It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Osiris, the origins of christianity, the egyptian resurrection

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 


Forgive me, but I don't understand your points. Do you think every Christian doctrine has to be presented in final form in the New Testament? Besides, when Jesus said "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." That's a pretty good start. The fact that it only took three hundred years to get around to officially spelling out the doctrine specifically doesn't seem like a big deal.

I don't see the importance you attach to halos (or sun disks). Just about everybody had them, Buddhists, Hindus, Greeks, Romans, and Muslims. King Herod has been shown with a halo, also some Chinese emperors. Christians didn't get around to using them until the 4th century. I don't know, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

You also mention "In ISIS and HORUS we see the origins of Mary worship" The problem here is that no religion I've heard of thinks Mary is a goddess or worships her, but the Egyptians did. Showing that Christianity did not come from Egypt

And why is the shape of the cross significant? Sources are split on which translation is right, but Christians have rejected the idea of it being a stick in the ground, so are they not also rejecting a connection to Egypt? Besides, Christians had no choice in the symbol, it was given them by the Romans.

I hope you can see where I'm confused by your post.




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The whole point is that if the First Century Christians didn't pollute their worship of God with Pagan beleifs...
Why should we??!!!

(Titus 1:1-2) . . .the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth which accords with godly devotion 2 upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting. . .

Specifically the Apostle Paul warned about "the doctrines of men" subverting the Truth of God's Word "in later times"

(2 Timothy 2:16-18) . . .But shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy‧me‧nae′us and Phi‧le′tus are of that number. 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, ..............................and they are subverting the faith of some.

(Acts 20:29-30) 29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness,  and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


All through the Bible - God instructed his people to seperate themselves from Pagan idols and beleifs.

Therefore WHY would it be OK to accept a pollution of Christianity, just because a group of men sat down and decided that they'd water down some of the doctrines and include a good deal of Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian traditions and festivals to make the new state religion of Rome, more acceptable to more people.

This was MEN twisting and using religion to gain power, influence and controling masses of people, who would therefore look to Rome as their head. The more comprimises they made, the more inclusive this new faith could become and let's face it the more MONEY could be collected from these masses.

God doesn't make comprimises.... he's interested in quality NOT quantity.

(2 Corinthians 6:16-18) . . .And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’” 18 “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.”


edit on 23-12-2011 by JB1234 because: Added for context



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 

Dear JB1234,

I agree with you completely.

The whole point is that if the First Century Christians didn't pollute their worship of God with Pagan beleifs...
Why should we??!!!
Absolutely right. I certainly don't want to pollute my worship. They're just a couple of things I want to make sure of first.

Do we agree that many things were taught to the disciples that weren't recorded in the Bible? Can we also agree that many errors and heresies came to light as the Church grew, and those had to be dealt with by presenting statements of the true faith? How about Peter (or the Church) having the authoriy to bind and loose?

Where I'm going is that I don't think something is necessarily un-Christian, just because it's not specifically spelled out in the New Testament. Are we still agreed?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


What are the matters that were taught to the disciples, that aren't in the Scriptures?

Paul specifically commended the Beroeans for "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so" before they became beleivers

(Acts 17:10-12) . . ."Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be‧roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them became believers, and so did not a few of the reputable Greek women and of the men. . ."

Threrefore surely a Christian today should be able to back their beleifs up from the Bible in just the same manner?



edit on 23-12-2011 by JB1234 because: Added for context



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Osiris? Phew!
check out this dude...



"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."


Mithra
Mithra on Wiki



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by autowrench
 


Who said the Holy Spirit is a male?
edit on 22-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


I have been told many times, by many people, some who are ministers, that the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all of whom are males. I was just told this, as a matter of fact, two days ago when a preacher came to ask be to come to his church. I asked where is the Feminine, and he answered, "Oh, you mean the whore of Babylon?" I am happy that you recognize the Divine Feminine, and applaud you for that.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 


Yeah but that's another debate as to whether Mithra came before Osiris.

Most beleif systems across the globe have their origins in Ancient Babylon. Which is why only a very few have at their core tenets a mono theistic culture. Most worship a multitude of Gods.

In turn Interestingly enough most Atheists think that Atheism and the beleif that no creator was necessary for life to exist is a relatively modern way of thinking but it's not a modern philosphy at all. The Ancient Egyptians were the first IIRC to muse that life could form from nothing, when they observed the scarab beetles' young emerging from the sand "as if from nothing".

Egyptian Scarab Beetle

"The dung rolling scarab beetle was sacred to the ancient Egyptians as it seemed to emerge from nowhere. The apparent 'self-creation' of the scarab beetle resembled that of the Egyptian God Khepri / Khepera / Khephri an alternative name for the Sun God Ra or Atum, who created himself out of nothing. The scarab beetle therefore served as a symbol of regeneration and creation conveying ideas of transformation, renewal, and resurrection.

