Has anyone really done any research on the Horus/Jesus myth?
The gospels in the Bible were written in the 1st and 2nd century ce.
The idea of Jesus being Horus was first thought up in the 4th century ce.
There seems to be a problem with who stole from who.
The story of Horus was written in 3,000 bc. and no one seems to find a problem with that.
Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. "Has anyone really done any research on the Horus/Jesus myth?!" If you were actually capable of reading anything, you would know that MANY people have done research on the Horus/Jesus myth, including Acharya, with her nearly 600-page book on the subject.
But your knowledge of this subject is so poor that you don't even know the first thing about the mythicist case vis-a-vis Horus.
Please, stop pretending to be some great scholar - you are not. You can hardly put a sentence together, and you don't seem to know much about anything, except how to brag about qualifications you don't even have.
Once more, you're bringing down the quality of this forum, jwest, and I'm getting tired of seeing your illiterate and useless garbage in here.
ISN'T THERE ANYONE INTELLIGENT AND WELL EDUCATED ON THIS PLANET WHO CAN DISCUSS THESE SUBJECTS?
What the hell are we doing with the likes of this cretin? Wow. I'm just so sick of it. Thank goodness Tat, Robert and others are around here. Otherwise, with idiots like this guy, I'd feel very alone here.jwest troll thread
ftl, I've noticed that apologists, like jwest, are effective in sowing spurious doubts about mythicism. Because their own views are absurd, based on an obsolete magical cosmology, they are unable to engage directly but use questions such as those raised here to give the illusion of debate where dispassionate analysis shows that their orthodox views make no sense.
I'm now reading The Jesus Mysteries
by Freke and Gandy. It is an excellent scholarly analysis of the relation between gnosticism and orthodoxy in the context of pagan mythology. One theme that aligns closely to Acharya's work is their observation that Osiris-Dionysus was the saviour figure for the Hellenistic world for several centuries before Christ. While they focus more on Osiris than Horus, the approach of setting early Christianity in its cultural context is similar to CIE.
What strikes me as the core here is that apologists are emotionally
opposed to the idea that rational understanding of the Bible is possible. Ironically, this is a view they share with materialist atheists, for opposite reasons. Christian irrational faith was so successful in building the church as a powerful social institution that they find a challenge that steps on their terrain insufferable. Atheism doesn't matter to fundamentalists, because Dawkins et al can be dismissed for their emotional attack on faith.
Mythicism presents a more difficult target for the apologists. It accepts that religion is important for human identity, but argues that rational explanation of the Bible is possible. This mythicist argument presents a threat to orthodoxy, but is hard to understand for several reasons. Christian brainwashing has been so successful that most victims are unaware they have been lied to, mythicism requires knowledge of comparative mythology, and it leads to a vision of astrotheology that modernity sees as fatalistic and repugnant. Astrotheology, the logical consequence of the mythicist analysis of the Bible, is viewed with emotional hostility by all of science, religion and astrology, precisely because it sees the validity in each of these disciplines. Promoting astrotheology is a bit like Jesus carrying his cross. It brings a commitment to truth that is ahead of its time, leaving the pioneers in a rather lonely situation.
Here, the question of Horus and the twelve, requires an understanding of how the twelve signs of the zodiac are at the base of terrestrial cosmology, informing the archetypes of both Judeo-Christian and Egyptian myth. This cyclic argument is viewed with pure bigotry by those who hold to a linear view of the soul. But the problem is that cyclic philosophy is by and large not particularly rigorous. It remains an intriguing philosophical problem how to set the astrological vision of the signs within a scientific framework, that in turn will help to explain the origins of Christian symbols.