out her marriage to Joseph would be insufficient.
And in Isis's case, the conflicting facts would be all of the aforementioned things, not the least of which is her own similar explicit statement of being the great virgin, hence just pointing out her marriage to Osiris would be insufficient same as it was with Mary & Joseph.



Then this statement by default admits you have not read the aforementioned text at the wall of Seti's temple in Abydos on top of all of the other details as previously mentioned. The Abydos wall has the fully grown Horus as well as Isis claiming to be the great virgin. The Pyramid Texts, as well as every visual depiction I've come across, has Isis's Ba, Sothis, being the one getting impregnated, while Isis's body stands off to the side remaining untouched. Etc.



And as I already explained, both in the prior post and the videos, this is just being redundant as maiden is a synonym of virgin, and I cited several English dictionaries and thesauruses that state as much. Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus especially, as under it's 2nd definition for maiden it explicitly states "never had sex".
Lass and damsel are also synonyms for this as well, which my vids also demonstrate.

Several English bibles, including the KJV, translate Almah and Bethulah as maiden and damsel as well as virgin. So more special pleading on your part here.

Tom-maY-to/to-maH-to. Virgin/maiden. A virgin ship's first voyage is called the maiden voyage for this very reason.



And it isn't. As stated both above and expounded upon more in my videos.



All of this is already addressed above. And in my vids. Hwn.t is not all there is for Isis or Nut's virgin motherhood of their firstborn.



Already addressed above and in my vids as well.




I have likewise dealt with this objection in a separate video series, which I will link in the bottom of this post. And no, I would disagree that this is true for fiction same as historical fact, as fiction is far easier to replicate than reality. And in mythology, especially in Mediterranean mythology, syncretism abounded, and the parallels we see between mythologies of various cultures were hardly coincidence, but as a result of this conflating and borrowing, etc.
For instance, the similarities between Dionysus and Osiris are hardly coincidental. Herodotus told us that the Greeks got many of their gods and rituals from the Egyptians, and Herodotus(as well as several other historians on down to Plutarch) says that Dionysus and Osiris were one and the same. Not just similar, the same, in spite of their differences. The parallels were clearly what was important, and were clearly the result of this admitted borrowing from the Egyptians, and would be against parsimony to chalk up to mere coincidence. And likewise with the parallels Osiris and Dionysus have with Adonis and Attis, who were also explicitly stated to be conflated with each other by the time of the first century bc-ad. So their observed similarities would likewise succinctly be deduced as having been the result of the syncretism. And so when such parallels are observed in the stories surrounding Jesus, Occam's razor leads us to hold no special exception for him to be immune to such syncretism. And after all, pagan deities aside, the stories of this guy already indicate a syncretic/composite nature anyway, as many elements in the story are observed parallels with old testament stories, and going all the way back to the early church fathers, and well, actually, even all the way back to Paul, these observed parallels were admittedly intentional, although the rationale of course was that they were intentional by jehovah, a type of prophetic foreshadowing of course. And whatever, that's "Paul's" prerogative, but those of us who tend to lean towards more naturalistic/succinct conclusions, this would, justifiably, lead us to the conclusion that this was the result of syncretism, of composite borrowing from a previous religion to help create a somewhat new story. Either way, neither party concerned here tried to chalk up these parallels to coincidence, as your logic might like to have it.
The authors were already "guilty" of borrowing material from a previous religion, that of course being Judaism.
And we simply do not make exceptions for ANY previous religion as a potential source of influence, because we see no reason to make such an exception.

And it's not like these are disparate mythologies either. They all crossed roads, in rather significant ways. The time of the Israelites in Egypt should go without saying, as well as the many verses in the bible admitting they often turned from jehovah to worship heathen deities, some of whom were Egyptian. The pre-christian books of the Maccabees admit that the jews worshipped Dionysus, and so does Plutarch, and Plutarch also argued that by way of syncretism, the jews worshipped Adonis as well.
The bible admits the jews worshipped Tammuz, another deity syncretic with Adonis and Osiris, right in Jehovah's own temple.
So there was definite mingling and influence going on.

In regards to fiction, it's hard enough to persuade one of innocence of plagiarism when parallels are observed amongst disparate things, but this is all the more difficult when parallels are observed amongst things that we know crossed paths and were intermingled in significant ways.
Trying to argue for mere coincidence concerning the observed similarities amongst Mediterranean mythologies, christianity included, is like trying to argue for coincidence as the reason for the observed parallels between The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and christianity, or the parallels between The Matrix films and christianity.



Already addressed further above in this post. Hwn.t is hardly all there is, it is corroborative with other things as well, same as with Mary and parthenos being corroborative with her statement of not knowing a man.

Excuses to Christ Mythology: "Differences Outweigh the Similarities!" (1-7)



2


3


4


5


6


7


Splitting Hairs vs Syncretism

Let me cut in here David, I'm glad that you've come to discuss this issue with us and make a public display of how you reason your way through a given situation. It helps readers to try and follow your logic in order to better understand why you reject the virgin status of Isis the pre-christian Mother Goddess.

Now is it safe to say that you believe Isis was a real historical person, in a real marriage, who had sex with a real husband and gave birth to a falcon headed God-Man child? If not, then what's your point in trying to reason your way through it as if the story is about real people and real sexual status?

It's a mythology known by most people as such, not as a factual historical record of real people and events. And in this Egyptian mythology there's a stress put on the virginity status of the Mother Goddess, perpetual virginity to be exact. She declares herself the great virgin, she is not shown in any imagery having bodily sex with Osiris, and as a matter of fact the artists have gone out of their way to specificy, visually, that it's Isis's Ba which receives the seed of Osiris and this whole scene is a mythological one - not an historical fact meant to document concrete world history.

That could be one of the main reasons you've been having such a hard time with understanding the virgin mother goddess motif for all of these years. I think we need to focus in on this particular aspect of the Isis myth. You need to go ahead and acknowledge that Isis is declared as the great virgin and that she is never depicted as having sex with Osiris in any bodily way, only in a mystical way meant for mystical reasons. And that's exactly what the virgin Mary motif has borrowed from. The Father God mystically impregnates a virgin status woman with his Son God, or Sun God as it were. This is not a biological problem here KD8, it's mythological metaphor and allegory...