Egyptian Jewelry
Egyptian Scarab Beetle and the Sun God Ra
The ancient Egyptians believed that the Sun God Ra renewed the sun every day before rolling it above the horizon, then carried it through the other world after sunset, only to renew it, again, the next day. The Egyptian Scarab Beetle therefore enjoyed a sacred status among the Ancient Egyptians. The image of the scarab in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs displays the image of the beetle translated as "to come into being", "to become" or "to transform"
edit on 23-12-2011 by JB1234 because: Added detail



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


You are correct about a lot of the stolen concepts that make up the xtian cannon. When Next I am in London I will try and get a photo of Isis withthe infant horus on her knees which is the template for the Madonna and child.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


You are correct about a lot of the stolen concepts that make up the xtian cannon. When Next I am in London I will try and get a photo of Isis withthe infant horus on her knees which is the template for the Madonna and child.


I think you might be referring to the statue of Isis and Horus on her knee in the Egyptian room of the British Museum.

From memory it's this one and likeness to Mary & the infant child is quite striking.




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 

Dear JB1234,

You raise a very good point. The Scriptures are a bedrock to the faith, no question about it. I would never believe something that went contrary to a right understanding of the Bible. I'm with you completely there.

What are the matters that were taught to the disciples, that aren't in the Scriptures?

Well, probably the most important thing was how to decide what was going to be in the Scriptures. There were "holy" writings all over the place, from different people on different aspects of Christ's life and teaching. There were far more Epistles and Gospels then we have now. So, how did we get the Scriptures? As you know, inspired men used their knowledge of the Church and the history of Christianity to weed out false texts. But those men doing the choosing hadn't seen Christ. Their knowledge came from the various writings, none of which were "Scripture" yet, and the oral history of the Church, passed down by believers.

Your quote from Acts 17 is accurate, and a good lesson to remember, but I'm not sure what point it supports. Paul and Silas taught the Jews, and the Jews studied the Scriptures daily. What Scriptures? There wasn't any Christian Scripture at the time, they were studying the Hebrew Bible. Especially true since they were talking to Jews in a synagogue.

Thanks very much for taking the time to write back, I'm learning a lot from you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Dear Charles1952.

You are welcome.

I mean no disrespect to anyone's beleifs also, people are entitled to their own opinions of course. Also interests of fair play regarding the OP, I felt it only right to point out that Atheism has in fact it's roots in Ancient Egypt.

The Scriptures that Paul & Silus were referring to when they commended the Beroeans for checking up those texts to see if what they were preaching was indeed the Truth - were indeed the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul of course as a former Jew, used to prove the Christ to fellow Hebrews. Therefore surely a Christian's beleifs should harmonize with both the Hebrew & Greek/Aramaic texts. Albeit Jesus Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and instituted a new worship of his father Jehovah based solely on love of God & love of neighbour through his own ultimate sacrfice & that of his father's by allowing his only son to go through that torture on behalf of all mankind.

We know that the Divine Library of the Hebrew Scriptures was settled by the time of Jesus birth. As Paul reminds us "All Scripture is inspired of God" in Timothy, then why should we doubt his abilities to use his Holy Spirit to determine which scrolls should be selected as the "Holy Canon"

The Roman Catholic Church try to take the credit for determining what made up the Holy Bible, siting the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. However there is much evidence that the Christian Greek & Aramaic scriptures were settled long before this.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 

Dear JB1234,

You're right. You make a good point by saying the Hebrew scriptures were settled at Jesus' time. No question. And I think we both agree on the vital importance of the New Testament with its riches of wisdom and mystical beauty.

I also think you're right when you talk about the New Testament being largely settled before 400. You encouraged me to do a little digging. It seems as though the NT was set, with the exception of Revelation, by about 150. Then Marcioan started kicking up a fuss about the validitity of certain books. Then the Church spent about 200 years digging and discussing, finally saying "These are the books" in the later half of the 300s.

Anyway, thanks for the lesson.

With respect,
Charles1952.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


Excellent, thought provoking and probably spot on, thankyou for the enlightenment.

The Modern "Christians" tend to forget that the "Jews" were the slaves of the Egyptians for many years....its only natural that they adopt their masters Culture. Throw in the Sumerians, ancient Athenian, Spartan, Trojan, Etruscan, Babylonians, Persian and many other civilizations etc..
And you get a mix-mash of "Beliefs"....

Thankfully, many modern people are acknowledging that "Christmas" time is really about the Winter Solstice (summer in the South), and rebirth, return of the Sun, fertility, etc, and is directly related to Northern Peoples (European) traditions, and has nought to do with Christianity.

If fact, didnt the scholars argue that Jesus was born in April or May or something? Certainly not in December.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 

I like to take a quick look at KingDavid8.com whenever ideas like this come up. It may not be conclusive, but it's certainly useful in starting to look. May I post some of one page?


Q) What about the Egyptian sun god, Horus?

First of all, Horus wasn’t a sun god. That was Amun-Ra. Horus was a sky god, as much associated with the moon as he is with the sun. But Jesus wasn’t a sun god, either, so it’s irrelevant. I’ve seen many mythicists bring up the fact that “son” and “sun” are homonyms, but they’re only homonyms in the English language, which wasn’t around in Jesus’ day, obviously.

Q) Okay, but wasn’t he virgin-born, among other things?

