Jesus: Horus: Sun God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tannhauser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tannhauser

Guest
Allow me to preface by saying that I do not subscribe to this view.

This video was posted to me, presumably as an ttempt to demonstrate the “falsity” of Christianity per se. My question then, is does anybody know what the isses are here and how we, as Catholics, can refute this video and its implications:

youtube.com/watch?v=9vm_wh-84D8
 
Allow me to preface by saying that I do not subscribe to this view.

This video was posted to me, presumably as an ttempt to demonstrate the “falsity” of Christianity per se. My question then, is does anybody know what the isses are here and how we, as Catholics, can refute this video and its implications:

youtube.com/watch?v=9vm_wh-84D8
These links may be helpful:

ALL ABOUT HORUS: An Egyptian Copy of Christ?
philvaz.com/apologetics/HORUS.htm

Another link at the same site:

philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Horus
 
Don’t worry about this stuff. Zeitgeist is such a joke on a scholarly level that it’d be side-splittingly hilarious if it weren’t the fact people might be going to hell over this.
Dr. Norman Geisler:
“The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven.”
 
Just to begin with, I’m hard pressed to take this video seriously when its makers can’t even tell the difference between “adore” and “adorn.” Secondly, I doubt the accuracy of its accounts of various pagan beliefs.

The idea that Christianity is just wholesale plagiarism from pagan religions is nothing new. It’s also a busload of bushwah. So far from borrowing from pagan religions, the early Christians loathed and despised paganism as the worship of demons.
 
What a load of bull… I have been studying the mythology of Greece, Rome and Egypt since I was three. The “brilliant mind” who made that movie needs to study his mythology a “little” better. At least 95% of the supposed traits of those false gods were fake or from bad sources.
 
Did anyone notice the tone of the commentators voice when he was talking about what Miracles Jesus did…? It sounded like he let off one of those *‘I’m bored and unimpressed’ * sarcastic tones, as he speedily zipped throiugh the list.

I think I smell the foul odor of agenda…

(listen to it again if you have high speed internet, it sounds almost obnoxious)
 
Jack Chick uses that “busload of bushwah”. CA has a great tract that refutes it all.
Eucharist

Chick makes the usual charges against the Eucharist. He doesn’t like the Real Presence and the sacrifice of the Mass in particular. He even says that the Mass is not mentioned in Scripture, despite the fact that the very first Mass occurred during the Last Supper (cf. Luke 22:19–20). The charges he makes have been answered many times.
Code:
                What is distinctive about his approach is the attempt he makes to  link the Eucharist with paganism.                     He claims: "On the altars of Egypt were sun-shaped wafers made of  unleavened bread.                     These wafers were consecrated by the Egyptian priests and  supposedly they magically became the flesh of the sun god, Osiris."[52]
                
                Although Osiris was an Egyptian god, he wasn’t the sun god.                     That was Ra (in some cases identified with Horus).                     Osiris was the grain god and the god of the dead.                     There were grain cakes (little and not so little) connected with  the worship of Osiris, but, since he wasn’t the sun god, they were not  shaped like the sun.                     They were shaped like a man since Osiris was pictured as a man.                     The use of these grain men was connected with Osiris’s annual cycle  as the god of grain.                     Every year, the Egyptians made cakes shaped like Osiris out of  grain as an offering asking the grain god to reappear and make the land  fruitful again.                     According to Egyptian wall art, priests even watered the cakes to  get the grain in them to sprout and send up shoots.                     These Osiris cakes weren’t anything like communion wafers.[53]
                
                                                                      **http://www.catholic.com/images/Image34.gif**
                        
                        **From *Man in Black***
Another of Chick’s attempts to link the Eucharist with paganism is found in his frequent depictions of the host imprinted with the letters IHS. He tells the reader that this stands for a trio of Egyptian gods (who were *not *a trinity, incidentally). Chick’s claim is nonsense. The letters aren’t English at all, but Greek. In fact, they are the first three letters of Jesus’ name in Greek: iota-eta-sigma (capital eta in Greek looks like the English H). This has been a common abbreviation for Jesus throughout Church history.
Code:
                Though you wouldn’t know it from Chick, few Catholics have ever *seen*  a host imprinted with these letters. Most hosts either have nothing on  them or a cross design. What design, if any, is imprinted on a host is  up to the maker. There is no Church regulation on this, and few makers  have used the IHS design. Yet Chick would lead one to believe that it is  omnipresent in Catholic churches.
Mary