From Osiris to Christ - Ep. 2 Unto us a child is born....


From Osiris to Christ - Ep. 3 unto us a son is given....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

I watched them, and didn't see anything stronger than the use of "hwn.t". The only other corroborating detail seems to be that only virgins could portray Isis, which isn't very compelling (the fact that, generally, only women have played Peter Pan in stage productions doesn't mean that J.M. Barrie intended to say Peter Pan was a female). There is the sexless conception in some versions, of course, but non-virgins can have sexless conceptions just as easily as virgins can. If I missed something (which is possible), could you point out what it was?



So are you under the impression that, in the Gospel accounts, she did? I can't imagine that's the case, since your argument relies on Jesus having been born of a virgin. Can we agree that, per the Gospels, Jesus was born of a virgin, or are you really going to shoot your own argument in the foot?



So because she didn't have sex at that moment, she could only be a virgin? Even though she was married to Osiris? Now, I realize that fictional characters can't have actual sex, but if there's a story about a married couple, it's wise to assume that the woman isn't a virgin, even if are no salacious encounters in the text. Unless there is something in the story itself indicating she is a virgin.



Not really. Your argument relies on "hwn.t" meaning "virgin", and you seem to agree that this definition pretty much depends on there being no significant evidence to the contrary. I see no indication that any of the author(s) of the Abydos inscriptions intended to imply that Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus.



In the Abydos inscription itself, the ONLY indication of Isis being a virgin is the use of the word "hwn.t". Showing that there are sexless conceptions in other stories (though sexless conception =/= virgin birth), or that only virgins could play Isis at other situations (which doesn't mean Isis herself was one), doesn't tell us anything about what the author(s) of the Abydos inscription was intending to relay in his version of the story. You're trying to combine what one author said with something another author said in order to create a new narrative, when there's no indication that either author, or anyone from ancient times, considered Isis to be a virgin when she gave birth to Horus.



A woman who is married is almost certainly not a virgin. Unless there some sort of indication within the story itself (as there is with Mary) that she is abstinent while married. If you had "other known facts" indicating that the author(s) of the Abydos inscription intended for Isis to be a virgin, then, yes, this would bolster your argument that "hwn.t" means virgin in this story. But you're trying to bolster it with "facts" from a completely different story, one which doesn't suggest that Isis was a virgin mommy, either.



And again, you're relying on "hwn.t" meaning "virgin" here. You point out in your video that "a,b and p" are used to describe a married woman at one point, and that in her case, it probably doesn't mean "virgin". Same goes for Isis.



Yet you also agree that it doesn't automatically mean "virgin", if there is something in the story indicating that the woman isn't one, such as her being married or having a child (unless, of course, the story gives other reason to suppose that wife or mommy is a virgin, as Mary's does).



I agree that this is true, but to say that Jesus is part of this is to make the *assumption* that Jesus is mythological. I have yet to see any significant evidence that Jesus was mythological.



The main problem is that whether given "parallels" equal "borrowing" or "coincidence" is largely subjective. We don't know for sure, and, no matter which side of the argument we're on, we're bringing our assumptions to the table. But what I think ultimately destroys that whole Christ-myther approach is that of the "observed similarities" that Christ-mythers bring up, the majority of them appear to be unsupported by any sort of pre-Christian evidence.

I've had many Christ-mythers try to argue with me over one specific parallel (as you and I are doing with the idea of Horus being born of a virgin), but I'm still waiting for anyone to try to present ancient evidence backing up the entire list for Horus (or Mithra or whoever), or even half of the list. From what I've found, maybe 10 or 15 percent of the Christ-myther claims have any sort of basis in pre-Christian mythology. And the most any Christ-myther has ever done is try to increase it to maybe about 20% or so. No one's even made a serious attempt to bring it up to 50% or higher, for even a single deity. If the evidence for most of the claims was to be found, then they would have no problem creating such a list. And I'm so sure that they cannot that I'm willing to wager up to $1000 on it.

I'm sure many people on this board are thinking that if they were to present me with a "50% or higher" list for one of the deities, that I'd just reject the evidence out of hand, finding some sort of excuse to discard it. But the problem isn't that people are sending me the lists and I'm discarding their evidence, but that they aren't even sending me any such lists in the first place. Even though about a dozen people already told me that they would.



Like what, though? In the story in which Isis is called "hwn.t", she has a child. Is there any indication, within that particular story, that she was a virgin when she gave birth to him? If not, then I think one would logically assume that the author wasn't trying to tell us that the baby was born through a virgin birth. "Hwn.t" by itself isn't strong enough evidence to suggest that the baby's mama is a virgin.

My point is that there is no indication that the authors of the ancient stories of Isis didn't intend for her to be portrayed as a virgin mother.



Using a word that could mean "virgin", but, as GodAlmighty has shown, usually doesn't mean virgin in situations where there is sort of indication that she isn't, such as when the woman is married. In the Abydos inscription, we have the "hwn.t" word, and we have the fact that Isis is a mother. Most people would see that the same way GodAlmighty did when "Almah" was used to describe a married woman - that in this particular case, it doesn't mean she's a virgin. But you and GodAlmight are, in the case of the Abydos inscription, concluding that the use of "Almah" and her being a mother means that she was a "virgin mother". It seems far more rational to instead conclude that "hwn.t" doesn't really mean "virgin" in this case.



And if I were to write a story about a married couple, and don't describe them having sex anywhere in the story, would you conclude that the wife must be a virgin?

.

And all that means is that they didn't have sex at that particular time. Non-virgins can, in fiction, have sexless conceptions just as easily as virgins can. So the question remains - is there anything in this (or any) version of the story which suggests that Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus?