There is nothing in any of his stories saying, or suggesting, that his mother was a virgin.

Q) But aren’t there multiple versions of his birth story?

Yes. And none of them states, or implies, that his mother was a virgin when she gave birth to him. In the most common version of the birth story, his father, Osiris, is killed by his brother, Seth. Osiris’ wife, Isis, puts his body back together and has sex with his corpse, conceiving Horus. In another version, she brings Osiris back to life and has sex with him, only to have him die again afterwards. In another version, there’s a sexless conception, involving a spiritual transfer between them.

Q) Which means she’s a virgin in that version of the story, right?

No, because she was still married to Osiris, and we wouldn’t simply assume that a married couple has never had sex before, just because they didn’t do it at that particular moment.

Do you question any of this? If so, why?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Byrd
 



Actually, Biblical scholars don't agree with this, nor do most Egyptologists. "Amun-re" is not the derivation of "Amen"... it is, in fact a Hebrew word meaning "so be it".


Amen is not a Hebrew word. (I checked) Etymologically speaking, the word’s root is Hebrew in origin, with its use spreading to eventually encompass Christianity and Islam.


Actually, it seems to be derived directly from a Hebrew word (Wikipedia) -- see also Online etymological dictionary among others.


Amen is found in the Bible, of course, but also found in the Quran, and in Hinduism.

It does appear in the Old Testament, which is part of the Quran (which appears about 800 years after the Bible. "Amen" is not found in the original Hindu religious texts (the Vedas) though it may appear in some later items designed for English speakers.


Beyond Judaism, in the fading mists of early history, the word can be traced to ancient Egypt and a particular line of Pharaohs, that of the Amun or Amen –Hotep lineage, such as, Amun-Re, Egyptian god of the Sun.

Amen –Hotep IV is today known as the heretic king, the most ancient ruler to whom history can attribute another origin, that of Monotheistic belief. (Belief in one God only)

I would this alone is why the word carried on like it did, the one God belief.


I don't think you'll find any good sources for this thought other than the much discredited (and rightly so) Zeitgeist. Amenhotep means "Amun is satisfied", yes, but the monotheist changed his name from Amenhotep to Ahkenaten and rejected the worship of Amun (along with other gods) in favor of his own designed god, the Aten.

So there was no way he would promulgate any reference to a god (Amun) that essentially denied HIS god (Aten) -- and of course we don't say "aten" as a response meaning 'this is truth.'

Prayers to Amun, by the way, don't end with his name. Here's an example of one of thousands of prayers to Amun-Re:

"When thou crossest the sky, all faces behold thee, but when thou departest, thou are hidden from their faces.. When thou settest in the western mountain, then they sleep in the manner of death..The fashioner of that which the soil produces,...a mother of profit to gods and men; a patient craftsmen, greatly wearying himself as their maker..valiant herdsman, driving his cattle, their refuge and the making of their living..The sole Lord, who reaches the end of the lands every day, as one who sees them that tread thereon..Every land chatters at his rising every day, in order to praise him." (source)


Amun's quite interesting as a deity, but he's certainly not Christian, and I rather think the Christians would have soundly rejected him based on the stories of how he creates the world/universe (I suggest folks look this one up.)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
The Modern "Christians" tend to forget that the "Jews" were the slaves of the Egyptians for many years.

It might come as a surprise to you, but there's almost no evidence of the Hebrews/Jews being in Egypt in any great numbers, although Egypt went to war with the Caananites many times.

The oldest evidence of them is of a garrison of soldiers (certainly not slaves) (also, see this link). Papyri from the time show that Jews owned Egyptian slaves.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by toreishi
 


Yeah but that's another debate as to whether Mithra came before Osiris.


Not really. Osiris is one of the older deities. Mithra is fairly recent.


In turn Interestingly enough most Atheists think that Atheism and the beleif that no creator was necessary for life to exist is a relatively modern way of thinking but it's not a modern philosphy at all. The Ancient Egyptians were the first IIRC to muse that life could form from nothing, when they observed the scarab beetles' young emerging from the sand "as if from nothing".


They weren't atheists... they believed Amun was a god and that he created himself. As far as we can tell, organized atheism begins with the Greek philosophers around 500 BC.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 





Amen is not a Hebrew word. (I checked)


O.E., from L.L. amen, from Ecclesiastical Gk. amen, from Hebrew amen "truth," used adverbially as an expression of agreement (e.g. Deut. xxvii.26, I Kings i.36; cf. Mod.Eng. verily, surely, absolutely in the same sense), from Sem. root a-m-n "to be trustworthy, confirm, support." Used in O.E. only at the end of Gospels, otherwise translated as Soðlic! or Swa hit ys, or Sy! As an expression of concurrence after prayers, it is recorded from early 13c.

Wiki
Amen, meaning "so be it", is of Hebrew origin.[5

After all the research you claim. I can't believe you would even try this Auto. Shabby



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
At the end of the day , the Christians took the factual / mythological stories from Egypt and transcribed them in their fashion and called it Gospel / Bible . sighhhhhhhhh



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join