Chick makes a lot of the conventional anti-Marian arguments that are common in Fundamentalism: that Mary is not the Mother of God, that we are not to ask for her intercession, that statues of her should not be venerated, that she was not preserved by God’s grace from sin, etc.[67]
Code:
                What is distinctive about Chick’s approach is his is claim that  "the ‘Mother of God’ that Catholics worship is not the Mary of the  Bible. Satan has tricked them into worshiping a counterfeit  goddess."[68] The basis for this claim is a story he borrowed from  Alexander Hislop, according to which there was a queen in ancient  Babylon named Semiramis. She married her son, Nimrod. After his death,  she claimed to have had a virgin birth of another son, Tammuz, who was  Nimrod reincarnated. This pair of Semiramis and Tammuz was often  depicted in artwork as a mother and child. They form the basis of all of  the mother-child statues in the different religions of the world, and  when Catholics worship Mary and the Baby Jesus, they are actually  worshiping Semiramis and Tammuz.
Code:
                What is one to make of this? Setting aside the fact that Catholics  do not worship Mary, it is still complete nonsense. Hislop’s wild ideas  cannot be substantiated historically.[69] We have mother and child  images from cultures that *predate* Babylon. Further, if you want  to depict a famous mother, a good way of doing it is by picturing her  holding her child. Thus before literacy became widespread Christians  often would picture Mary holding the Baby Jesus, and it became an  established image in Christian art.
Catholic Answers Special Report: Chick Tracts
 
Church Militant are you saying that gingerbread men are part of a vast conspiracy of Osiris cultists? LOL
 
… how we, as Catholics, can refute this video and its implications
A number of critics believe the idea that Christianity is a rewriting of pagan mythology. And that Jesus is based on Horus and Mary on the Egyptian goddess Isis.

The facts are the new testament writings were done by Jewish Christians who believed in the Jewish Bible. Why would they import pagan superstitions when they believed in the Hebrew Bible?

We actually know the Bible. And it is Jewish in origin. It shows no noticable importing of Roman, Greek or Egyptian mythologies.
 
Allow me to preface by saying that I do not subscribe to this view.

This video was posted to me, presumably as an ttempt to demonstrate the “falsity” of Christianity per se. My question then, is does anybody know what the isses are here and how we, as Catholics, can refute this video and its implications:

youtube.com/watch?v=9vm_wh-84D8
The first Christians were originally Jews. Since then, for 2000 years, there have been a notable amount of Jews who have converted to Christianity. Generally speaking, no Jew would convert to Christianity unless he came to believe that Christ was the Messiah, fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. How would this happen if, in reality, Christianity was derived from paganism as opposed to Judaism?

Furthermore, the “Christianity is based on pagan mythology” argument draws heavily upon Egyptian mythology. If Christianity was derived even only partly upon Egyptian mythology, then that would make Jewish conversions to Christianity even more improbable. Historically speaking, Jews would not be overly fond of Egyptian culture and religion (based upon that whole “Exodus, enslavement, pharaoh thing”).

For example, would Jews really feel compelled to abandon their Passover celebration (which commemorates their freedom from Egyptian pagans) to convert to a religion that claims that the Passover’s ultimate fulfillment comes in the person of a Messiah who is derived from pagan Egyptian mythology? Perhaps the proponents of the “Christian is based on mythology” argument could count the number of Jews who would do such a thing while riding around on their flying pigs.
 
This is part of what has come to be called the ‘pagan copycat theory’. It’s been popularized by the less than scholarly work of a woman writing under the nom de plume of Acharya S.

Here is an excellent (but not Catholic) source that refutes almost everything that this theory offers.

tektonics.org/copycathub.html

It’s little more than mental popcorn for the sort of person that is fond of statements like ‘I’m spiritual, but I’m not religious’ or ‘I believe in Jesus as a great man and teacher’ but not as the Messiah.

Similar to Hislop’s work, but a little less scholarly, there are huge historical and logical flaws and much jumping to conclusions. Most of it is easily debunked with a little research.

Eric
 
Did you forget about Paul he was a killer of the Jews because he practiced Mithraism until “the road to Damascus” where he appointed himself the 13th apostles of Jesus. Paul contradicts the teaching of Jesus but turned him into a man god, because he did not care about names but only his evil religion. You practice Paul’s religion not Jesus’s. :eek:

wordwiz72.com/paul.html

voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top