Let's face it - her virginity at Horus' birth is an assumption you all are bringing to the table. There's no indication that any of her stories' authors intended to relay to us that she was one.

brilliant stuff, just brilliant, and i throw in a little resonant chime from the bell of truth



and speaking of resonant chimes

Yes KD8, you are tossing aside the entire mythological context of the Goddess Isis here. First off, in the above quotation she was being used to express a motif pointing towards the virgin dawn goddess which continually gives birth to the sun and yet remains the virgin dawn. And it's wrapped up in the concept of virgin matter and so on. It has to do with referring to pureness and that's why virgin girls were used to play the role. It isn't about sexual virginity, it's about using that concept to point towards the virgin dawn among other aspects of the natural world and existence in general. That's the function of a mythology.

There's no indication whatsoever that Isis was supposed to be a non-virgin in the mythos. The evidence points to her being called a virgin multiple times in the mythos - which some have rendered "maiden" - even though she is married to her brother Osiris. She's the perpetual virgin mother goddess as it goes. And so for you to come along behind all of this mythology say that she was not a virgin just because you assume that a married woman should not be a virgin unless stated otherwise, shows your ass here KD8 because Isis was certainly described as otherwise in the mythology plenty of times over. There's no indication at all that Isis was not a virgin goddess when her "Ba" hovered over the dead body of Osiris to conceive Horus. Wouldn't Horus have been conceived earlier while Osiris was still alive if they were as sexually active as you'd like to have it? I think it's more than obvious that the writers intended to portray Isis as a virgin mother goddess following behind older virgin mother goddes motifs that came before, like the virgin mother Neith:

http://truthbeknown.com/neith.html

And to have you come here trying to twist this around just because you, as a Christian, are offended by people knowing about the unoriginal status of your personal cults virgin mother motif - is a testimony to what dishonest lengths you and people like you are willing to go to promote their cults God and Godman as absolute and dominant over all others. If you are a Christian and believe that Jesus was real, then you believe that mythology is real!!!

What evidence do I have that Jesus was a myth? Oh, let's see. For starters he was born of a virgin mother!!! That's hint number one that we are dealing with a mythological and not historical factual storyline. And then there's the rest of the supernatural storyline to deal with from beginning to end. If you believe that this supernatural storyline is a hard historical fact, then you believe that a mythology which is every bit as supernatural oriented as ever other mythology in the world is a fact, while the rest of the supernatural stories are all fiction. Come on, let's hit the nail on the head here shall we. You are in absolutely no position whatsoever to start portraying yourself as a logical thinker or a man of sound reason. You're living in a world of make believe and trying your best to reconcile it all in your own mind, hence you coming here and displaying what you have displayed thus far...

But by all means, continue. I'll keep approving your posts as I have been doing. Allowing you to speak your mind is your downfall because your attempts at logic and reason are ultimately your own worst enemy when all is said and done...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Apparently you need to pay attention a bit then, but let me show you exactly where he is giving more evidence than just hwn.t translation. However regardless, GodAlmighty did mention several academics in the 2nd video who translate it and state that it is better to translate as hwn.t such as Bob Becking, Jan Bergman, Helmer Ringgren, Matitiahu Tsevat and Raymond O. Faulkner refer hwn.t as "The Great Virgin." But regardless GodAlmighty showed exactly where it can be shown herself declaring herself as "The Great Virgin" and here is a screen cap of that exact plate:



This however is not just a simple hairsplitting because as is shown on the exact same door a picture of the fully grown Horus as is found in this image:



You also have the Brimner-Rhind Papyrus-I which state that "the adornment of the two priestesses, who must be virgins."

This also further supported by the fact that this was even an early traditional requirement of women who represent the virgin Mary, in some early traditions in fact the priestesses who were supposedly not virgins, were born again or their wombs were recreated as virgins... so if you want to claim some inconsistency with the notion that priestesses who are supposed to be virgins to represent Isis doesn't count, then you might as well tell that to the early and Medieval Christians who apparently adopted this tradition as well to emphasize that Mary was a Virgin.

However regardless of that, even if that were to be disproven, the very fact of the matter being that GodAlmighty gives an entire entire video (#3) to the concept of the Ba which he draws parallels even further and thus compounding the very fact that in reality, the insemination of Horus into Isis, by Osiris was non-sexual. This is further expounded upon when GodAlmighty reads from Louis Vico Žabkar's [url=A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts]http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc34.html[/url] which explains quite clearly what the Ba was and this is very much in itself corroborative with the fact that every single Egyptian conception of Horus with Osiris impregnating Isis is found in the following fashion:



In fact there is an emphasis placed in the video which should have given it away:



In fact he further compounds this from a quote from the [url=Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament]http://books.google.com/books?id=a2MPAAAACAAJ&dq=theological+wordbook+of+the+old+testament&hl=en&ei=[/url] so to show that his interpretation of what was put forth is actually supported by academics in the relevant field.

However with all of that put forth of many of the things you obviously missed, it is worth pointing out that on video 4 he further mentions another artifact from the Metropolitan Museum of a [url=Carnelian ring stone]http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/greek_and_roman_art/carnelian_ring_stone/o[/url] which is referred to as an "adaptation of a Greek work of the 4th century B.C." which refers to her as the "[url=Immaculate our Lady Isis]http://tinyurl.com/2fu77jn[/url]." There is also a much needed emphasis that the origin of this ring dates to the exact same time of the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus he mentioned before.

So there you go, a brief survey of everything you apparently missed and apparently refuse to address. Anymore questions?



I see you committing the strawman fallacy there KD8.



No it doesn't, as I obviously showed by a brief survey of the things you obviously missed (either deliberately so or failing to mention that which would contradict you).



Me sees special pleading in this statement.



Using this exact same argument, I can say that Mary was not a virgin because she was married to Joseph.

I am getting the obvious indication that you did not even watch the series to begin with or are ignoring the argument just to continue your head shaking.

And as I'm sure you know, there are multiple versions of the Isis story. In order to show that Horus was born of a virgin mother, you need to find a story in which she is the mother of Horus, yet her virginity at the time of this birth is clarified, or at least strongly suggested.



The fact that she's married, with no indication that she was abstinent while married, certainly does. Had the Gospels not clarified that Mary and Joseph, though married, remained abstinent until after Jesus' birth, we wouldn't believe she was a virgin at Jesus' birth, either.



