Could someone knowledgeable please comment on this? Is this information on Horus confirmed 100% accurate?

Horus of Egypt

The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one"). The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.

If this is confirmed true, than Christians just stole this story and nothing in the gospels is true. However, many websites are claiming that this info on Horus is very inaccurate. I would love to hear your thoughts, thanks.

Source: http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages...stianity.shtml
This site contains more information on the subject. We can discuss everything on the page, but I am specifically interested in Horus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...#Ancient_Egypt

It is confirmed to be about 95% false. Mostly because these parallel attributes of Horus are modern inventions out of whole cloth for propaganda purposes in a near-vacuum of actual scholarship.

See also:

Zeitgeist's Claims Debunked (1 of 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKeKSlXBmR0

Zeitgeist's Claims Debunked (2 of 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TebyL4Y-zHc

No, almost none of it is. Most of these "facts" were inventions of an amateur Egyptologist, repeated in a terrible film called Zeitgeist and were regrettably repeated in Bill Maher's Religulous.

There are plenty of similarities between the Jesus of the Gospels and other supernatural figures in Mediterranean and Near Eastern mystery religions and cults, but the near 1-to-1 correlation with Horus is totally bogus. If anything, the Christ-mythos is more similar to Osiris than to Horus, but even that's a weak connection that seizes on very broad themes.

The December 25 connection was made much later during the Roman Empire, when Christmas (the "Feast of the Christ") replaced an already popular Roman celebration, the Feast of Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun, which came at the end of the traditional Saturnalia solstice festival.

Thanks gskowal. I guess my question is, what separates Jesus Christ from all other ancient mythology? If all these myths were before Jesus, what makes Jesus Christ different (or unique)? Looking forward to hearing from fellow Christians on this and from all others as well.

Thank you very much for this info. This is exactly what I was looking for. Either I fail at Google or I just didn't look in the right places. Thanks again guys.

Among hundreds of sources.

Most of the other "similarities" are just as dishonest. The first video I linked above addresses this and is a useful introduction to the study of "Christ Myth" hucksterism.

There is some false info out there. But there are also some comparisons that deserve consideration.

What is your opinion of this one, from Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge suggests possible connections or parallels in Osiris' resurrection story with those found in Christianity:

The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris is of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child.

Quote: "If this is confirmed true, than Christians just stole this story and nothing in the gospels is true."

Personally, Online Veteran, I think this is a very weak conclusion to draw. If you draw any other conclusion than this then many atheists will say you must be confirmationally biased but God's older than Horus and there could be ancient information we don't have easy or obvious access to today. So if you ask me to dismiss Jesus because of information about Horus that is just reasoning to a poor conclusion that you haven't enough basis for. All a Horus account really indicates is that we may not have all the information about God's activities throughout human history but that doesn't mean we don't have enough to make a pro-God decision.

I ran this thread a while back. They trolled it, of course, because they don't entertain alternate explanations on here that go against the standard atheist explanations very well but you might find the op interesting:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13.../amen-1055598/

On top of this you'll have to explain why the Apostles were all willing to go to their deaths to extend the Gospel message to people. There is no record of any of them recanting not even under torture or fear of death.

You make a good point Splendour. I admit I should have worded my post differently. I'm sure you know from my other post, that I am a Christian and have put my trust in Jesus Christ. Sometimes when I see these articles on the internet about ancient gods and myths etc., I get confused and come here looking for help from you and other Christian posters on this forum. Thanks again for the helpful reply.

Excellent OP, and excellent responses by all. Gives me hope for RGT when a Christian can come in here and ask questions regarding his faith, and have honest answers given by both atheist and theist alike.

But yeah, the guy who did Zietgeist should be hung by his big toes. Bill Maher should be thumped repeatedly. He should've ****ing known better.

Online Veteran- there are plenty of similarities between mythologies in Christianity and other religions. Religion, like many other parts of culture, is constantly in flux, borrows from other sources, etc.

Splendour's answers are normally skewered on this forum. Her saying that "God is older then Horus" is, to any historian, going to be hogwash. She can say it because she believes it but not because its based in anything verifiable.

For instance, according to wikipedia, the Bible itself can only be traced back to...
Christianity didn't even appear until the first century.