And as GodAlmighty already pointed out, the words for "maiden" (such as hwn.t) tend NOT to mean virgin when applied to married women. It only suggests virgin when applied to young women who are unmarried and childless. It's a little like seeing a girl who is, say, 12 years old. You'll generally assume she's a virgin (since most 12-year-old girls are). But if she had a child, you wouldn't assume she's a "virgin mother", but rather that, in this case, she's not actually a virgin. It's similar with "hwn.t" (and "almah", "bethulah" and "parthenos"). Yes, it suggests virginity, but not strong enough to over-ride other factors suggesting she is not, such as marriage or motherhood. GodAlmighty himself made this point in one of his videos, regarding "almah", "bethulah" and "parthenos".



I'm sorry, but assuming a married woman isn't a virgin is far more rational than assuming she is. Married virgins are such a rare thing, in fiction as well as in reality, that we would logically expect any author who is trying to make a point of this to...well...make a point of it. We don't think, "well, the author didn't specifically SAY the married couple were having sex, so the woman must have been a virgin!"



Again, use of the word "hwn.t" isn't strong enough to suggest virginity when applied to a woman who is married or is a mother. If you can find me stronger indication in a version of the Isis/Horus story, please do so.



Of course there is. Osiris was her husband, and without indication of them remaining abstinent while married (like we have for Mary), the natural assumption is that they hadn't been.



No. I can point to many fictional married couples who don't have children. Does that mean that their author intended to imply that the woman in the couple was a virgin?



Then you'd think they would have either portrayed her as unmarried, or at least clarified that she hadn't gotten jiggy with her husband. I have yet to see an example of a married goddess who is still generally considered to be a virgin. If there are any, they're the exception, not the rule.



No, all that offends me is people who make claims that they can't back up with evidence, especially if they're trying to use these claims in order to convince other people that their beliefs are incorrect.



And if that were enough to show that Jesus was mythological, then Christ-mythers wouldn't have felt the need to fabricate so many claims of parallels. Why stack a deck that's already in your favor? Maybe because they know that saying "supernatural events can't happen" doesn't work on theists, so they have to find some other reason. And since they can't, they have to resort to fabricating false claims and hope their audience is ignorant of ancient mythology, gullible enough to believe them, and too lazy to fact-check these claims.



That statement is based on the assumption of the Jesus story being mythology, which is based on the idea of the mythicist claims being factual. Until someone can back up most of those claims with evidence (such as the stories where those things happen), I see no reason to accept those claims as true, and thus no reason to suppose that the Jesus story is mythology. If you want to convince me that this stuff is true, show me the evidence. If you can't, then don't expect me to believe it.

No, I don't need to have 100% of the claims proven. Really, just half of the claims for any one deity, and I'll start to take it seriously. Until then, all you really have is your belief that "supernatural events can't happen", which is obviously a belief that isn't shared by us theists (I'm assuming you're an atheist, since what you said above suggests a disbelief in the supernatural - correct me if I'm wrong on this, please).



When I'm trying to determine if something is true, I first ask if there is any evidence that it's true, and, if so, I then ask myself if the evidence is convincing. For Jesus, we have the stories which describe His resurrection and so on. Are those stories convincing? I say yes, and I'm sure you say no, and I'm fine with being in disagreement on this issue. Especially if you are indeed an atheist, since it would be pretty much impossible to convince an atheist that supernatural events have happened, so I see no point in trying.

But for the Christ-myther claims, it's not a question of whether the evidence is convincing, since the evidence for most of the claims does not exist. If it did, mythicists would be parading it for the world to see. Instead, I've gone YEARS asking them for the evidence, and not one has been able to present it, even those who specifically told me that they would. I'm guessing that most mythicists really believe that these stories exist, even though they've never read them for themselves. If so, then they're the ones living in a world of make-believe.

Basically, belief in Jesus is automatically more rational than belief in the mythicist claims, since we, at the very least, have the stories which match up to the claims about Jesus. For Jesus, it's just a question of whether the evidence is convincing (some say yes, some say no). For most of the mythicist claims, it's a question of whether the evidence even exists in the first place. If it does, then why don't the mythicists want us to see it?

Which, again, relies on "hwn.t" meaning virgin, which it tends not to when applied to a woman who is married or (as in this plate) has a child.



I don't take medieval Christians playing Mary in this way as very good evidence for Mary being a virgin, either. If I wanted to show someone that Mary was, per the story, a virgin, then I'd point them to the story itself, not how people were cast in dramatizations of it centuries later.



Non-virgins can have non-sexual conceptions just as easily as virgins can, so this is irrelevant to the question of whether Isis was a virgin or not. In those particular stories, her pregnancy with Horus may not be evidence that she's a non-virgin, but her marriage to Osiris is.



Sure. Do you have any evidence that Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus? Something that's, say, remotely convincing?



How so? This applies just as well to mythology. Married characters in mythology tend not to be portrayed as virgins. If there are married virgins in mythology, they're the exception, not the rule.



How so? The authors of the Gospels (at least the two that give the birth narratives) are clearly relaying to their reader that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. The same cannot be said for any of the stories of Isis and Horus.



Ummm...no, you can't, since there is clear indication within the story itself that Mary and Joseph were abstinent while married (see Matthew 1:25). There is no such indication for Isis and Osiris.

No it doesn't rely on that, it relies on several things in fact, the several things which you are ignoring. It is not just one thing that ties it all together, but regardless of the fact, your argument over nitpicking of translation has already been answered extensively in the series if you watch it. In fact, the most recent one even shows that it was up until recently that the word "virgin" excursively referred to as a woman/girl who has not had sex. In fact, he follows this up with at least four Egyptologist's who translate it as "The Great Virgin." However the fact of the matter is, we know it should be translated as virgin due to the fact that a number of things have been into account, which everything is summed up in the latest video on what the context is.

If your going to isolate one thing, and simply nitpick it instead of taking everything as presented as a whole and is used a way to reconstruct the mythology of Isis being a Virgin Mother Goddess, you are going to fail each and ever time and your going to demonstrate your ignorance on how myth's are reconstructed.

This being the case however, why don't you just simply deliver the ultimatum as you should have done by telling us how reconstructing the mythology of Isis being a Virgin Mother Goddess violates the methods of mythological narrative/attributable reconstruction? This is how we are able to tell if our mythologies are in fact consistent, there is a method which is used which shows the fact that if we follow every single step consistently then we have successfully reconstructed the myth. If we haven't, then it needs to point out and adjustments will have to be made on our part of reconstructions. So just tell us how we are violating the methods of mythological narrative/attributable reconstruction and I will be able to concede to your point. But if all you able to do is simply nitpick over translations, something which was already covered extensively in the video series by God Almighty (which by the indicates to me that since you keep dodging the issue, means you have only looked at a few videos) I am just going to say you are simply engaging in moving the goal post, special pleading, etc...



Um... that was not the point of my argument and neither does it address it, you just engaged a strawman fallacy.





So by your own argument Mary was not a virgin because she was obviously married to Joseph... you see where this argument fails? It's because you are separating every single point and simply tackling it as a completely separate issue, when in reality everything has to be addressed that takes on the inter-connectivity of scene. Just by when people pointing out that your same argument can be used against you, you end up moving the goal post by "oh well we can look at the gospel narratives in context and see that it doesn't imply" when in reality taking your argument, by itself and applying your argument, by itself can be used against you. Unless this argument in itself is connected with the other points surrounding it, it fails. You apparently don't understand the methodology of a proper critique, otherwise you would have stopped using the method 3 posts ago.



That's like asking me if I have any evidence of a transitional fossil of ape-man, or asking me if there is any evidence to show that the big bang happened when it happened... I can give many examples of how this claim is absurd. Your demand for evidence is too high and will never be met. In order for a demand of evidence or a claim, it must be both falsifiable and fall into the realm plausibility for evidence.

We have been showing you time and time again that there is evidence for Isis being a Virgin Mother Goddess, now you are simply shifting the goal post, by adding stipulations and simply putting forth modern arguments without tying it into the cultural and religion climate of ancient Egypt. Due to the very nature of these arguments, I am going to assume that your knowledge of Egyptian Mythology actually goes as far as to the site of J.P. Holding, Wikipedia and Encyclopedia entries about the relevant god's. Ignoring my points, or trying to separate them into separate facts in a desperate debunking attempts will fail each time.



It is a strawman because it is not addressing anything in the original argument, but that being beside the point... your criticism is based upon filtering everything through your modern conception of what mythology is and isn't. Give me an overall outline of why that is so from the Egyptian Theology/Mythological perspective, or just stop with constant leap in logic.



It's in the series and the statement was already addressed, but suffice it to say the notion that it is only indicated in one place is wrong... as has been shown by the survey of evidences being given.



Yes it most very well can, because your original argument was "but they are married." You said nothing at all about context, yet its very interesting that we ask you take into account all the evidence we are giving, judge them in a connected manner and see how they connect then either debunk the notion that the evidences we suggest can be connected or simply concede the point. However your argument, for saying that "there is no indication for Isis and Osiris" beg's the question and is simply not how we determine how myths are reconstructed, further compounding my point, either show how are we are violating the methods or concede the point or simply stop posting, because your posts are getting redundant.

No, that is not the only other corroboration. It is also corroborated by the fact that her child is conceived and delivered by her Ba, not body, and that she has the same epithet of "Immaculate lady", later given to the virgin Mary for the very reason that she is a virgin.(And just for clarification Mary was given the epithet of 'immaculate virgin' before the doctrine of her immaculate conception developed, as we see it in the writings of Hippolytus & Tertullian.)

And other corroborations included the above citation from Sais that Tat refers to, i.e., her syncretism with Athena in Sais by the first century, Athena being one of the patron goddesses of virginity and yet also mother to Ericthonius(as per several variants). The people of Sais could see that Isis was virgin mother not unlike Athena.

Moreover, whether you intended anything significant by this or not, I notice you chose the word "could" when you said "could portray". No, it's not just that virgins "could" portray, the text states it as a requirement. Only a virgin could do it. But more on that later.



Only to the obstinate.



You're grasping at straws here. As concerns this topic, these are two disparate things, that being theater and religious ritual, and the logic of your attempted analogy opens Pandora's box upon itself, which I will clarify in a moment.
The Songs of Isis and Nephthys is not a theatrical play, it is a religious ceremony, this was sacred stuff, and yes indeed the requirements for the participants are significant and obviously are correlatetions to the deities they are portraying, for instance, one of the many requirements in this list besides just virginity, is writing the name Isis on the arm of the girl portraying Isis. It would be ludicrous to try and argue that this requirement has no correlating feature to Isis herself, but just some whimsical arbitrary thing. "The fact that Isis is the name of the goddess she is portraying is just a coincidence, she is not required to be named Isis just because Isis is named Isis as well." No, that would not be logical, clearly such requirements were put in place because these are features of Isis, and there is no reason to make an exception for the requirement of virginity as you are trying and failing to do here, it's just more special pleading, true to form for you so far. To argue that the requirement that the girl must be a virgin is unrelated to Isis herself is like arguing that the requirement that the girl be named Isis during the performance is unrelated to Isis herself.

More over, as I said, this document describes religious rituals and these requirements were exactly that, required. While I have not studied into the casting history of Peter Pan performances, your usage of the word "generally" combined with what few performances of Peter Pan I have seen, indicates to me that being a woman was not an obligation for playing the part, but merely of no consequence. Plus I deduce that in the instances when a woman was selected, this was due to the males who auditioned either being too old and/or masculine to make a believable boy, or too young and/or inexperienced to act with the skill to pull off the performance.
But that much aside, as I said, it would appear the fact they were women was of no consequence, not an obligation, and thus this would not properly correspond as an analogy to the Songs papyrus, since being a virgin was of consequence, it was an obligation.
The things not stated would appear to be of no consequence and thus I would agree would not need to be understood as a feature of isis herself. For instance, there is no requirement for hair color, so if a red head was chosen, it would be fair to conclude that this does not necessarily mean that Isis should be viewed as a red head. It's a detail that is of no consequence, and hence, not touched upon in the list of requirements.