Meanwhile, the egyptians predated the Jews, the Chinese predated the jews....

The idea of the christian God is much newer then the many gods that came before.

Obviously people are very predisposed to believe what they want... but if one is really curious to know they'll find a diversity of beliefs predating judaism and Christianity and many similarities and traditions borrowed by later religions.

^^ and Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God' is a real eye opener as to the birth of Monotheism from the roots of polytheism.

Not really. You really think the story of Jesus as passed down in the Gospels, particularly on things like the Infancy Narrative, are completely original? There are plenty of legitimate parallels to be drawn, but not always in the way people think.

It isn't a matter of Christianity "ripping off" or stealing material from other traditions or religions (except among a few instances of later bishops cynically exploiting outside material). People in the First Century didn't think that way. There was a tendency toward finding common themes among various religions, especially among henotheistic or monotheistic groups. If you could explain that what Group A thought was the all-powerful Sun God was instead a manifestation of the Christian God, it was much easier to find common ground.

This is indistinguishable from yet another "cool story" origin myth. It will remain so until someone cites evidence showing Christian adaptation from (rather than coincidental resemblance to) a preexisting myth. Simply making the claim is meaningless, as the Zeitgeist crash-and-burn has illustrated.

Is this part serious? Additionally, you need to explain why 918 people voluntarily committed suicide at Jonestown. There's nothing unique about the Apostles. Countless people have died and endured torture for their religious beliefs.

I'd call this a confused analogy.

Martyrs and suicides aren't the same thing.

A martyrdom is closer to an assasination than a suicide imo.

The distinction is not relevant IMO. In your OP you said "you would have to explain why people went to their deaths..." But, as shown, a multitude of people have gone to their deaths for a belief. the apostles aren't very special in this regard.

There are countless martyrs from many different religions. Again, nothing unique about the Apostles. So, to claim it as an indication of the veracity of Christianity, you have to explain away all the other religious martyrs.

You and Complete Degennin really don't analyze things well do you.

You both just obfuscate as do a lot of atheists on here. This is not the first time an atheist on here has confused a martyrdom with a suicide.

You have to analyze things situationally. Jonestown has nothing to do with the Apostles under a Roman government. It's an invalid comparison.

I really don't believe a lot of atheists can make fine distinctions in their minds about events or people types.

There's a reason assasination, martyrdom and suicide are all different words. They're different because each situation is qualitatively different.

why so defensive?

I never said they were identically similar, I simply said in both cases, you have people dying for their beliefs. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference is here? They had a belief they were willing to die for, I don't quite see how manner of death is all that relevant.

Not that it matters anyway, because as CD said, you would still have to account for martyrs of other faiths

It's significant because there's no record of anyone being martyred for Horus afaik.

The Gospel accounts significantly stressed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It's a huge doctrinal point that he died and rose again in the flesh.

The martyrdom of the Apostles is a testament that they witnessed this fact. They didn't recant under pressure and none of them were tricked like many of the Jonestown people were.

There's no reason to analogize Jonestown to the Apostles except it pleases people to do so. Atheists as a group aren't licensed psychiatrists and assuming the Apostles were the same as Jonestown is just that: an assumption and an unverifiable one at that.

Forget Jonestown. There are countless martyrs across many religions. Again, why are you claiming that the Apostles are different than the others?

She's making a fancy distinction between people dying for what the believe to be true vs. people dying for what they know is a lie. For example, the 9/11 terrorists believed they were martyrs for Allah. The Apostles actually lived and ate with Christ, and if they knew he was a fraud they never would have willfully died for him.

The problem is that it still doesn't hold up. People have always 'known' a truth they were willing to die for, while the rest of the world recognized their 'truth' as a lie. Jonestown is just one such example. There were some who tried to escape, but a vast number of people were willing to die for the 'truth' they knew, having lived with Jones. Repeat for the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, etc. These 'martyrs' all died for what they knew to be true. But their deaths still don't change the evidence, and still don't make their beliefs true.

Yeah, and that kind of thing isn't even restricted to religion. People have been tortured and died for political/tribal leaders as well because of how strongly they believed in them. Still nothing unique about the Apostles. Historically, it is quite easy to trick people into sacrificing themselves.