And what I meant by your attempted analogy here unleashing Pandora's box upon itself is made evident when applied to any other instance of casting requirements, be it religious or theatrical, and should go without saying. You try to cite a minority exception of when the casting selection is counter intuitive to one of the attributes of the character being portrayed, and try to apply it contra parsimony, disregarding the overwhelming majority of instances when the selected cast has or is given attributes that DO correspond to the characters being portrayed, for that very reason, because their character is meant to have them. Kirstin Dunst and Kate Bosworth were chosen to portray their comic book damsels because their characters are meant to be, and have been, viewed as desireable young women. And they were both required to dye their hair because their characters were meant to be viewed as having that hair color. Fans of the classic Spider-Man comics know full well Mary Jane had red hair, and so when we see Dunst having red hair as well, we do not chalk up to being arbitrary and of no consequence as your analogy would have it. We know the reason why she died her hair red, because that IS the hair color of the character. We know she was also chosen because she IS a girl, just like her character, etc., etc. The features not required for casting are clearly of no consequence, and so we are justified in concluding that Louis Lane is not necessarily meant to be viewed as having heterochromia.

But to be more relevant of the Songs, which are religious rituals, nuns and monks with their vows of chastity comes to mind. They are to live in celibacy because they are emulating the deity they are trying to be like and are worshipping- Christ. They ARE being celibate because Christ was celibate(as per their doctrine, the NT is silent on the matter). And their celibacy is something they expected to take seriously. It is a requirement. it is not arbitrary. Their deity IS to be understood as having this same particular feature.

And likewise with the requirements for the chosen girls for the Songs papyrus. She is required to female because Isis is female, she is required to be given the name Isis because Isis is named Isis. She is required to be "pure of body" and a "virgin" because Isis is a virgin with a pure body. To conjecture a dichotomy between that one item on the list and the rest of the requirements in the list is just more special pleading.



Oh with that we are agreed, this was never disputed. Pindar's version of the birth of Athena perhaps being a good example, as Zeus was no sexual kind of virgin, at least not in any text I've come across.



I was unambiguously clear on that when I wrote "Now, I for one do not believe the author intended this, since that much is obvious, just as it is obvious that the author[s] of the aforementioned Abydos inscriptions intended Isis to be viewed as a virgin, since she explicitly stated as much plus it is corroborative with the other facts about her and the conception of Horus as previously stated."



My argument has never relied upon nor been that Jesus was born of a virgin, MY argument has been in regards to Horus & Isis here.
My exposure of your special pleading, however, has indeed taken for granted the admitted fact that YOU believe Jesus was born of a virgin, which you do.
I follow the same succinct logic in regards to Isis & Horus as I do with Mary and Jesus. You, however, do not, you make repeated arguments against Isis which Mary herself falls victim to when applied to her.

I have never once argued that Jehovah ACTUALLY had sex with Mary. But the kettle logic in you attempted arguments leaves open that possibility when that pendulum swings back the other way, because if you're looking for an explicit statement similar to that in Matthew 1:25, both Osiris and Jehovah lack that kind of a statement in their favor, and both are having babies, so to try and make Jehovah exempt from this very criteria you tried to put forward would expose you as holding a double standard.

Doesn't pose a problem for me however, or "shoot its foot", as I never required a statement similar to Matthew 1:25 in regards to Osiris, since I lack your level obstinacy and exceed your level of parsimony, and thus I understand that while such a statement would be valuable, it is not necessary. Just as it isn't for Jehovah.



No, it's because she has never been depicted as having sex at ANY moment(until we come down to Plutarch). This statement of yours right here is being inductive as opposed to deductive. Isis is only ever depicted as having sex at one event- this one. Ever. At all. Period. And even that, as shown and as you have conceded, is not universal. So it being the case the conception of Horus(or Horuses for Plutarch) is the only instance in Isis's mythology in which she is ever depicted as having sex, then when a version if this conception lacks that element, we are left completely without any evidence of sex, period. Hence the justification for her being described as a virgin at Sais, Abydos, in the Songs of Isis & Nephthys, and being referred as Immaculate Lady. And hence the justification for several scholars throughout the years having referred to her as a virgin.



Stick a pin in this, I'll come back to it later on.



Not really. My argument has relied and several pieces of evidence corrborating with each other, one of which is hwn.t. And while we're on hwn.t, I shall address it all together at once here-


I have never agreed that the definition of hwn.t depends on there being no significant evidence to the contrary, although it's true that there is none, and that is corroborative, but no, it depends on that fact that 'virgin' is what it MEANS, and is the way it is translated.
What I have clarified is that all the other English words used to translate hwn.t are synonyms for virgin, I have never implied that hwn.t can ever mean anything other than virgin. For instance, you brought up it being translated as maiden, and I clarified to you the fact that maiden likewise means virgin. You write things like "you also agree that it doesn't automatically mean virgin" when I have agreed to no such thing, and have not even alluded to it. I have only ever expounded upon the fact that all the variety of English words used to translate hwn.t all mean the same thing, that's exactly WHY the scholars can choose these words. They aren't trying to change the meaning of the text. You have apparently confused yourself about what I said and have gotten your wires crossed. I pointed out how the aforementioned variety of English synonyms used to translate hwn.t have likewise been used to translate almah, bethulah, and parthenos, and thus the usage of these English words besides virgin does not take anything away from the meaning of hwn.t, otherwise those making a fuss over the use "maiden", etc., are holding a double standard.

But going beyond that, I also went on to demonstrate how besides just having the same corresponding English words as hwn.t, the biblical words of almah, bethulah, and parthenos likewise have a definition that is not exclusive to sexual virginity, and sometimes even inclusive of just the opposite. However, I never once thourghout all of my posts or videos, ever said this to be the case with hwn.t as well. I only ever pointed out the non-exclusive definitions of the three biblical words, I never once said or alluded to hwn.t likewise having a non-exclusive definition like parthenos or bethulah does. And that because the point I was trying to demonstrate is that these words are actually weaker in conveying sexual purity than hwn.t does. And again, don't lose track here, don't get me wrong, these three words do include virginity in their definition, but are not exclusive to it, and their meaning needs to be determined at each usage by its context. Hwn.t however, I have only ever seen translated as virgin or some synonym thereof(maiden, damsel, lass). And the very fact that Isis is married further supports it's definition as virgin, and to clarify what I mean, you pointed out that hwn.t is also translated as maiden, and yet if Isis is married, then clearly for her, maiden does not indicate her marital status, it does not and can not mean she is an "unmarried girl or woman" since she IS married. She is also neither a guillatine or horse that has never won a race. Although the principle behind that horse definition is relevant. But no, she is none of these things. By process of elimination, all that's left is the definition of virginity, of "coming before all others", "never having had sexual relations", which by parsimony, is the most appropriate in light of everything else covered- the fact that Botterweck lets us know she calls herself a virgin at Abydos, that the Songs of Isis & Nepthys let us know she's meant to be viewed as a virgin, that she it is always her Ba and never body that is depicted as getting pregnant by Osiris, and that she is conflated with the Greco-Roman patron goddess of virginity and virgin mother herself- Athena, and, therefore, the fact that she is said to have claimed that no man has ever removed her robe/lifted her veil, and the fact that she is called the Immaculate Lady, an epithet later given to the virgin Mary, and the fact, like Mary(as per the immaculate conception doctrine), Isis's own mother was likewise a virgin mother to at least Osiris, etc.
She is married, so clearly "maiden" is indicative of her sexual status, not her marital status, all the more cemented by the fact that the same passage HAS been translated as virgin. In fact, Botterweck's is the ONLY English translation of the Abydos plate I've ever come across. There is no one who has translated that as maiden, not that it would matter since they mean the same thing, but with as much as you have tried to make fuss over the fact that it can be translated as maiden, it is amusing seeing as how you have done so without any English translation to support you. The only other guys I've so far come across that have translated hwn.t specifically as maiden are Faulkner and Budge(and, well, Mercer once in a commentary on P.T), and they only do so in other passages, such as in the Pyramid Texts(which doesn't even apply to Isis, but rather, to Nut in that instance), and not for the Abydos passages in the Temple of Seti, therefore, for you to bring up the usage of maiden as a translation of hwn.t, you find yourself guilty of the very charge you go on to levy at me further down your post, and that being, you are using "a completely different story" from the one at Abydos to try and bolster one translation above another. But the hyposcrisy in that aside, it was all in vain, since maiden and virgin are interchangable, especially in this context, and especially since maiden cannot mean bachelorette in this instance since she is already married, as you are all too quick to point out and then make exceptions for Mary.

And, somewhere throughout this discourse, in your own mind you did something that I myself never did, which is, you have taken those same aforementioned non-exclusive properties that the definitions of almah, bethulah, & parthenos have, and tried to carry it over to hwn.t.

The ONLY scholarly translation of the text of plate 9 at Abydos has it rendered as virgin.

And EVERY scholary translation of hwn.t I've ever come across has rendered it as either virgin or some synonym thereof. Here's at least four that state as much(Becking plus the three he is citing):
"In Egypt the epithets 'dd.t, rnn.t, and hwn.t - girl, young woman, virgin' are applied to many goddesses, e.g. Hathor and Isis, who had not yet had sexual intercourse." Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

This coming from scholars, who were no doubt well aware that Isis was married and had a child, yet such details did not sway them in their rendering of hwn.t as virgin or in their assesement that she had not yet had sex, nor did it sway Botterweck.

And indeed, there are the other things besides hwn.t indicating Isis is a virgin, which you have repeatedly attempted to treat as an elephant in the living room.



Agreed, the only thing on plate 9, all by itself when separated from everything else associated with Isis, that is indicative of Isis being a virgin is the use of the word virgin. Very true.



Already addressed above. It sure does tell us Isis was one, just as the requirement that the girl be called Isis is clearly because Isis was called Isis, and so on, with the whole list.
I also notice again, whether you did it intentionally or not, you've chosen words that downplay the religious nature of the text and try to paint it as a theatrical type of thing- "play Isis". Only about as much as the pharoahs "played" Horus and Osiris and Ra. And on that point, the Pyramid Texts, before the Coffin Texts made these rituals available to the common man, the Pyramid Texts require the rituals, the rituals that merge him with Osiris, be performed on the king of egypt, but by the flawed logic of your excuse, this is no indication that Osiris was understood as having been the king of Egypt and is not corroborative with all of the other texts that state that he was.
In the rituals of the Pyramid Texts, as Allen thoroughly explains in his introduction, were to be performed on the deceased king to turn him into Osiris, while his successor then becomes the new Horus, the living king reigning on earth in his stead, and his widowed queen, if she's still alive, is to perform the role of Isis. The Pyramid Texts give no narrative of the story of Osiris, Isis, & Horus, but it doesn't need to, as their story can be clearly seen in the attributes described of these pharoahs and their sons & wives. But by your failed logic, just because the texts say Pepi is the father of Horus, the husband and brother of Isis, the son of Nut and Geb, that Pepi was killed by Set, that Pepi's son Horus has defeated Seth and avenged his father Pepi and now raises Pepi from the dead so that Pepi can ascend into heaven and sit on Ra's throne reigning in Ra's stead- by the ridiculous kettle logic of your attempted excuse, just because these things are true of Pepi doesn't mean this was true of Osiris, and we cannot corroborate this with other Osirian texts since those would be, as you put it, using "facts from a completely different story" to try and bolster the usage of the Pyramid Texts as a source for attributes of Osiris.
I'd love to see the look on Allen's or Faulkner's face if you were to try and pull that on them, and yet that's what your logic here has consisted of.



Sure does, for reasons already evident in what I've previously written. More special pleading here your part, you are making an exception here for just this one attribute of Isis that happens to parallel the mother of your messiah, while not using this same objection to all of the other attributes of Isis. To try and argue that other texts about Isis can't be corroborated with the plate at Abydos in order to deduce what the authors intended to convey about Isis just opens Pandora's box on itself, because it fails when applied to any of her other attributes found in other texts. I mean, by that logic, we cannot deduce that the authors of plate at Abydos intended for Isis to be viewed as the wife of Osiris, the sister of Nephthys, the daughter of Geb, etc. Hell, at least her status as the Great Virgin is explicitly stated there, unlike some of the aforementioned attributes. Yet it would be against parsimony to try and argue that "just because many other texts state or allude to Isis being the wife of Osiris doesn't mean this Isis here in Abydos is to be understood that way".
This is how scholars piece together the puzzle, by corroborating facts from different sources, since there is no complete single narrative of the mythologies of Isis and Osiris in any Egyptian source. The only such narrative comes to us from Plutarch.



Nah, not a new narrative, and not anything I myself have done, as I have given scholarly references. But combining what one author said with something another author said to create a new narrative is exactly what the bible does. Even just the New Testament alone, Mark and John are supplemented by Matthew and Luke in regards to their omission of the virgin motherhood of Mary, and vice-versa and so on in regards to material that one has that another does not. So true to form you have continued with the special pleading here.




Sure is, everything covered so far.



Already dealt with above. However, in regards to this part-

I now pull out that pin I placed a while back, as I shall address it along with this-


Well, there is something else indicative in the story for it, already referenced time and again above.

But one has to wonder if you expect Christ to have sex with all the christians, you know, after the marriage supper of the lamb, when he marries his bride, the church. No doubt the cries of "that's just in a spiritual sense" will come, but nonetheless, you have said what you said, and so even if it is just a spiritual marriage, based on what you've said, we can expect there to also be a spiritual copulation with Jesus as well, since that's wise to assume. Hey, it's possible, afterall, Osiris impregnated the soul of his bride.
But that's neither here nor there. The main thing to be addressed here is your monotonous special pleading.

There is no argument you have tried to make here against the virgin motherhood of Isis that cannot also be levied at the virgin motherhood of Mary.

You bring up how hwn.t can be translated as maiden, which, while that is a useless argument since that means the same as virgin, especially in this case, parthenos has also been translated as maiden.

You bring up that Isis was married. So was Mary.

You retort with Mary's explicit statement that she "knew not a man". Isis said she was the Great Virgin, while attending to Seti with her own fully grown son Horus. Isis said no man has removed my robe/lifted my veil, and IS the MOTHER of ALL the living. So is Horus living when she says this? Of course he is, she made reference to him right there. As I already referenced previously, syncretism, syncretism, syncretism, and many ancient sources tell us of how Horus was conflated with Apollo/Helios, much like how Isis was conflated with Athena/Minerva. The Songs of Isis & Nethphtys make it clear in no ambiguous terms that Isis was a virgin every bit as much as her name was Isis.

Some of the less logical out there might attempt to argue that Isis simply says no MAN has lifted her robe(or veil), and Osiris was a GOD.

Well, Mary simply said she had never known a MAN. This therefore does not leave her exempt from children, women, gods, goddesses, angels, demons, or beastiality.

And since Jehovah is not a man, and she is carrying his kid, we have no hard evidence that exempts Mary from having copulated with Jehovah to conceive Jesus, afterall, she is never stated to be a virgin at the time of the conception, or at any time really, since parthenos fails us at being unambiguous in that regard. She is never referred to as a virgin during or after the conception, and she is only ever stated to not have "known" Joseph until after Jesus was born. Doesn't say anything about not "knowing" Jehovah, or anyone else.

So the conclusion that Mary gave a virgin birth is reached only by succinct logical deduction(and justifiably so), there is no unambiguous explicit evidence in the text.

That might be an interesting experiment for someone with some money to spare to engage in, maybe Tat can front the cash, eh, lol- $1,000 dollars to anyone who can conclusively, unambiguously prove from a biblical source that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Anyone attempting to take up that challenge will find themselves hard pressed to produce anything even remotely up to the same level as the evidence that has been produced
for the virginity of Isis, much of which has been seen throughout this post.



No, it is not. But to say that Jesus is immune from this is to just make a special exception without justification. Being historical or not has never stopped a figure of noteriety from falling victim to tall tales and even deification. Like the birth of Alexander the Great, that smacks of elements of one of the births of Dionysus. Hardly makes Alexander mythological if one sees the parallel there to Dionysus.



We're bringing facts from history and succinct logical deduction to the table. As I already said(sort of), borrowing is much easier and more likely to occur than mutually exclusive coincidences dependant upon random chance.

But whether borrowed or coincidence, the point of the existence of parallels is that there is nothing exceptional about christianity, and no reason that it should be given any greater validity or consideration than any of the other myths that have the same elements. There's no feature about Jesus that makes him appear any more compelling than any of the other deities out there.

Now as for the bit where you pimp your win a grand challenge, that was never an issue with me, as I recall that was more of Tat's or Free's thing, so there's nothing to be said on that really.



Yes, that indication that she was a virgin when she gave birth is the fact that he is already born when she calls herself a virgin, as already thoroughly elaborated upon above.

Thanks for clarifying your belief in the supernatural KD8. I suppose you feel that belief in the supernatural is a good foundation from which to build a system of sound logic and reason. BTW, most of us have come from a background in Christianity - myself, FTL, and Acharya and I'll let the others mention their backgrounds if they'd like.

It seems fairly obvious that you have founded your beliefs on taking the gospel story literally even though there's no evidence from contemporary sources that Jesus ever lived in the first place and even though there isn't a shred of evience that the gospels were written any earlier than the second century. In this case, you have become all so concerned about evidence, which you keep dismissing, while pointing to belief in something that has far less evidence. The whole thing boils down to you being pissed off because Acharya has written about Christianity as a remake of more ancient mythological moifs and you wanting to reject that reality in favor of clinging to the apriori assumption that the gospel story is real history.

In my view you have taken off building your foundation upon the sand. That's how I veiw all of this trying to dismiss Isis as a pre-Christian virgin mother Goddess. You would like to accuse of the same to try and pull us down to your level, but you forget that most of us have started out down at your level and have since moved on. Seeing the Isis myth as a pre-Christian virgin mother motif is a foundation built on stone as GodAlmighty keeps pointing out. To try and dismiss or deny Isis as a pre-Christian virgin mother is a foundation built upon the sand. People can weigh out the debate and decide which foundation they'd like to build on. Your bias towards trying to protect the original status of your preferred supernatural storyline shines very bright for all to see and consider.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?